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.

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?

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.   

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.

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"