Tag Archives: Congressional Black Caucus

Why Democrats mask Susan Rice incompetence with White Racism charge

Was Susan Rice incompetent or thrown under the  bus by President Obama and White House?

Was Susan Rice incompetent or thrown under the bus by President Obama and White House?

Liberals and democrats have now chosen to open their favorite boogieman door and take out the always convenient racism race card. This time, democrat leaders including the incoming Congressional Black Caucus leader, Cleveland democrat   Rep. Marcia Fudge (D.-Ohio), the incoming chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus went on the attack Friday, November 16th charging racism!  This time the targets were Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senator Kelly Ayotte.

Out came the old tired and quite familiar race card.  “How dare these white senators and especially these white men attack this black woman!”  All one can say to these congressional women who sang this same familiar tune. Grow up!  This is not 1962, it is 2012.  Americans lives were lost and facts do matter!

Nearly 2 months ago, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on 5 national news Sunday talk shows selling a lie which covered up the truth of the murders of four Americans at the Benghazi consulate in Libya.  The administration lies have taken on their own life, and on Thursday, November 15th the republican senators demanded answers.

Yes, it does matter that Ambassador Rice covered up the lie about a You Tube video being the reason for the attack on the Benghazi Consulate. The administration it knew to be a lie. It was a fiction that President Obama knew was a lie, and avoided telling the truth about.  It was a lie that Obama’s former CIA Director David Petraeus knew as a lie 24 hours after the deadly 9/11 attack.  Yet, Susan Rice never offered even a scintilla of evidence about an Al Qaeda attack being the reason for the assassination of Americans.

So why go back to the same card game with Americans.  Why the double racial standard?

Why do congresswomen like Cleveland, Ohio congresswoman Marcia Fudge, incoming chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus feel it is necessary to state, “ It’s a shame that whenever anything goes wrong they pick on women and minorities!”
The answer is clear. 

The politics of racism practiced by liberals, by the president, and by white guilt ridden apologists is that they need America to continue to be divided.  They are now the true racists in an America that has moved on. This nation now has a president who is black.  Americans believe that job security, an approaching fiscal cliff and crushing debt is more important than finding imagined racist boogiemen hiding in America’s dark corners.

Susan Rice does not need to be defended on the basis of her race or on her gender.  Susan Rice as any other administration official that plays footloose with the facts concerning the deaths of Americans must be held accountable. There is no two-tier level of responsibility.  American does not have nor need a racial Affirmative Action type of imagined protection for minorities or for women.

If Congresswoman Fudge is so concerned about protecting women who are being subjected to discrimination, not gaze into Obama’s mirror?  After all, it is not senators McCain, Graham, or Ayotte, who are discriminating against women.  It is the hope and change President Obama, openly discriminates against women and embraces the “do as I say and not as I do” rule.  Women are paid up to 17 percent than their male counterparts in the White House!

So liberals and Congressional Black Caucus women, stop this nonsense about racism when the only problem of racism that seems to exist in this nation is a continued embrace of the race card.  How about working toward the day when a Congressional Black Caucus is not necessary.  What about demanding that public officials that lie to America and engage in indefensible incompetent behavior answer to it.

The truth, not fiction, is essential and must be investigated and the results placed before the American public.  It’s simple, race and gender is no defense against the truth. It is about the truth, and nothing but the truth.

This is the 12st century.  In the final analysis, America needs to know that when its sends its sons and daughters to fight a war or to place their lives in danger for this nation, their president will not cover up, will not deceive and will not ignore their sacrifice.

So, Susan Rice come forward and be a woman, and not hide from your conduct or let a president beat his chest like a prehistoric cave man protecting his women from the big bad imaginary republican dinosaurs.  After all, hopefully Obama did not nominate you as a black woman for a job.  Hopefully he nominated you as a woman capable of doing your job and defending your conduct on your own.

Reject the race card being played in your name, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, so that America can move onto matters which impact all Americans, colorblind and one nation under God.

( Click to let me know what you think)

Church & State. . .Separation? Or Not?

It seems like only yesterday that church leaders were being strongly cautioned about the divide between church and state; that ministers should not speak their opinion about a presidential candidate; that the church must be particularly careful when sharing its political beliefs. In particular, protestant religions were warned not to endorse a specific candidate because if they did they might well lose their non-profit religious status.

So then, religious members and leaders may be surprised to learn that this administration is meeting with a particular religious group. Additionally, the Department of Justice staff, under Attorney General Eric Holder, is working with them so that they can rally their members to vote.

The following video appears to indicate that the Congressional Black Caucus will be meeting with black religious leaders solely. The line between church and state seems to be very blurred tonight.

