Leave it to the Cleaver: Congressional Black Caucus overt double standard

Maybe it’s just my imagination or has our fine nation become that hypersensitive that we have started looking for hidden messages because those actual messages in plain English don’t exist? Seems rather self-serving, doesn’t it? It also seems self promotion through divisions, such as race, are circling the drain as pundits scramble through sentences of ideological opponents for “subliminal racist” messages.   

That’s the latest word from the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Emanuel Cleaver (D) of Missouri. Mr Cleaver is the super sleuth who decoded two recent Presidentialcandidates sentences that appear to be dog whistle words to the Republican red-neck base that President Obama is in fact (gasp) a black (50%) man. 

Yes, it appears that the racist voters who are on the fence of reelecting a black man need to be reminded that in fact Mr Obama is well… black, you know… in case they forgot.

I am going to go out on a limb and predict racist’s who vote based on color or would have their vote’s at least weighted in such nonsense would not need a reminding; but I’m also not equipped with the: Racist Code Detector Version 7.5 who can spot such subliminal messages.

See, to a typical person, phrases like Gingrich’s “food stamp president” and Mitt Romney’s comments on “the very poor” would think: Poor. However, if equipped with: Racist Code Detector Version 7.5 you would in fact see the real meaning: “damn the black-man and do no reelect him because he is only helping blacks”!

So, if racists will vote against whom they despise anyway without a subliminal message; why the need for the racist code detector version 7.5? The answer is simple. It’s nothing more then a power grab. First, this is the Webster definition of a Caucus:

  

: a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy; also : a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause

That seems to be a simple premise, is closed meeting of persons united to promote an agreed upon cause. Forty years ago the Congressional Black Caucus was founded “to positively influence the course of events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and situation.” So, its a closed meeting of like minded people who want to help black people. Now, this is where it gets interesting…

In a piece done in 2007, Politico’s Josephine Hearn told the story about Stephen I. Cohen, a Liberal Democrat who was rejected for membership to the caucus because he was white. Despite the fact that 60% of his constituents were black not to mention the majority of his staff was African American including his chief of staff. Seems rather confusing considering that a caucus is “a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause” and being its black, meaning race – Mr Cohen fits, his policies (Liberal Democrat) and his constituents fit that mission.

It was William Clay Jr (D) from Missouri who had the courage (or audacity) to lay it out in black and white (pardon the pun) for why Mr Cohen was not allowed directly from a state from his office:

Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.

Now we have the answer. Its not about “the needs and concerns of the black population” because if it was you wouldn’t reject a man applying to your “club” who wants to do exactly what your statement above says – help blacks (you know the people who elected him). This seems like the complete opposite of representation. And let me remind you again, its not about representation, its about power – this is just one of many clear examples.

In that same article was also the story of how Al Green (D) from Texas (now a member of the Black Caucus) got elected despite running against an incumbent Chris Bell, D-Texas who was also a Democrat but white. Hearn stated that:

Although House tradition discourages members of the same party from working against each other, about a dozen black lawmakers contributed to Bell's opponent, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, the eventual victor. Even Bell's Houston neighbor, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Black Caucus member), D-Texas, campaigned against him. 

That is another example of those in the Black Caucus of favoring skin color over policy. It would be “subliminal” if it was a Republican but to be doing this to those in your own party? This is another example of how the two party system is nothing but a sham, a fraud used to promote division across many lines and race being one of them and one of the easiest to promote at that.  

Last but not least, we have the Chairman – Mr Cleaver, the guy with the Racist Code Detector Version 7.5. I will let his quotes on the subliminal messages paint the picture:

“In the last few days, both Gov. Romney and Speaker Gingrich have been guilty of saying things that are not helpful to a society begging for racial inclusion. Whether they are intentional or not, I’m not 100 percent certain; I do know that it doesn't matter in many cases. It’s just unfortunate and it tends to divide.”

Cleaver went on to chide Congress for being “nasty” rather than “inclusive.”

Is there anything left to say? Do I have to point out the hypocrisy of the Congressional Black Caucus or do these quotes of double talk do the job? If not, let these words sink in by J.C. Watts (who is black) was elected to Congress from Oklahoma in 1994 on his views of the Congressional Black Caucus:

They said that I had sold out and (called me) Uncle Tom. But I have my thoughts. And I think they're race-hustling poverty pimps"

Bring on the Cleaver: the Congressional Black Caucus does what they do best.

The death of Trayvon Martin has divided people in many ways; be it politically, ethnically or racially. The amount of vitriol we have seen regarding this tragedy has only been rivaled by the amount of hyperbole that accompanies it. I have already exposed the racebaiters a few weeks ago, so no need to do that again. This time I want to call out the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). 

