Posts
Why is there any such thing as the “Congressional Black Caucus”? Its defenders purport that it exists to advance the interests of black people. This, however, begs the question: are the interests of black people any different than the interests of any other people in America? If they are, then we have a problem.
Undeniably, black people were discriminated against in our history. That organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) came into existence to fight that is understandable, but it was outlawed forty-five years ago - two generations ago. If it still exists anywhere in America, it can be prosecuted. To those who claim it does, I ask: Where? Show me. If discrimination doesn’t exist, we get back to the original question: Why is there any such thing as the Congressional Black Caucus?
The CBC is with us because it enjoys immunity from criticism in the liberal mainstream media as it works to preserve and expand racial preferences for blacks. With the exception of its newest member, Florida Republican Congressman Allen West who opposes racial preferences, its members are all left-wing Democrats. As such, they’re allowed to say and do outrageous things for which they’re seldom held accountable in the press. For example:
In an astonishing display of incompetence, a CBC congressman from Georgia questioned an admiral about deploying a group of Marines on the island of Guam, a US possession in the Pacific Ocean. He asked how big Guam was and how many native people lived on it - because he was afraid the island might tip over if too many Marines were landed there! I’m not making this up. This is dumb on so many levels I’ll leave it to the reader to ponder them. The embarrassing exchange was videoed and posted on Youtube last year a few months before congressional elections. With the exception of Jay Leno, the mainstream media chose to ignore it. Relatively few Americans ever heard about it and Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) was reelected in November, 2010 with over 70% of the vote in his Georgia district. As intellectually challenged as he is, Congressman Johnson looks like a genius next to the woman he defeated - former CBC member Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)- after she punched a Capitol Police officer.
Hank Johnson may be dumb but he seems like a nice guy. Several women of the CBC, however, are not only dense, they’re obnoxious.
In another display of ignorance, a CBC congresswoman from Texas declared that: “Today, we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South, exchanging and working. We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace.” This woman got a BA in political science from Yale in 1972. She’s a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. How could she not know that America lost the Vietnam War and north and south were reunited? You’d think there must be some mistake, but this is the woman who asked NASA if the Mars Rover would take a picture of the flag Neil Armstrong left there. Let me point out that she sits on House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics too. She’s been in Congress since 1995 representing Houston where they’re prone to hurricanes. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) wants to change how hurricanes are named. Rather than “lily white” names, she wants the National Hurricane Center to use names like “Keisha, Jamal and Deshawn.” Although the mainstream media ignores her remarks, conservative bloggers, radio talk show hosts and Fox News gave as much attention to them as they could. Jackson-Lee’s response? “Shut up!” she explained.
Another congresswoman from Los Angeles lectured oil company executives, saying: “Guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be about socializing … uh, umm. … Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies.” The word she couldn’t find, of course, was “nationalizing” their companies. This congresswoman called the 1992 LA riots a “rebellion . . . a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice and a lot of alienation and frustration.” She excused looting by explaining:
One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself.
Columnist Michelle Malkin said: “This is a woman who visited the home of Damian Williams, the infamous thug who ‘expressed himself’ by hurling a chunk of concrete at white truck driver Reginald Denny and performing a victory dance over the innocent bystander.”
In case you never heard of her, I’m talking about Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA). She’s facing an ethics investigation for using influence on behalf of her husband’s bank. The investigation’s outcome is likely to follow that of that other CBC member. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who was censured.
Running out of space here, but I have to include Frederica Wilson (D-FL). The only thing she loves more than her funny-looking hats is playing the race card. She, like all the CBC ladies I mentioned above, despises the Tea Party - which would shrink the big government they depend on. “The real enemy is the [racist] Tea Party!” chants Congresswoman Wilson who blames 40% unemployment among black youth on “racism” despite ubiquitous racial preferences imposed nationwide at all levels.
If these people weren’t left-wing Democrats, the mainstream media would be all over them like flies on you-know-what. If you don’t believe that, look what they’re doing to Herman Cain on the basis of unsubstantiated, anonymous complaints. Then ask yourself: If it’s all right to have a Congressional Black Caucus, why not a Congressional White Caucus?
11 comments:
You've asked the right questions. Tom.
but who will answer?
Certainly not the downtrodden middle class white liberal majority who had orgasms when Mr Obama was elected. Mercy !!!
At least find someone who has more qualifications than their skin color.
Good luck to us.
Why? We don't have that now!!
Since when is Jay Leno "mainstream media" and FOX News is not? I heard about the Guam story several times on FOX. It was not totally ignored by other news outlets either. You are a delusional liar and a chronic whiner.
Tom - Thanks for having the courage to ask these questions. I pray that you will continue to have the freedom to speak out. But I fear they would shut you up if they could.
If you’re challenging the need for the Black Caucus, you might be on to something. But you should untangle that thesis from the bulk of this column, which is yet another installment in unending claim of a liberally dominated media. At least this column is refreshingly free of tea-party patriots and union thug references.
You’re comparing mostly verbal gaffes – though embarrassing, are harmless – to sexual harassment, which is a crime. Sanford, Vitter, Spitzer, Edwards and Bill Clinton’s sexual escapes were all covered in the media. The coverage of Clinton’s was so pervasive it drove his impeachment, and lead conservatives to speculate he periodically bombed Iraq to divert attention from it. The media reported Anthony Weiner’s controversy until he was forced to resign. So where is the media bias?