 

 

Bigot or Not? I Say Not: The Hypocrisy of “Tolerance”

I received an e-mail a few days ago with a story about a lady who owns a bakery in Des Moines, Iowa. She declined to bake a wedding cake for two lesbians, which has resulted in calls for a boycott, and the usual name calling, from homosexual groups. Victoria Childress, owner of Victoria’s Cake Cottage told the couple that she is a Christian and would not violate her Christian beliefs to provide them with a cake. When interviewed about the incident, Ms. Childress said:

“I was straight-forward with them and explained that I’m a Christian and that I have very strong convictions.  I chose to be honest about it. They said they appreciated it and left. That was all that was said.”

Childress said her decision had nothing to do with discrimination or the lesbian couple, and stressed this fact by saying:

“It doesn’t have anything to do with them – it was about my convictions. They can get their cake anywhere.”

Childress said money is not the issue, adding:

“I’m being attacked because of my beliefs – my convictions to their lifestyle. I was not rude. I was not condescending. It was matter-of-fact. I told them, ‘I’m sorry, I just can’t do that.’”

The lesbian pair released a statement calling the Christian cake baker a “bigot” and are contemplating filing a discrimination lawsuit against Ms. Childress. More on the discrimination issue later in this piece. The couple ran to the media and started calling a citizen, who I thought had freedom of choice also, a bigot. They threaten legal action, and make a big scene because someone doesn’t want to bake them a wedding cake. How thin skinned can anyone get? They are offended? I am offended that they think they have a right to demand service from any business owner. I am offended that they think a Christian doesn’t have a right to decide who to do business with. If someone doesn’t want my business I just take it elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this reaction is typical of special interest groups, any special interest group. It seems everyone has a “right” to their views, and to be pandered to, except Christians. I wonder what would happen if these same women walked into a bakery owned by a Muslim. Would the owner bake them a cake or chase them out of the shop with a barrage of rocks, or simply hang them for their blasphemy? Stoning, in case you aren’t aware, is one of the penalties for homosexuality in the Muslim world. Hanging also seems to be a popular punishment.

Would these women go screeching to the media about Muslim bias against their “lifestyle”? If they did complain, would anyone make a big fuss or would they just keep out of it for fear of “offending” a Muslim business owner? I hope their next stop is at a bakery owned by a Muslim. I would really like to see the result of that visit. That situation would put the media and all of the “minority” groups in a tizzy. Who would they side with?

Where does this nonsense stop? Why is it that everyone has to bow down to the homosexual lifestyle, or Islam, or the NAACP, or any other “minority” group? Does freedom only apply to those with “issues”? I always thought freedom applies to all of us. Does “diversity” of thought include the thoughts of Christians? Does “diversity” of expression include Christians? Does “freedom of speech” include Christians? Apparently not!!!!!

I am also a Christian who believes homosexuality or heterosexual relations outside of marriage to be wrong. Does being against heterosexual couples living together and engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage make me a bigot also? What does one call that bigotry, heterophobia? Do Christians not have a right to live according to their firmly held religious beliefs? We are certainly expected, by Muslims and many judges and politicians, to allow Muslims to practice their religious beliefs and customs, even the parts that call for stoning of adulterers or honor killings.

Like most other Christians, including Victoria Childress, I don’t condemn others for their lifestyles, I simply disagree with them. Ms. Childress didn’t say anything tawdry about the couple, according to the article. Ms. Childress just expressed her views politely and let it go at that. Also mentioned in the article was a comment from another bakery owner who would be more than happy to bake the cake. Why is this a problem? It isn’t like these two can’t get a cake anywhere, others are happy to have their business.

Read the next couple of paragraphs very carefully and think about the point they make. Find the irrationality of those calling for a boycott of Victoria’s Cake Cottage. As far as a boycott, what will that accomplish? Ms. Childress seems to be boycotting homosexuals, yet that is unlawful according to homosexual activists. Homosexuals are going to boycott a business that doesn’t want their business. Does anyone besides me see the irony in this? I really can’t help but chuckle at this point.

If it is permissible for homosexuals to boycott Victoria’s Cake Cottage why isn’t it permissible for her to boycott homosexuals? Isn’t a boycott a boycott? Shouldn’t this cut both ways? Aren’t these homosexual groups practicing discrimination against Victoria’s Cake Cottage? They claim she is discriminating against them so they turn around and call for a boycott. If they don’t boycott every bakery equally isn’t that the definition of discrimination?

