Grilling the Comcast/NBC execs on diversity worked… Rep. Maxine Waters has long questioned whether allowing Comcast to merge with NBC was a good thing in terms of minority participation, hiring and diversity — particularly since viewership is heavily minority.  Looks like Comcast is actually coming through on their end.  The issue of diversity on the station has come up in several hearing over the past two years.  Waters and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee pointedly questioned a group of 99% male NBC and Comcast executives during a hearing in March 2010.  With the news of Melissa Harris Perry’s show and the already established Al Sharpton Show Politics Nation, there is more diversity at NBC than any other network other than BET.  As a result, many issues that might never come up on a major network are discussed regularly. At NBC starting to get like what the NFL did years ago with black coaches.  The NFL made it mandatory that at least one black coach had to be interviewed for an open coaching position (not hired, just interviewed..). As a result, there are so many black coaches coming and going (some fail, some succeed…) no one notices when one is hired or fired.

From Rep. Waters: Congresswoman Waters Congratulates Magic Johnson, applauds Comcast’s Launch of Minority-Owned Channels

Washington, February 22- Today, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) released the following statement commending Comcast-NBC Universal’s launch of four new independent minority-owned channels.  Throughout the course of the Comcast-NBC merger review, Rep. Waters: initiated congressional hearings, pushed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to extend the comment period for additional public input, filed comments with the FCC, and led congressional efforts to ensure that if the merger was approved, it contained conditions that expanded opportunities for women and minorities in media ownership, programming, and advertising. I am pleased that Comcast-NBC Universal has taken steps to honor its commitment to media diversity in programming and ownership.  All throughout the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Justice’s reviews of the Comcast-NBC Merger, I challenged both companies to present credible voluntary commitments and proposals that would expand media diversity by extending ownership opportunities to minority and women-owned enterprises.  With the scheduled launches of both Magic Johnson’s “Aspire” and Sean Combs’ “Revolt” television networks, Comcast-NBC appears to be making progress in efforts to fulfill its public interest commitments.  In addition to these two new networks, I am also pleased with the announcement of the two new Latino-owned channels and look forward to learning more about Robert Rodriguez’s “El Rey” and Constantino “Said” Schwarz’s “BabyFirst Americas” television networks.

From the launch of new MSNBC shows from the Rev. Al Sharpton, Melissa Harris Perry, Tamron Hall, and Martin Bashir, to Comcast-NBC’s recently-announced deals with Suzanne DePasse, Magic Johnson, and Sean Combs, it is clear that Comcast has begun to act on the concerns that I, and the community of independent minority media professionals, raised throughout the course of the merger review.  While these initial steps are commendable, I urge the company to continue to cultivate diversity among its executive leadership, showrunners, and other studio heads with “greenlighting” authority, all across its owned and operated media properties.  In doing so, Comcast-NBC Universal would be a trailblazer within an industry that continues to struggle with diversity and inclusion. To that end, I offer heartfelt congratulations to the all of the new networks, led by diverse talent, who will now be in a position to extend opportunities to untapped talent, who without Comcast-NBC’s voluntary commitment to support diversity, may not have had the chance to showcase their talents.  It is also my sincere hope that Comcast-NBC will support these new ventures with the same channel placement, marketing, and promotional muscle they provide other channels on their systems, and that other companies will follow Comcast-NBC’s lead in diversifying their pool of suppliers and content producers.

Section 6 Article 3 of Constitution:  Anyone read that?  pssst hey you Tea Partiers… wake up.  “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

It all started last week when GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said President Obama practices a “phony theology.”  The attacks on the first black President of the U.S. in a constant attempt to make him into something “un-American” and “foreign” continue into the religious category.

CBC Chair Emanuel Cleaver, a Methodist minister, responds.

Monday, Feb 27: Rep. Bobby Scott, who along with 11 other CBC members voted against the Clinton Crime Bill that resulted in the U.S. becoming the world’s leader in incarceration, will host a crime policy briefing on Monday. He will be joined by Rep. Walter Jones.  Also at the briefing will be Newport News Sheriff Gabe Morgan.