Now what happened in that case with Martin and Zimmerman is still pending, so for me to comment would be unfair. I have made comments before regarding this matter and after I took a step back and looked at it from a wide vantage point; I find it’s just not logical to continue to do so until after the case has been closed. With that said, there is no denying people who are profiteers off of segregation have taken the opportunity to do so.

Released in a 4-page resolution this week, sponsored by CBC Chairman Emmanuel Cleaver, the CBC backed resolution calls to address the controversial “stand your ground” law and in that report is also states that Zimmerman used quote:

“unfounded assumptions and racial bias led to the use of deadly force.”

Just one problem Mr Cleaver. We have no basis or evidence that there was racial bias involved. CNN has corrected their version where they had Zimmerman saying “coon” on the 9-11 tapes to now “cold” and NBC blames a terrible edit which made Zimmerman look racist. Other then those now corrected errors, how can we draw an “assumption” or conclude there was “racial bias” involved in this case? How can Zimmerman be described as a racist? We can’t. Being that as it may be, that doesn’t stop members from an organization who lines their pockets via race card games, people who are elected many times due to their race, from using this to maximize political capital.

Let’s just pretend that this racial segregation in the form of representative caucuses is acceptable for a moment. Would it not be understandable to expect elected representatives to at least be representing the views of the dominant ethnicity of their district? Take for example; Maxine Waters, who represents the 35^th district of California. Only 35% of her constituency is black, 47% of it is Hispanic. Why isn’t she in the Hispanic caucus? Or what about Keith Ellison, who has 73% of his district identifying themselves as White?

Out of 40 members that make up the CBC, thirteen of them are representing districts that are not predominantly black. These districts show African Americans being a minority demographic, and in some cases behind both White and Hispanic populations. Yet you have politicians being elected to serve a minority demographic first and foremost, despite the fact that it took the votes from other larger racial demographics to get them elected in the first place.

The most audacious however and symbolic of this utter hypocrisy, is the Chairman of the CBC, Emmanuel Cleaver who sponsored this resolution. Mr Cleaver who has sixty-nine percent of his district being white is rushing to judgment to label this man a racist, even thou there is not information to conclude Zimmerman was what he was being accused of. Again, 69% of Mr Cleavers district is white. Yet he is chair of the Congressional “Black” Caucus, elected out of Missouri and condemning a some random Joe six-pack in Florida, some 1,200 miles away of being... racist?

Mr Zimmerman may or may not be a lot of things. Does he appear to be a creepy guy, a wannabe cop, and reckless… obviously. A murderer? It appears so, but again, the case is still pending. But, a racist? The evidence to this point states he is not and unless there is something totally unforeseen, it appears he is not a guy using “racial bias”. 

Even if CNN and NBC corrected themselves and that may have led some to believe he was a racist, I don’t see anyone from the CBC pulling back their slenderest remarks or resolutions. Ironically, the only thing we can absolutely derive from this event is that the Congressional Black Caucus is build upon segregation, intimidation, collectivism and racism. If anyone should be condemned for relying on "unfounded assumptions", its the CBC. If anyone is guilty of “racial bias” it’s the Congressional Black Caucus.

Tired? Or tired of living a lie?

"On Sunday, June 10th, Congressman Jesse L. Jackson,Jr. went on a medical leave of absence and is being treated for exhaustion

Exhaustion? For a part-time job where you collect 150K in salary and are granted all the travel and benefits of a celebrity with no work history to speak of. Tired, from holding a position in congress because of nothing more than being the son of a charlatan who is an alleged “face” of black America? Seems legit (sic).  

Then it dawned on me. Maybe he is tired of being under scrutiny via the House ethics investigation? Could Jesse Jackson’s son be troubled by pesky ethics investigation? I would say the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree, so that cannot be it. Maybe, just maybe he is literally tired from travel? Jet lag is a real problem and Jesse Jackson Jr has done plenty of travel via paid junkets during his time in DC.

So I took a visit over to Legistorm.com and what I found was pretty telling. Now Jackson’s 58 trips don’t come close to Maxine Waters (who at last count was the leading trip taker with over 100 trips) but I suppose all paid expense trips with a part time gig that pays six-figures can be stressing.

Now what I found interesting when looking over these paid junket trips was that many names on the most traveled list were names from members on the CBC.

If you exclude those congress members that were not holding office for any reason due to things such as election loss, retirement or death; Democrats would make up 20 of 20 in the top trip takers.

Of those Top-20 trip takers, 13 of them are members of the Congressional Black Caucus. That means 2/3 of the Top-20 come from a caucus divided by race that is not only a minority in society but a minority in congress as well, with only 40 members. If the 112 Congress has 435 Representatives and the CBC has 40 members (9%) isn’t 65% of the Top-20 trip takers out of synch statistically?