One of the biggest problems faced by this nation today is this very attitude of “tolerance”. We are told we must accept illegal aliens, who have a “right” to be here. We are told we must accept Islam and Sharia Law, because Muslims have “rights”. Christians are told we must accept a lifestyle that goes against our beliefs because these people have “rights”. I find it problematic that the “tolerance boat”, built by Christians who came here looking for freedom of religion, no longer has room for the Christians who built it. What about the rights of Christians to live our lives according to our beliefs? What about our “rights”?

If we are to be a truly tolerant society the tolerance has to go both ways, and it currently does not. If true tolerance were to be enforced, illegal aliens would be required to understand and “tolerate” my views about immigration. In a truly tolerant society homosexuals would be required to “tolerate” the fact that Ms. Childress and I disagree with their lifestyle and would rather they take their business elsewhere. A truly “tolerant” society would say the Congressional Black Caucus is required to admit white members of Congress. Muslims, in a truly “tolerant” society, would be required to accept that America has a Constitution and that Sharia law is unacceptable as it violates nearly every tenet of that Constitution. Muslims would have to “tolerate” our Constitution, and its Judeo-Christian basis, in a truly tolerant society.

If tolerance is not a two way street then it isn’t tolerance it is bullying. Whites are bullied by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on a regular basis. Christians are bullied by CAIR and homosexuals, among other special interest groups. American citizens are bullied by the ACLU, LaRaza and like organizations. Proponents of Right to Work are bullied by unions every day. Tolerance must be equal or it isn’t tolerance. If Victoria Childress and others like her are not allowed to live their lives according to their beliefs then tolerance isn’t anything other than brute force being used against someone these groups disagree with. Isn’t that the definition of bullying? Isn’t that the very thing they are fighting against? Can you spell HYPOCRISY?

I salute Ms. Childress for the way she handled this situation. She was forthright about her stand and refrained from making a big deal out of the situation. She did not “chastise” the couple; she merely chose not to participate in something she finds objectionable. From what I know of this situation she handled herself in a Christian manner with courage and firmness, yet with “tolerance”. She didn’t run to the media, she merely responded with the truth of her beliefs.

I hope that everyone reading this piece will show Ms. Childress their support. If you live in Des Moines or nearby, visit her shop. If not, go to her website and give her words of support. If possible, order something from her bakery and reward her for this stand for freedom of religion. If you live outside of Des Moines order some cookies or something that can be shipped. Let her know you appreciate her courage and her willingness to stand by her values and not be intimidated into surrendering her values or her freedom to live by those values.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
November 26, 2011
The first thing the lesbian couple did was run to the news media, where they knew they and their whining and crying, “woe is me”, “I’ve been victimized” story would be coddled.

Black Group Sues Democratic Party for Racial Discrimination/Demands Apology From Obama

  A class action lawsuit was filed in a U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington against the Democratic Party of America for it’s long history of racial discrimination against African-Americans. The lead plaintiff is listed as one Wayne Perryman, an African-American Minister, author and community organizer from Mercer, Washington.  This group is neither a small group of rabble-rousing trouble-makers out to make a name for themselves in a publicity stunt, nor are they in this for money. They are in fact, not suing for a dime, but instead are demanding an apology for the Democratic Party of America’s longstanding and continuing racial discrimination against black Americans stretching from the year 1792 right up to 2011. Mr Perryman also names the President of the United States as a defendant in the lawsuit, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, seeing as he is the head of the Democratic Party today, and because of things Barack wrote in his book Dreams From My Father.

   Apparently Barack Obama played it a little too cool, for Mr Perryman’s liking when he sent a letter to President Obama back in 2009, demanding that President Obama issue a national apology for his Democratic Party’s long time discrimination against blacks, and to which Obama either completely ignored, or flat out refused to do. Either way President Obama didn’t make the public apology, so now it is going to court demanding nothing more than an apology from Obama on the behalf of the Democratic Party of America. After the news of this lawsuit gets out, I,m betting someone will be called to the White House for maybe another beer summit, to say the least. This is the last thing Obama needs to deal with, while running around the country in campaign mode 24/7.  I,m sure the questions will be asked as to why he refused to offer up a simple apology for the proven Democratic Party transgressions against blacks throughout American history. Just like when Mr. Perryman sent him the letter demanding the apology, Mr. Obama will simply refuse to acknowledge it, let alone to answer the questions.

A press release from The Frederick Douglas Foundation  lays out some pretty heady stuff about the merits of this lawsuit, and just who is behind it:

The plaintiffs, who refer to the defendants as “Father of Racism,” allege that as an organization, the Democratic Party has consistently refused to apologize for the role they played in slavery and Jim Crow laws and for other subsequent racist practices from 1792 to 2011.