Congressmen Scott & Jones to Co-Host Bipartisan Briefing on Cost-Effectiveness of Youth Violence and Intervention Strategies – Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, (D-VA-3) and Congressman Walter B. Jones (R-NC-3) will co-host a bipartisan briefing entitled “Reduce Crime, Reduce Costs, and Improve Lives and Communities through Evidence-Based Prevention” on Monday, February 27, 2012.  The event will be held in Room 2237 in the Rayburn House Office Building at 3:00 pm and is open to the Members of Congress and their staff, the public and the media.

Walter Jones

Monday’s event will provide information on the cost-effectiveness of prevention and intervention policies that work effectively to reduce juvenile crime and gang violence.  Studies show that crime reduction can best be accomplished by investing in research-based prevention and intervention programs targeted towards at-risk youth.  These programs help end the criminal justice cycle by reaching the next generation of at-risk youth before they become involved in serious gang or other criminal activity.  Investing in these programs saves money, because they cost the U.S. taxpayer less than the amount of money that would otherwise be spent on building and maintaining prisons and on welfare costs.  Experts at the briefing will discuss the cost-effectiveness of these strategies compared to traditional approaches.

Confirmed speakers at the event include:

• Dr. Catherine Gallagher, Director, Cochrane Collaboration College for Policy & Associate Professor, Criminology, Law and Society at George Mason University;
• Pat Nolan, Vice President, Prison Fellowship;
• Gabriel Morgan, Sheriff, City of Newport News, Virginia; and
• Tracy Velázquez, Executive Director, Justice Policy Institute.

Waters investigated… others walk… So when you have to call in an outside attorney to the tune of millions in taxpayer money to fix what you messed up that’s a bad thing right?  Then, when 6 members of your committee quit the investigation because of past screw-ups that’s not-so-good right?  Welcome to the House Ethics Committee “case” on Rep. Maxine Waters of California.  While all attention goes to Waters, other members avoid ethics scrutiny.  see most corrupt list

Didn’t this happen before? Review the details of the unprecedented censure of the most powerful African American male member of Congress, Rep. Charlie Rangel.

In the Never Ending Completely Effed Up Maxine Waters Fiasco Investigation Set to Interfere With Her Getting Chair of a Committee there is yet another twist.  This time the twist is that six members of the House Ethics Committee will get off of the case.  Waters is the most powerful black female in Congress… the Ethics Committee Chair Jo Bonner of Alabama was one of only 33 members in the House to vote against the last Voting Rights Act reauthorization. Go figure. read

… life is short, let’s get to what this is really about a year after the most powerful black male member of Congress was censured: This is really about whether this never ending (started in 2009…) case will stop Rep. Maxine Waters from becoming Chair at the powerful House Financial Services Committee.  This is, of course, contingent on whether the House flips back to Democratic control. Given the record low approval ratings of the present Congress and the high turnout expected in a presidential election year, there is a good chance this could happen.

This is the third moment of upheaval for investigators in the Waters case.  The first was the firing of two Republican committee attorneys who apparently were so zealous in their effort to investigate Waters they were outed by Democratic colleagues on the Ethics Committee.  The two attorneys were fired.   Then attorney Billy Martin was hired, to the tune or millions in taxpayer cash, to fix the problem. Now, in our third installment of fiasco, we have members of the Committee bowing out of the case entirely.  What does this get the Maxine Waters case? Delay.  Clearly this case will run right into the time in December when members are voted in as Committee chairs? Amazing how that happens.  Waters stands to be the first black female full committee chair should the Democrats take the House.