This Caucus jet sets around the country to allegedly speak about issues pertaining to black people. I suppose that is noble. Is it logical? Not according to the Constitution. After all, are not the members of congress representing a district in a state first and foremost? And if so, are these districts not composed of all types of races and ethnic groups?

How can we understand this idea that elected members of congress only bound by their skin tone, elected from various districts across the country by all types of ethnicity travel all over the country to cater to the ideas and needs of one ethnic group over everyone else actually help the districts they were elected to represent?

I simply cannot understand how this is acceptable.

Unless you have a district composed of 100% Black Americans, its disingenuous to cater to said Black American’s because you represent a district, not an ethnicity. However, if it was entirely made up of black folks; then it’s a different matter. But no district is that way.

For example, if I am white and vote in the 5^th district of Missouri and I voted for Emanuel Cleaver because I am a staunch Democrat; how does he truly represent me? If he is traveling across the country focused on the needs of Black Americans in the state of California, sharing the needs of those in Missouri its obvious he represents the needs of Black Americans in his district but what about everyone else, does he value their needs as well?   

The answer is clear; he doesn’t… well at least not as much as he does those of similar skin tone. And this isn’t just some anecdotal scenario I made up to make my point lacking data; the data is there. The fact is that 13 of the 40 members of the 112th Congressional Black Caucus represented areas where black folks were the minority. So we have 13 members of Congress on the Top-20 traveled list from the 40 member CBC. And 13 of the 40 districts in the CBC are not even black as a majority. This to me is astounding. But what does it all mean?

It means that the Congressional Black Caucus is no different than any other group of collectivists. They are limited by their own narrow definitions that they oppose and because of this opposition it’s ironically what also defines them by default. Where is the outrage? Where is the indignation for a group that is fueled not only by division and bound by their hunger for power and job security? Because remember, if Black Americans no longer voted strictly by race and political affiliations, wouldn’t these “race hustling pimps” be out of a job?

Some absolutely would. So at the end of the day, what works best for “Black America”? The politicians that keep them isolated and divided from other races, as if they can’t do for themselves? Or is it the idea of freedom, the idea that nobody should be judged on their content of their skin but yet the content of their character?

The more social programs and special attention you give to Black Americans the more you ostracize them as a whole. The division that exists in this country whether it is: political, race, religious etc is real but it can all be cured if people chose freedom and held individual liberty above all. The CBC pits race vs race. It attempts to take from one person and give to another in the name of the greater good, even at the expense of the person they are sworn to be helping. There is actual black on black crime and there is this. These are not crimes in the literal sense, but make no mistake; this is a betrayal of the highest order.   

Dereliction of duty: How Black America has been hijacked by "race hustling pimps".

Here is a disclaimer. I am not black, I am a white male. Some of you may find this contrived or think I have no place speaking about issues pertaining to a race that I don’t belong to. I can accept that. Some may even go as far as a call me a racist (it’s been done before) and that is your right to feel that way as well. However, facts are not racist. They are facts. I also think it’s very important that black folks receive a different message that they are accustomed to hearing from “the left’. That’s why I spend many posts on this subject and with that said, let’s begin.


This is a tale of two stories, literally. I read in the last two days, two separate articles written by black men regarding race and politics. Now, these stories are not on the same subject matter but I think you will see that they are connected nonetheless and its not a connection based solely on race but instead freedom and prosperity and how you go about achieving both.

This started by me reading a great piece at Investor.com last night regarding how being a black conservative author in today’s world gets you ignored. Or at least that is the claim made towards Ebony Magazine in this article. Now, I purposely led with that first statement because there are simply not enough conservative black voices in media & the political arena as well and it’s about time this becomes a discussion.

That is to not say there is a shortage of black conservatives, on the contrary, they do not exist. In fact conservative values were at the core of the civil rights movement; regardless how progressives try to spin otherwise.

Sure it was progressive in moving blacks forward to having equal rights, but that shouldn’t have been a fight in the first place. Equal rights for all are a tantamount to freedom and liberty. A true conservative/libertarian mindset does not allow for racism and collectivism. This lack of rights for all was a failure as a country from the very beginning. Now as these voices remain isolated, I find myself asking, why is this so?

From a writing point of view it’s probably a lack of readership. I don’t think its bad judgment on black media’s part as much is it is just bad business. Most blacks identify with progressive values or vote overwhelmingly democratically, thus reading about a conservative mindset would simply go unread. Politically, it’s no different but with a slight twist.