The case cites the collective work of over 350 legal scholars and includes Congressional records, case law, research from our nation’s top history professors, racist statements from Democratic elected officials, citations from the Democrat’s National Platforms regarding their support of slavery, excepts of speeches from Senator Obama, individual testimonies from blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South and opinions from the NAACP.

Perryman said, “Any organization that has such a racist history and receives 97% of the African American vote (after doing all they could to deny blacks the right to vote), should willingly apologize without being forced do so through a lawsuit. He said, “I guess they feel they have nothing to apologize for.”

 

 We have to wonder if any of the Congressional Black Caucus members pictured here will be willing to maybe give a little bit of their microphone/TV time to utter this apology instead of devoting it to their recent barrage of ignorant, racist rhetoric like calling Tea Party folks terrorists, and saying that Republicans want to hang them all up from a tree?  As we see in the paragraph above, the CBC isn’t the only one who is referring to Jim Crow laws, as many blacks who lived in the Jim Crow South have testified about the Democrat’s history of discrimination and are in fact, including those documents in their brief. How about it Maxine Waters? Will you tell this group of black professors, scholars and top history professors to go to hell too, just like you told the Tea Party which we saw broadcast on national TV?  How about Barack Obama giving up 10 minutes of  his seemingly 24/7 Hollywood movie-star-like desires to be seen and heard on our TV’s 7 days a week to tell us about the Democrat’s long-standing history of discrimination against blacks, lawsuit here? Hang on a minute here, do any of our readers think for just one minute that Barack Obama is going to admit how his Democratic Party has oppressed and discriminated against black Americans while at the same time, begging for their very important support for another four years in office?  Didn’t think so.

 

 

Allen West Slams Liberal Attacks on TEA Party

First, we have Rep. Andre Carson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus calling the TEA Party a lynch mob and that they want nothing more than to see blacks hanging from trees.

Then, Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) tries to gloss over the rhetoric and somehow blame the media for the terroristic language the Congressional Black Caucus is using and that Congressional Democrats have refused to rebuke. Finally, in the same video, Rep. West calls it for what it is.

%CODE%

Band Jockeying

Paul Ryan’s solution for our debt solution held up only with the Conservative segments of the Republican coalition. Reid’s plan only appealed to Democrats and the remaining plans garnered support or disdain from many different factions within Congress, but none of them had the votes to pass.

Now, 11th hour negotiations have been happening in the offices of Congressional leaders and at the White House to find an 11th hour deal that can get the 60 votes needed in the Senate and the 214 votes needed in the house.

Debt Ceiling Plans and Caucuses

With prior plans appealing only to left or right segments of Congress, the current negotiations look to be forming a plan that will focus on creating a large coalition of members of Congress. It will however leave out the far-left and far-right.

By pandering to the middle, Congressional leaders can garner the number of votes that they need without kowtowing to the staunchest factions in their parties. They are actually writing off a portion of their base to achieve the end goal – a debt ceiling deal.

As expected, the Tea Party Conservatives and the Progressive Caucus won’t vote for the compromise. As long as they can keep enough of their centrist factions together, a coalition made up of both parties can pass a negotiated deal.

Extreme Left Wing Caucuses to Ask Obama to Unilaterally Raise Debt Ceiling

It is being reported today that the Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus, two of the most extreme left-wing factions within the Democrat party, will go to the White House tomorrow to demand that the President use a flawed interpretation of the 14th amendment to raise the debt limit without Congressional approval.

This move is in response to both of the caucuses disdain for the compromise bill that is coming from bicameral negotiations. It would seem that the progressives are now the ones causing dismay and delay in the debt ceiling talks.

In what could only be called a dereliction of duty and perhaps a violation of their oath of office, the left-most elements of the Democrat party would have the President do what only Congress was given the power to do – borrow money.

Specifically, the far left will instruct the President to use section 4 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The most serious problem with the 14th amendment argument is that if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, there would be no challenge to the validity of the current publicly-held debt. What would happen is that no more debt could be added to that amount.

Bonds would be serviced and could continue to be serviced for the foreseeable future. Those bonds represent the publicly held debt.

What the progressives want to do is get future spending categorized as debt. That would include paychecks for Department of Energy employees, federal regulators, etc. If those workers are furloughed, they are not working and are therefore owed nothing. No further debt is accrued.

Members of Congress, albeit extremists, would prefer to cede their power to the executive branch rather than perform their Constitutional duty.