BLACK ELECTED OFFICIALS UNDER SEIGE? Black members of Congress are disproportionately investigated in ethics matter and disproportionately focused on by the House Ethics Committee and the Office of Congressional Ethics as THE ROOT focused on this morning.  Is it that the number of complaints being filed is disproportionately against black members? No one knows. But the facts of who has been investigated are obvious: Black elected officials are the subject of investigations at a higher rate than their white counterparts.  In the U.S. House the investigations have reached fever pitch in the last three years.  In 2010, the most powerful Black member of the House, Charlie Rangel, was censured after being removed as Chairman of one of the most powerful committees in Congress, Ways & Means. see the arguments against that unprecedented censure here and at the end of this post

If the ethics case of Maxine Waters was in a state or federal court of law it would have been tossed long ago. There was such controversy and what can been defined as prosecutorial misconduct by two attorneys they were fired.  Are we really to believe that the final outcome will be viewed as serious after all this drama?  The Never Ending Completely Effed Up Maxine Waters Fiasco Investigation Set to Interfere With Her Getting Chair of Committee goes on and on…

By the way, while all this attention stays on Waters, the House Ethics Committees takes a pass on other members.  The most noticeable investigation passed up by the Committee were Reps. Vern Buchanan read here and Jeane Schmidt read here.  Independent investigations by ethics hawks like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington already revealed the corruption. Also the New York Times did quite a story and editorial on questionable fund raising by Rep. Mike Grimm read here…  there has been an ethics complaint filed… yet nothing from ethics yet..  Yet all attention goes to the Waters case.

In the case of Rep. Charlie Rangel, who happened to be the most powerful Black male member of Congress as he was being investigated, there were unprecedented details. Read below or click here.

…………………………………………………………………

IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES B. RANGEL OF NEW YORK
by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA)

link to original
December 2, 2010

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia: Mr. Speaker, I served on the special subcommittee appointed to investigate this matter, and dissented from the subcommittee report. I rise to oppose the pending motion to adopt the resolution.

Rep. Scott

I believe that, under precedents of the House, imposing censure on one of our Members for violating procedural rules of the House under these circumstances would be singularly harsh, unfair, and without precedent. Now, Mr. Rangel has acknowledged his mistakes, and he has asked to be punished fairly, which means punished just like everybody else similarly situated. Accordingly, I believe the punishment is appropriate, but I believe that censure is inappropriate.

Congressman Charles B. Rangel is a dedicated public servant and a decorated soldier who has made outstanding contributions to the people of his congressional district, to the United States, and to this institution.

Yet he has made mistakes which have resulted in violations of the rules of official conduct for Members of the House and he will be punished for those violations. The question is what is the appropriate punishment?

We need not answer this question in a vacuum. Congressman Rangel is not the first Member to violate rules of official conduct, so we have ample precedents from which to glean the appropriate punishment. It is clear from the precedents of the House that censure is not a fair and just punishment for these violations. When censure or even reprimand has been imposed for violations in past cases, they have involved direct financial gain or criminal or corrupt conduct. The committee counsel during the hearings acknowledged that those elements are not found in this case. Furthermore, the committee report in this matter acknowledges that the recommendation of censure in this case is in violation of prior case precedents. The point is made in the report on page 7, and I quote:

“Although prior committee precedent for recommendation of censure involved many cases of direct financial gain, this committee’s recommendation for censure is based on the cumulative nature of the violations and not direct personal gain.” But using “cumulative nature of the violations” to support the committee’s recommendation of censure is without precedent. In the case of former Congressman George Hansen, the committee stated that, and I quote, “It has been the character of the offenses which established the level of punishment imposed, not the cumulative nature of the offenses.” And so a review of prior precedents establish that neither the character nor the cumulative nature of the violations warrant censure.

Eight of the 11 counts that the committee found that Congressman Rangel has violated are for raising money for a center at a public university in his congressional district. The program is to train young people to go into public service, using his life experience as an inspiration. Assisting a constituent institution with such a project is not a violation in and of itself, but there are proper procedures to be followed if you’re going to raise money for a local college. He openly assisted the institution, clearly with no intent to do anything improper, but he did unfortunately violate the rules by not following proper procedures. Once the determination was made that he used official resources to help the local college, that one mistake has been converted into almost eight different counts:

One, he used the letterhead; two, he used the staff; three, he used office equipment; he used franked mail; all from the fact that he cannot use official resources. That was a mistake for which he should be punished. The question is what should the punishment be for messing up and raising money improperly?