At the center of this twist is the Congressional Black Caucus. Nobody politically defines a race in US politics more so than the CBC. With now 42 members of congress, the CBC is not only the largest caucus racially it’s also incredibly strong because they are practically untouchable. Nobody in media wants to even poke, let alone tear a hole inside that bee hive’s nest for fear of being stung by the politically correct swarm that seem to have infiltrated every level of our lives.

But hey, I’m a blogger with such a low (but dedicated) readership; I am perfectly happy to do so. After all, it’s not like this is my first rodeo concerning the CBC anyway.

Now, getting back to the article written by Mr. Larry Elder, a quote by Congressman Cleaver, D-Mo., caught my eye.

"As the chair of the Black Caucus, I've got to tell you, we are always hesitant to criticize the President. With 14% (black) unemployment, if we had a white president, we'd be marching around the White House. ... The President knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn't to someone white."

This also isn’t the first time I have written about Mr Cleaver and his obvious double sided coin regarding race. This is just one in a long line of quotes that are obviously inflammatory yet it goes completely unnoticed or at least unchallenged by the masses. Double standard you say? You bet. But this notion that it’s acceptable for a black president to show high unemployment in the black community further drives home my point I have been making about the CBC. They are not concerned with the problems just the appearance that they are concerned.

As we usher in the 113th Congress and with it the CBC gaining more and with it more power and yet here Black America sits with unemployment almost double the national average. Prisons are filling up at all time highs. And what are the solutions that the Congressional Black Caucus has for these dire times in the black community? The same tired excuses & handouts they have been fighting for, for over 30 years and what has changed since in terms of results? Nothing. We have a black President but has Black America taken that next step with his re-election? No.

So what are the solutions? I don’t have the answers nor do I pretend to but I know two things regarding this subject for certain:

1. Freedom and liberty is a cure all because it encourages individual responsibility
2. Self proclaimed black leadership is not leading.

In separate piece written by Dr Wilmer Leon for Politic365.com, there is a slightly different take on this viewpoint. Dr Leon argues that with a new rising class of young educated workers who are settling for lower wages and multiple lower paying jobs, called the “Precariat Class”, this class will be so large that the future for Black America and its relation to employment will be “catastrophic”. This isn’t hyperbole; Dr Leon brings up accurate information that troubles the black community.

What I disagree with the Dr. is the assertion that the government should do more. Because when the government does more as we all know, it means taking from someone else. This happens through a seizure of either a right, freedom and/or their wealth. Dr Leons argument is that austerity measures should not be taken in this economy with many people struggling:

 “In challenging times such as these the government should be investing in the economy not cutting back.”

The problem is we have invested into this economy. We have overspent long before President Obama got into office and we have done so with no results, not only in the black community but the country as a whole. The standard of living for most Americans has remained stagnant for years and yet we continue to pump more liquidity in the market creating inflation that ultimately acts as a tax on those that rely most on cash. Nobody relies more on cash than the poor and destitute, black or white, red, blue or yellow; the poor all spend the green the same.

The question begs; why not try a different path to prosperity if the path that has been tried simply does not work? Why not reach out to the black population and drive home the point that over 70% of black children growing up in a single parent family home is the single biggest reason the black community faces so many challenges? This could also explain why "the wealth accumulation of the average European American family is 20 times that of the average African American family".

Why not try what China has done and encourage its population to buy gold & silver?

Why not encourage the 2nd amendment as a viable option to black on black crime statistics and show that legal gun ownership would be the biggest deterrent to black on black crime?

Why not come out and support an end to the racist drug war that puts so many black men in prison?

Are these guaranteed solutions? Of course not and I don’t know if they will solve all the problems but lets put an end to the patronization of the black community by the black leadership. Engage them like adults. Don’t just hand out a fish, show them how to fish. There is only one way to achieve prosperity and freedom and that cannot be given to you by a government; it comes from within.

If I am dangerous does that make Black men dogs? The curious case of Darryl Lynn Hughley

Some creature called Darryl Lynn Hughley or better known as DL Hughley, went on a rant this week regarding President Trump's 90-day immigration ban. This diatribe, while only three minutes in length, was all over the place and all those places were not good places.

Hughley doesn't hide his leftist leanings. He's ultra liberal and very critical of the right and white community. At the same time he's had his run in with his own ilk, so it's not like he's afraid to speak his mind regardless of how wrong or out of touch that mind may be.

Here was something I found astonishing:

“ISIS is supposed to be what we are scared of. The most dangerous thing in America is a white dude with an assault weapon and an attitude. If you wanted to really make America safer, you would ban assault weapons and not Muslims. What is more scary to you? A white dude that just got laid off with a gun? Or a dude reading a Koran?"

Now let's start out light. Assault weapons? What are assault weapons? How many white dudes who commit crime are doing so with “assault weapons”? Now, what about his claim about white dudes being dangerous along with said assault weapons? Notice how he follows that up with the talk of banning assault weapons but leaves out banning white guys? It would seem fair enough once is an inanimate object while one is a human being.