Celebrating a Political Anniversary

It was back 8 years ago, although it seems like an eternity now, that I…for the first and last time ever pissed my pants laughing. I was reading an article about two hours ago and it mentioned the name of a female congressperson from Texas. That was all I needed for some raucous instant-recall. Return with me now to July of 2003 as I reprise the occasion of a member of the demonRATic attack machine in action.

Not content with the more mundane complaints she is known for, the demonRATic representative from the Grand and Glorious Empire of Texas, one Sheila Jackson-Lee, has gnarled her way back to the media podium yet again to lecture us all.

Can you guess what about?

(CAUTION: If you have a problem controlling your bladder or bowels when laughing DO NOT PROCEED ANY FURTHER)

Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee (whom I sincerely wish would decide if she’s a “Jackson” or a “Lee” rather than a conflicted feminist) demanded to know why all hurricanes were chrisened with only Caucasian-sounding names. “All racial groups should be represented.”(1) she said, At the same time she lashed out at the National Weather Service she also opined that…in the future lists of names “would try to be inclusive of African American names”(1) as well as Caucasoid (Caucasion).

I found no concern by her regarding the third race of man, the Mongoloid folks of the world. Apparently an oversight for one functioning with a critically diminished intellectual capacity.

At the time, after having regained my compusure, I briefly wondered why her constituency (possibly shocked and embarassed by such a performance) hadn’t started a “recall petition” for the aforementioned. I recovered shortly upon realizing that they had voted her in and done so repeatedly, so obviously knew what they had and approved. They must have. She is still their representative!

I wondered if with the passing of time the names of hurricanes for 2011 might have been adjusted to accomodate this ridiculous ‘racist’ demand. After all it was a very serious matter, because in 2005 a Cobb County, GA worker was summarily fired for passing about the humorous email forward detailing this incident. That was followed in Texas by a Mayor asking for the resignation of a councilperson for doing the same thing. Gee thought I…Didn’t anybody happen to notice the abrogation of the right to freedom of speech here?

I digress though. Let’s look at the 2011 list of hurricane names:

2011 Hurricane Names (2)

Arlene
Bret
Cindy
Don
Emily
Franklin
Gert
Harvey
Irene
Jose
Katia
Lee
Maria
Nate
Ophelia
Philippe
Rina
Sean
Tammy
Vince
Whitney

Oh sh*t! This doesn’t look so good. As I peruse the monnickers assigned I fail to see anything even vaguely representing a M’ry-ah or a Jamal or a Chamiqua or a Leroi or even an Amos or Andy or Calhoun or something closely akin to such. WASSUP WID DAT? We may-bees in big trouble wid da NAACP and da BLackest Congresshionals Caucasoidal.

O woe is we be! Trubles be on da ho-risen fo’ shure!

(1) http://www.snopes.com/racial/language/hurricane.asp

(2) http://geography.about.com/od/lists/a/2011hurricane.htm

The Hypocrisy of Liberals Rears Its Head Again

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

When a Republican man speaks his mind concerning a Democrat woman, he is accused of personally attacking her.

However, when the left personally attacks a woman on the right, you never hear a peep.

Once again, we are seeing a case of the liberal’s double standard tactics at its finest!

One of the hottest topics in the news currently is the ongoing feud between Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Congressman Allen West, both from Florida.

Congressman West addressed the current issue with Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz via email, in which he copied other leaders in Congress:

From: Z112 West, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:48 PM
To: Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Cc: McCarthy, Kevin; Blyth, Jonathan; Pelosi, Nancy; Cantor, Eric
Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz

Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!

I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior……which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.

You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!

Steadfast and Loyal

Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)

Allen West

In response, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus said that they are “furious” with the email he sent, and will be speaking with Congressman West.

Several female lawmakers held a news conference demanding that Congressman West apologize.

Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, said:

“His words were nothing more than personal attacks….it is “very ladylike to speak up for the values that you believe in.”

Congresswoman Maloney added that she hopes Speaker of the House John Boehner “disavows” Congressman West’s remarks.

Not to be outdone, Congresswoman Donna Edwards, another Democrat, said she was “shocked” by the “disgraceful” email sent by Congressman West. She also stated:

“Instead of engaging constructively in that debate, Representative West chose to resort to unprofessional, vitriolic and offensive personal attacks — shame on him.”

Where were all of these female lawmakers during the numerous personal attacks against Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann?  I have not heard a single one of them stand up and demand that apologies be given to either of these ladies, both of who have been on the receiving end of numerous personal attacks. I’ve never heard Congresswoman Maloney compliment either of these ladies with compliments for “speaking up for the values they believe in.”

Once again, the hypocrisy of the left is absolutely disgusting!