-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/04/cnns-anderson-cooper-and-soledad-obrien-slant-black-superdelegate-coverage/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Cha ching! This is it in a nutshell.
It is also an attempt to introduce race once again. This was evidenced by the caveat at the end about white superdelegates and them not being pressured to support Hillary Clinton.
Don't you realize that it was a CNN staffer who got hands on the Wright DVD's and put them on CNN and YouTube?
I don't watch CNN unless someone directs me to it because it's clear that it wants a Clinton nomination.
All the networks do, quite frankly, but they still have to (sometimes) report on her silliness.
The notion that the media treats her unfairly remains the biggest myth of this campaign season.
When the MSM gets into her fascist religious cult, then we can talk.
MSNBC is barely any better. The tickers and the headlines are always worded in such a way as to make Obama look bad. It's subtle, but it's real. At least MSNBC has Olbermann and Matthews. I don't always agree with either of them, but they still include some vestiges of old school journalism.
There is no such thing as the "liberal" MSM. It's corporatist through and through and it wants corporatist presidents in office.
Hillary Rodham Nixon is a corporatist. She's their choice.
Anything the MSM can do to try to move Black people from Obama to Nixon, anything it can do to play up the racial divide and keep white voters away from Obama (and what better way than to have Black people go on record against him, his church, his pastor, etc...), it will do it.
By any means necessary.
Nixon and the MSM are on the same side. Make no mistake.
Your points on democracy and representation hit the nail right on the head.
This is about accountability pure and simple. At ColorOfChange, we don't think it's controversial for Black constituents to contact their CBC reps and talk to them about how they plan to cast their vote, in their official capacity, at the convention.
I commented on Baratunde's post but I wanted to share it here as well, since I think it applies:
This is a great post.
ColorOfChange was contacted by CNN on Thursday evening and we got back to them on Friday morning. By that time, it was too late. We then sent them a statement that they asked for.
Unfortunately, they did not read that statement, and viewers were left to think that ColorOfChange members were asking superdelegates to vote for Obama because he is Black.
I think you're hitting the point spot on: instead of allowing for a more complete version of events, Black superdelegates were allowed to frame the issue entirely, without any opposing viewpoint besides the cursory narration of the story. What makes this more problematic, is that CBC members continue to push a narrative that equates advocacy with threats and arm-twisting. It's irresponsible and disrespectful to the people who go out of their way to send CBC members their informed concerns about how they are acting as superdelegates.
Finally, here's our statement in full:
ColorOfChange.org uses the internet to empower our members to make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans and to bring about positive political and social change for everyone.
Our petition to pressure superdelegates is not about who wins the nomination; it's about who gets to decide - we think the people's voice should be decisive. Because we saw the possibility of Black elected officials using their votes as superdelegates to undermine the will of voters, we called on them to make clear they would not choose that course. The Congressional Black Caucus has long defended voting rights in Congress and our members insist that they maintain that commitment.
Along with 26,559 petition signatures, we have received thousands of comments from our members - they are critical, but fair and focused on a powerful message: 'do not undermine the choice of the voters who put you in office'.
They're surprised and somewhat afraid. Black empowerment is a scary thing. It's what makes Black-lovin' liberals like Bobby Kennedy give the FBI the go-ahead to spy on MLK. It's what makes liberals like Andrew Cuomo characterize Barack's campaign as "shuckin' and jivin'". It's what makes Geraldine Ferraro reference Barack as an affirmative action candidate.
People in politics and media are afraid of true Black empowerment. And each fear-mongering commentary not only speaks to that fear, it communicates it to like-minded people.
What upsets them, I believe, doesn't even get up to touching Black Empowerment.
To be honest, I don't think that they've even settled the fact that we get to speak up. That this IS 2008, and not 1968, and we can use all the resources that they can to deliver a message, and stand behind the message.
You think I'm kidding. I don't think they've even wrapped their minds around Black Empowerment. They really are at the point that Black folk are talking back to them, honestly, and not deferring to them.
Look at Lou Dobbs' reaction to Dr. Rice's HONEST remarks about race. Dr. Rice is no Black Revolutionary - so, it couldn't be about 'Black Empowerment' for her. She told THE TRUTH about race, in an intelligent way, and they couldn't handle it. Because she was supposed to 'stay in her box', and she's not allowed to comment on things like that, because ' they said so'.
They haven't begun to accept that we're not their parents ' Negroes'.
That really is just it!
And that's why Nancy Pelosi has retiterated the message that the Superdelegates should not go against the will of the people.
Like it or not CNN - we are the people!
http://originalblackbuddha.blogspot.com/2008/07...
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
PENNSYLVANIA,S STATE SANCTION CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTION
The State of Penn. and its agents have been and or are violating the civil rigths of indigent defendants sense Oct,121972 the U.S.Supreme Courts final judgment which outlined what due process minimally requires when taken ones freedom. Please be advised,the U.S.Supreme Court mandated counsel at first appearence hearings as well as preliminary hearings which Pa. doesnt provide inaddtion,the court ordered immediate release for non compliance and or if the hearing is not held in 3 days according toPa statute which interpreted correctly insist Pa.has the means to comply in less time than what the court mandated see pugh vs. rainwater 336 f. supp. 490 id at I.11. 19 and 20.Please be advised continue presecution after 3 days is an illegal act.Why you ask? see Ex parte young 209 us 123 id at page 8 the attemp of a state officer to enforce an unconst. statute is an proceding without authority an is an illegal act the officer is stripped of his offical charcter as a D.A. ect.The state of Pa.has not the authority to defy the U.S.Supreme Court to do so is the illegal act,inaddition to having state statutes, case lay and rule of ciminal procedures which as the court put it will apply to the extent that no court find its self inconsistent with its final judgment/opinion Oct 12 1972.Addittionally an 24hr. plus 7 day deprivation of librerty is unconst. see pugh vs. rainwater 335 f. supp. 1286 id at page 7.They tryed to argue this was a Fla. case ,wrong its an US.Supreme Court case it govern the hole country inaddtion to the equal protection law which if due process allows john doe to be free so shall i be set free see (Brief of Amicus Curiae National Legal Aid and Defender Association 1974 wl 186449 (u.s.) In closing 'put your own work in"dont trust a lawyer take my advise!your freedom depends on this.
Posted by karl at 1:02 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Followers (1)
Follow this blog
Stop following
1 Follower View All Manage
Blog Archive
▼ 2008 (1)
▼ October (1)
PENNSYLVANIA,S STATE SANCTION CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATI...
About Me
karl
View my complete profile