However, that's not the case because the very next sentence he points out banning Muslims doesn't make sense because they in Hughley's opinion are not the problem. Interesting he uses the word “thing” to describe the white man and the gun but doesn't include the white guy in his BAN DESPITE said white man being the most dangerous. Come on.

And yeah, reading the Koran can lead to suicide bombing. It does nothing for your argument when rational people hear this. Reading the Koran is like pointing out that someone reading Mein Kampf doesn't make them a threat. Of course it doesn't but in the wrong hands; that book and almost every religious book written 2k years ago can lead to things like.... Crusades. 9-11. Burning women as witches or stoning women in 2017 for being raped.

Just one minute later he doubles down:

“The most dangerous thing in America are white dudes… angry white dudes. Let's be clear.”

It's obvious DL Hughley is triggered here. But does that make him racist? I don't take the glee in making those distinctions. He is, however, a race baiter. A sensationalist in the mold of an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. All bark with no bite (spoiler alert). All hysteria with no logic. A race hustling pimp. His illogical - partisan race baiting is so pronounced it would make Emanuel (reparations) Cleaver of the Congressional Black Caucus fame weak at the knees.  

This is the same man who doesn't think Black on Black crime exists. No, he really thinks that. Despite places like Chicago, Baltimore, LA, NY... where the victims and offenders are almost exclusively Black; it doesn't exist.

"There’s more white on white crime than black on black crime…. crime is about proximity.. you hurt the ones you love because you are close to them … if you take any living organism and put it in a small space with limited resources it will kill anything around it… black on black crime a’int nothing but biology."

Now it's obvious DL Hughley isn't a deep thinker. He sees an FBI report, looks at some numbers and viola, there are more white people killing white people than black killing black people. That would be a valid point say if you lived in Flatland, where everything was in a two-dimensional reality. However, we live in a complex space and biology is rooted in mathematics. Just simple per capita data points out DL Hughley flaws.

77.35% of the US population as of 2014  identified themselves as White (including Hispanics who identify as White) or 246 million.

13.3% in America are identified as Black or African American.

Whites in this country are 6x the population of Blacks. So, for Whites to kill more than Blacks would not only make sense but it would be expected. And the numbers bear that. Whites do commit more murders than Blacks, barley but they do. Now if we are talking about the most “dangerous thing in America” there is nothing on two legs more dangerous than a Black person. More specifically a young Black male. Because of, Blacks, despite being only 13% of the population commit 52% of all homicides and 59% of all felony murders on record from 1980-2008 according to the FBI as you can see below.

A piece written by the Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley a few years back came out with these nuggets…

• Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do
• Black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s when black poverty was higher" and "racial discrimination was rampant and legal

There are also these bombshells from Edwin S. Rubenstein, M.A., New Century Foundation (courtesy of the American Renaissance)

1. There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.
2. In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.
3. In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.
4. In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting” — defined as firing a bullet that hits someone — a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.
5. If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.
6. In an all-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.
7. In 2015, a black person was 2.45 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by the police. A Hispanic person was 1.21 times more likely. These figures are well within what would be expected given race differences in crime rates and likelihood to resist arrest.
8. In 2015, police killings of blacks accounted for approximately 4 percent of homicides of blacks. Police killings of unarmed blacks accounted for approximately 0.6 percent of homicides of blacks. The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by blacks.
9. Both violent and non-violent crime has been declining in the United States since a high in 1993. 2015 saw a disturbing rise in murder in major American cities that some observers associated with “depolicing” in response to intense media and public scrutiny of police activity.

No reason to pile on, the case is pretty clear. Black folks, particularly young black men who might make up, what 2-55 of the population... are unequivocally more dangerous than a white man despite an attitude or any weapon he might have. He can denounce and ignore “black on black crime” as not being real but the truth of the matter is it's pure evasion on his part and others like him because when you look at the data it's black and white (pardon that glorious pun).

Now let me make an interesting analogy.

If Black folks commit such an exorbitant amount of violent crime despite such small numbers could it be reasonable for people to be leery of that demographic? Is it racist for police to be more cautious or leery of young Black males? Can you really blame someone from crossing the street at night to avoid crossing paths with said young Black men? It doesn't take a mathematician to figure this out, it just takes access to the local or national news.

I said earlier there is nothing on two legs more dangerous than a Black person. More specifically 2-5% of the population or aka young Black males. You care to guess what's “the most dangerous thing in America” on four legs?

Pit bulls

Pit bulls make up only 6% of the dog population, but they're responsible for 68% of dog attacks and 52% of dog-related deaths since 1982, according to research compiled by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animals 24-7, an animal-news organization that focuses on humane work and animal-cruelty prevention.