Well, we have the case of former Speaker Newt Gingrich who was found to have violated House rules by misusing tax-exempt entities to fund a partisan college course aimed at recruiting new members to the Republican Party after he had been warned not to. Moreover, he was found to have filed four false reports to the committee about the matter in 13 instances, causing substantial delays and expense to the committee. Yet he was reprimanded, not censured, and did not lose his job as Speaker. Congressman Rangel did not lie about his activities, he gained no partisan advantage, he believed that he was doing right although he made mistakes, and he received no prior warning, as did Speaker Gingrich. Yet Congressman Rangellost his chairmanship on Ways and Means and now faces the possibility of a censure, not a reprimand, as Speaker Gingrich received.

Another example of raising money in violation of House rules involved former House majority leader Tom DeLay. He was admonished by the committee for participating in and facilitating an energy company fund-raiser which the committee found created an appearance of “impermissible special treatment or access.” Mr. DeLay was also cited for his “intervention in a partisan conflict in the Texas House of Representatives using the resources of a Federal agency, the FAA.” An ethics investigation involved accusations of solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions in return for legislative assistance, use of corporate political contributions in violation of State law, and improper use of official resources for political purposes. I think everybody here is aware of recent news reports that Mr. DeLay has been convicted of charges of money laundering in connection with circumventing a State law against corporate contributions to political campaigns. For being found guilty of money laundering and conspiracy, the media reports that he faces possible prison sentences of between 5 and 99 years in prison. Yet the House did not censure Mr. DeLay, nor did they even impose a reprimand. They only issued a committee letter. Mr. Rangel has made mistakes and he should be punished, just like everyone else in the past, consistent with precedents.

On the issue of Mr. Rangel’s rent-stabilized apartment for use as a campaign office, let the record reflect that Mr. Rangel’s landlord knew of his use of the apartment for a campaign office and did not see it as illegal. And the committee records reflect that an attorney for the New York housing authority testified that the use decision was up to the landlord. If somebody rented the apartment that was not technically protected by the rent stabilization law, the tenant is not protected; however, the lease is permitted. That’s what the attorney for the housing authority said. And I don’t know whether that’s right or wrong, but that’s what Charlie Rangel believed, that’s what his landlord believed, and that’s what the housing authority lawyer believed.

Now let’s talk about this apartment. It had been vacant for months. Charlie paid sticker price for the rent. He passed nobody on the waiting list. This is not a corrupt scheme. To the extent that there is a violation, let’s punish him consistent with others who have had problems. Earl Hilliard, for example, was found by the committee to have been paying more than market

rent for his campaign headquarters; the rent paid to family members who owned the building. He was not censured. He wasn’t even reprimanded. He received a committee letter.

Other cases involving campaign violations and use of official resources have not resulted in censure. One example is the case of Bud Shuster for violations of House rules related to campaign and other violations. He was found to have knowingly allowed a former employee-turned-lobbyist to communicate with him within 12 months following her resignation, to influence his schedule and give him advice pertaining to his office. He was also found to have violated the House gift rule, to have misused official congressional resources, misused official congressional staff for campaign purposes, and to have made certain expenditures from his campaign accounts for expenses that were not for bona fide campaign or political purposes. Yet he received a letter, not a censure, not even a reprimand. Although both of those cases involved personal financial gain and intentional violations of the rules, the sanction for both was a letter of reproval. Mr. Rangel neither personally benefited nor intended to violate the rules.