I saw ample coverage of the Guam comment and the Vietnam comment, but, outside of the Colbert Report, I saw scant coverage of Herman Cain worried about China’s nuclear aspirations despite being a nuclear power since the 1960s – unless of course the Comedy Channel is part of the mainstream media. I followed the Rangel’s and Water’s ethics investigations in a number of different mainstream media sources – AP, NYT, CS Monitor, McClatchy.
Mr. McLaughlin, did you really scour the media to assess its coverage of those stories, or are you merely repeating Fox News and AM radio’s claims that the coverage was inadequate or non-existent?
Herman Cain’s mess is not “unsubstantiated.” He was accused of sexual harassment, and the National Restaurant Association settled with the accusers. What’s unsubstantiated is Cain’s claim that this is resurfacing due to his race. And if his unsubstantiated claim that the leak came from the Perry camp is true, would that make elements of Perry’s camp racists?
This is like the war on Christmas, which should be ramping up any day now. Just because Christmas is not the feature in every holiday celebration – public and private – across the country doesn’t mean there’s a war on Christmas. Just because every verbal gaffe by a Democrat is not the lead story in every media outlet doesn’t mean there’s a liberal bias.
I know partisan Republicans would love for there to be a liberal bias in the media, but the bias is towards conflict and sensationalism. The bias is towards whatever story sells more papers. The old adage is, “If it bleeds, it leads.” It’s not, “If a Democrat says something embarrassing, ignore it.”
Of course there's a liberal bias in the media. I don't include Fox News whose bias is conservative.
The contrast is between how the mainstream media delayed dealing with Jesse Jackson's affair(s) and his "love child" and how they're dealing with the flimsy allegations against Cain. Jackson ran for president too. They were on Cain full-bore and immediately. How long did they delay dealing with Jackson? Months?
Then think of how they went after McCain on allegations of an affair and ignored hard evidence of John Edwards' love child for almost a year.
Think of how they ignored Senator Dodd's "waitress sandwich" with Ted Kennedy as he ran for president four years ago.
Think of President Clinton's too-numerous-to-mention incidents. NBC delayed broadcasting the Juanita Broaddrick interview Lisa Myers did until after the Senate's impeachment acquittal vote. See here:
http://www.observer.com/1999/04/nbcs-vetting-of-juanita-broaddrick-clintons-accuser-discusses-agonizing-weeks-as-nbc-dragged-it-out/
Think of how long they ignored Anthony Weiner's escapades before Andrew Breitbart forced them to deal with him.
Whatever Cain might have done, if anything, will out. Notice, however, how quickly and how widely those anonymous allegations have been covered.
I could do on, but I don't have time.
Innocent until proven guilty works both ways. But you can't unsay something no matter how harmless or unintended.
Your article about NBC delaying the interview is an example from a single source. NBC is not the whole of the media. It’s one source out of thousands by your definition of the media, which, as you wrote in a recent column, is all cable news outside of Fox, all network news, all public broadcasting and most of the national broadsheets. In a recent column, you accused the media of protecting Clinton. Is this your only example to support that thesis? This is what I meant in an earlier response of mine when I wrote people cherry-pick examples to prove their point. This "liberal media" hunted Clinton like dog to the point his detractors accused him of bombing Iraq to deflect media scrutiny away from him.
Read this link, which is a timeline of Anthony Weiner’s scandal. Someone forwarded the infamous picture to Breitbart on May 28, and Weiner addressed the media in a press conference June 1. I remember different outlets immediately suspicious of his hacking claims the moment he announced he didn’t want to go forward with a House investigation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8560721/Anthony-Weiner-timeline-of-a-scandal.html
And you have to admit, after Breitbart’s hack job on the Sherrod tape, I can cut the press a little slack for not lunging at his allegations. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Go back to your definition of the mainstream media. That represents an enormous amount of publication and broadcasting. How can any one person keep tabs on all of that or even a percentage of it? The liberal-media argument is a cop out. It’s a way of saying, “Somewhere in that massive amount of journalistic research and reporting could be information that might force me to reshape some of my positions, and I don’t want to do that. So I’m going to brand it all as skewed liberal journalism and safely dismiss it and concentrate on those sources that I know will only reinforce what I’m already disposed to believing.”
Talk radio and talk TV (Fox, msnbc, AM Radio, Air America) are populated with partisan opinionists. They’re like McDonalds; a little bit every once in a while is all right, but a steady diet of it and you’re just hurting yourself.
Way to go Steve. Tom cherry picks to "prove" his point and ignores the facts. And his paranoid ilk comes up with inanities like this one:
"Tom - Thanks for having the courage to ask these questions. I pray that you will continue to have the freedom to speak out. But I fear they would shut you up if they could."
I for one wouldn't want to shut you up. You provide a perfect example to show my kids what is meant by a narrow-minded, arrogant, delusional, right-wing zealot and absolute nut-job. It takes no courage for you to ask these questions any more that it takes courage for me to call you on your BS.
Thank God you have retired from teaching. I would put my child in a private school rather than have them be "educated" by a clueless beady-eyed little liar such as yourself.
"If it’s all right to have a Congressional Black Caucus, why not a Congressional White Caucus?"
You must be kidding Tom! That would be racist!
LSM not biased? B.S.! Is that why Sarah Palin, running for VP had no qualifications, but NObama was over qualified to be Pres? Gimme a break Steve!
Post a Comment