This was a piece from Time magazine in 2014.

The correlation with Pit bulls and young black males is almost dead on and both highly disproportionate to their numbers of the US population in both dogs and people. There are people that will make the case that Pit bulls are only dangerous because they have bad owners. Pit bulls are good dogs in the right hands. Just like people on the left make excuses for the problems in inner cities with young Black males DESPITE the fact that before the 60’s under harsh conditions the Black community never had these problems. Remember, that was the days of the two parent household still - the Left has no time for that. Now, I know what you're thinking…. HE’S CALLING BLACK MEN DOGS.

That’s not it at all. I'm making the case that if you're going to go off hinge because you didn't like the election results and are triggered (still) then there is someone out there, despite being a nobody in terms of audience and notoriety is still going to take the time and check your ass. Because, I don't like being called dangerous without any empirical evidence to back it up; no more than does Darryl Lynn want to be compared to an animal that is bred to fight/maim/kill. Meanwhile, it was announced this week the gangs of Chicago want to meet with President Trump, while Darryl Lynn continues his SJW crusade fueled by false narratives and racial diatribes. This what it feels like to be winning again… 14 days and counting.

Open mouth, insert 86 year - old foot

I have spent many times on this blog blasting the collective, race baiting pimps that make up the Congressional Black Caucus of the US Congress. People for the most part who are elected based solely on their race because of either white liberal guilt or because they live in predominately black areas; so it’s a vote based of their color of their skin and NOT the content on their Character. No, this is not the dream Dr Martin Luther King envisioned some 49 years ago.    

I have spent other times berating the K-Street connection including, but not limited to, the interchangeable seats between public servants and public leeches; however hard to disambiguate the two may be. People like Chris Dodd, Trent Lott or William Delahunt (just to name few of many), scum bag elites who wouldn’t know what a moral compass was if it was stuck on their dashboard GPS giving them directions from one lobby to the next back to Capitol Hill.

But above all and connected to the former two examples (and this by no way means there is not other examples of dead beats and crooks with their fangs in the public coffers) are this notion that being elected into public office is a job. The founders never envisioned people would want to spend their careers in politics.

They had work of their own to do and they made more money doing it. Insert raise after raise, health benefits and a lucrative pensions plan and don’t forget them paid junkets and viola… federally elected officials have one of the most lucrative positions someone with no real world skills can obtain. Don’t believe me, ask recently "retired" Jesse Jackson Jr for his resume.

Now with this in mind, one of the best quotes I have seen in some time came this week over the “Fiscal Cliff” debate.

"We are concluding one of the most unsuccessful Congresses in history, noteworthy not only for its failure to accomplish anything of importance, but also for the poisonous climate of the institution."

This was from Democratic Representative John Dingell of Michigan. Dingell, 86, is the longest serving member of the House, who was elected for the first time in 1955. It was in his Inaugural Address, when Lincoln said that the American people:

''have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.''

Its safe to Mr Dingell never read the address. Over 50 years in congress it’s apparent he’s been inside the beltway too long that he cant see that the real reason for this poisonous climate of the institution is his (and others like him) refusal to return that power of mischief back in short intervals. Instead, he and his ilk have done nothing but rape the virtue of this country and kick & scream when a little gridlock prevents them from getting their filthy hands in the till. Where is the Queen of Hearts when we need her?

2012: the Year of the Bible (but only the parts we like)

As some of you may or may not know, Pennsylvania this year actually passed a bill that declared 2012: the Year of the Bible. I have no idea what that means, seems to me, 2012's year after the persecution and death of Jesus is a rather ambiguous point to set something as important as “the year” of the Bible, but this state and country “continues to face great tests and challenges” according to the author of the bill, Rep Rick Saccone (R). Thus it was said… 2012: The year of the Bible. It was also a total whitewash in support as the bill passed by a whopping 193-0 vote in the state assembly too! And who said there was no longer any bi-partisanship?

Well, if you were like me, you didn’t pay anymore attention to this piece of news then did the 193 people who glossed over the five-billion dollar state deficit did. Obviously, within the first few weeks of the new year, this crucial piece of legislation had to go through. I mean, what would we have done without our state rep's branding the Bible as the book of the year? Funny, 193 elected officials sitting around declaring 2012:  the Year of the Bible, while authorizing the purchasing of a 100 million dollar building in Harrisburg even as the state is drowning in again, 5 Billion dollars of red ink this year. I have no idea why government is so ineffective?

Now, what gets me, is that here you have 2012 being passed into law as the Year of the Bible. And this isn’t a partisan issue, again, 193 elected officials for it, none against it. So you have all this overwhelming support and an organization, who opposed the bill decided to put up a quote from the Bible entitled: “Slaves, obey your masters." Biblically speaking, its accurate… but yet you have that organization chastised by some of the 193 for it? Seems, kind of strange, I thought 2012 was: the Year of the Bible?

And that’s where the humor comes in. It is the Year of the Bible, its just not part of the Bible… the 193 like. Typical really…but hypocritical and hilarious at the same time? You betcha’.  

State Rep. Ronald G. Waters, chairman of the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus wrote a letter condemning the billboard company (Lamar) for putting up the message from the Bible with an African man in bondage. Mr Waters went on to say "This image and mere reminder of slavery are offensive to minority citizens in the city of Harrisburg”. Fair enough, but is the billboard not truthful?

Were black folks not slaves at one point here in this nation? Obviously, the Bible was talking about the plight of Jews and Jewish law, but the word "slavery" here in this nation, does not make one think of slaves from 3k years ago Because we have a rather recent and dubious history with the word here. Does the Bible have a verse that commands slaves to “Obey your masters? If this is truly the: Year of the Bible, I suppose we ought to consider actually celebrating all of it, not just the parts that we don’t like or choose to ignore. After all, its not Year of the Bible chapters that aren't offensive, is it? Although, that would be the logical thing to do, in this context, logic isn’t useful when discussing the book of the year.

Maybe, just maybe, Mr Waters ought to consider the minority of people who didn’t want 2012 to be the Year of the Bible and used a billboard to demonstrate that. He had no problem passing this bill, which clearly would/could be found to be offensive by another type of minority as well. And therein lies the problem.

Mr Waters does not seem to care about the minority offended by this bill. However, he does care for the minority (his minority) that might be offended for displaying our history and quoting the book…that has been passed into law (by his own vote) as the: Book of the Year? There is a lesson to be learned from this and its one most people don't do enough of. That is, thinking for oneself. From political parties, caucuses inside those political parties, hate groups, religions etc etc… collectivism is a dangerous ideal that relies on double standards, ignorance and division. Don't be a slave to it.

Think for yourself and question authority – Timothy Leary

Angela Rye: Persona non grata

Seemed fitting enough, the title. A little HT to one of the Big O's last actions as POTUS. Expelling 35 people to only have them reinstated a month from now by your successor? Seems like President Obama is a bit of a masochist doesnt it? Potentially some pure emasculation here. He just keeps setting these softballs on a tee for Trump. First Carrier now this? But i digress and also flitting enough because this is about electoral afterbirth.

This election cycle was pure comedy gold. One one hand you had a flip flopping blowhard who gave zero's about what anyone thought of him. That was refreshing. On the other hand you had a steaming pile of bile. A posterchild for what exactly ails the country and a PC/liberal wet-dream personified. This was an entertaining shit show through and through. One of the more humorous narratives that came out of this muck was from the left and it went something like this:


'Now we can finally see racists for who they truly are'

'America was never "Great" for anyone not white'


You've all heard this. And while it may be true and in some cases i think if anything it may have emboldened people to speak their minds good, bad or indifferent. Is America really more racist? Or are we actually having conversations that we haven't had the gumption for? The truth of the matter is this - those with the "America is more racist because of Trump" narrative might actually be an admission of guilt themselves. They might not realize it but their narrative is a manifestation of their own racist tendencies. Sort of like the macho dude in high school who calls everyone faggots and is always talking about someone sucking dick. Then you find him 20 yeas later congo dancing at a gay pride event wearing chaps and a leather vest with a ball gag in his mouth, i see you Donnie!

If there was anything gleaned from this election it wasn't race or walls or wars. It was news. How its made. Whos it made for and does it even matter if its correct? Fake news is news and news is fake news. Whos fake and whos real just depends on what flavor you like in your cup of tea. Nowhere is this more comical than CNN.

MSNBC and Fox cater to their audience. Its business. The news is isn't that important. Its not even a vehicle. Just look at the variation of ads on MSNBC and Fox. Its no different than watch a Penguins hockey game on ATT than it is watching the NBA Network. Race, class, gender, family its all been isolated bought and sold for its target market.

If i was running CNN, i would look at the business model of cable news and realize we missed the boat. We created the genre but didn't realize that people weren't tuning in for just the news. What the majority of people were tuning in for was an echo chamber. Sure, they wanted the news but they wanted it prepacked ready for consumption. CNN has no direction. Many days they appear more liberal than the Huffington Post. Most days its a free for all - like a food fight at an old folks home. Messy, slow, sad and just plain embarrassing.


Over the last few months here's some things that stood out watching the train-wreck that is CNN:


Chris Matthews roast fellow liberal Rachel Maddow on Clintons inability to appear as a viable candidate.
Van Jones refer to Trumps election as a "whitelash"
Cancel Mike Rowe's show
Still employe Erin Burnett and Fareed Zakaria
And the never ending gift that is... Angela Rye


I was sitting at a burger king a few days before Christmas (i know & not proud of it but i'm a fat boy who likes quick burgers) and I came across this nugget while consuming my 1100 calories and watching the audio-less aforementioned CNN.

"The Electoral College is problematic from its inception and something that was built upon and designed to oppress certain people,” Rye says. “It is okay for us to ask questions, particularly when we know the Electoral College was built upon a system to protect the interests of slave states.”“We would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that horrible history,”12.21.16

Just a few days before that she said something similar:

"I have every issue with the Electoral College, and I have since before this election. It does not speak for me. I am not supporting a system that was built on the backs of my ancestors who were slaves. I’m not here for it. … That guy is not my president.”

Then there was this very telling interview back from July of this year on CNN...

The fact that his campaign slogan could be, "Make America Great Again," and that pains me and people who look like me to no end. The fact that he could reference something like Operation Wetback in a debate where hundreds of our Mexican brothers and sisters were killed, slaughtered, and taken out of this country because someone didn't allow them to be here anymore is exactly the problem. The last time America was great to me, Fareed, was in 2008 when he was elected President, and ever since then, we've been paying the price for that.
I think, at some point, the issue is, we have to ID -- and by that, I just mean identify -- the fact that so much of this comes from the root of racism and what racism has done to every system in this country. That is what this country was built upon -- or I should say rebuilt upon because that's not how the indigenous people intended. But when white people got here, this was a system that was built upon the systematic oppression of people of color.

Where have we seen this before? A Liberal democrat not accepting the election results. Its 2000 all over again.

She doesn't support a system that doesn't speak for her. Instead she would rather have the popular vote decide everything. The popular vote where you can concentrate on the East and West coast and win thus making everyone else nothing more than spectators. California and New York combined hold 60 million people OR roughly 20% of the population. This is the very reason we are Republic and not a Democracy. The minority thus still has a voice. If you live in Wyoming or Iowa your vote matters.

This is a women who is for people of color. Her Mexican brothers and sisters in tow. She is against the system white people built when they came here. Sorry, she said we "rebuilt upon" because that's not what indigenous people intended their country to be rebuilt (as if said people had a country before said white arrival... yeah, they did not). Remember the root of racism has infected every system in this country according to Rye. So, of course it doesn't work for her. She, a minority that doesn't think protecting state sovereignty is relevant anymore. Her sheer ignorance here would normally be astounding if it wasn't so damn predictable and TIRED.

What happens if she got what she wanted and we went to a direct democracy and the popular vote was all that mattered? What happens if white people started to vote like black people? Where 90% voted one way and that was Democrat/black? But now 90% Republican and White? Say for example in the areas that make up the very middle of the country you want to essentially disqualify from their right to vote? Then, the coasts dont matter. Now the fly over sates accumulate the power. I bet that electoral college wouldn't seem so bad then would it now?

This isn't just some political commentator. This is a race hustling pimp who was executive director of the Congressional Black Caucus. You cannot possibly make this stuff up. This is a women who does not only have no respect for our system - she loathes it. But she dont mind the money that it brings though now does she? Shes bitter and if you're white, in her eyes you're still the oppressor. In fact she called the Republican Party as much. The Republican party is a lot of things and to me, not many are good... but oppression? Nonsense. But thats just it. This isn't about politics as much as it is about vengeance. Because, if we lose the electoral college and much of the middle lose their power to voice their opinions through national elections than there is really only one American alternative. Move to the coasts. Except you might not find such a warm greeting upon your arrival from the likes of this triggered race baiting, race hustling pimp known as Angela Rye.

"All of our lives could be better. One of the most fascinating things about this election to me, Alisyn, is that Donald Trump, a real estate mogul, a developer, has talked about inner cities and never once has talked about gentrification. That would have been a good way to segue into a conversation with African-American voters that's actually productive."
Aired October 26, 2016

Thats right, good 'ol gentrification. This is a classic. This is simply a case of damned if you do and damned if you dont. But when you're entire career is built upon emotion and victimization its only a matter of time before the logic house of cards comes falling down. But hey, this is business too. Race bating crybabys bitching and moaning about "systematic oppression" that nobody suffers from today sells. White liberals eat it up more so than anyone. But everyone likes a good boogeyman. People would much rather have a scapegoat than a kick in the ass. So i get the whole angry black woman angle. Just dont expect me to take you too serious when youre attacking the very system that has been the beacon of light to the rest of the world. The West is indeed the best but im a capitalist too so #StayWoke