There is an issue now of his failure to report income on rental property, on property he owned in the Dominican Republic, and report those appropriately on his disclosure statement. I say “properly,” because ownership and some rental payments were in fact reported on his disclosure, so there’s nothing to cover up. And while he did not file all his reports properly, these are not matters that warrant censure. Mistakes made on disclosure are usually corrected with nothing more said. The only cases where there is a violation, a sanction, for failing to disclose are cases where there is some corrupt cover-up. For example, failing to file campaign contributions from Tonsong Park during Korea-Gate or failing to have loans or assets with those who would reveal a conflict of interest. The committee found no evidence that failure to report was for financial gain or cover-up.

The tax issues. Comment was made that he hadn’t paid taxes for 17 years. Let’s say a word about those taxes. Tax matters involved a deal where he and many others had pooled their rents and paid expenses and anything left over was profit. Well, it wasn’t as profitable as they hoped. He got a couple of small checks over all those years and that was it. However, one of the bills paid was his mortgage. And diminution of principal is technically income on which you have to pay taxes. Whatever sanction there should be for that transgression should be consistent with precedents. The only example of anybody sanctioned for tax matters in this House in the history of the United States have been those who did not pay taxes on bribes they received. That’s it. All we ask is that he be sanctioned like everyone else.

Since there is no indication that Charlie Rangel’s reporting violations were intended for financial gain, concealment or other corruption, censure is clearly not the just sanction. Moreover, he hired a forensic accountant to assure that all of the matters have been cleared up. He knows he messed up. He knows he’ll be punished. We just ask that he be punished like everybody else. Unfortunately, Charlie Rangel will be punished for his transgressions but neither the nature of the offenses nor their cumulative impact has been a sufficient basis for censure of any other Member in the past. Nor has the level of one’s position been a basis for sanction as we said in the case of Newt Gingrich or Tom DeLay. Both had multiple serious violations that were intentional with aggravations such as concealment, lying and failure to heed warnings, none of which are in this case.

All the instances of censure, reprimand, reproval, admonishment and other cases of sanctioning make it clear that censure is not an appropriate sanction in this case. Now, CHARLIE is not asking to be excused for his conduct. He accepts responsibility. All we ask is that we cite what has been done in the past for conduct similar to his and apply a sanction similar to those sanctions. And based on the precedent, there is no precedence for a censure in this case.

In St Louis on March 16, House Oversight Committee member Rep. Lacy Clay of Missouri will have a voter education and registration event.  Rev. Al Sharpton will join him. New voter ID legislation is moving through the Missouri statehouse.  Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the last attempt to change the state voter ID laws.  Clay and Sharpton were together last week to announce congressional support for Sharpton’s voter suppression march in Selma on March 4th.

From the ST. LOUIS BEACON: read here. The “major voting rights forum” in St. Louis will be held at Harris-Stowe State College on March 16, Clay announced at the news conference. In an interview, Clay said that in addition to Sharpton and other national activists and experts, “we’re inviting Gov. (Jay) Nixon, state legislators, panelists from the Brennan Center and the Justice Department to talk about voter protections, and how to combat this assault on voting rights.”

Last Friday on Capitol Hill at a voter suppression discussion hosted by Rep. Marcia Fudge, Rep. John Lewis told everyone to use the current technology to fight voter suppression and educate voters on all the new voter ID laws.  Seems obvious but with 8 months to go is anyone doing that?

OK so you wanna talk religion? OK fine.  Days after Rick Santorum questioned the President’s religious beliefs it’s Franklin Graham’s turn.  He’s a big Santorum fan.

According to Franklin Graham, admitted serial adulterer Newt Gingrich is a Christian yet Mitt Romney isn’t Christian and he’s unsure of President Obama. It’s in the way people “live their lives…” Yes, sometimes the apple falls far — really, really far — from the tree.  On MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning Willie Geist, Alex Wagner and John Heileman, make head Christian in charge Franklin Graham look fat, goofy and silly. This explains why many conservatives avoid MSNBC — few Fox News anchors would ask these simple questions.

Getting strong now… Won’t be long now… Getting strong now… Gonna fly now… Flying high now… Gonna fly, fly, fly…

wikipedia: “Much of the power of the committee comes from the inherent utility of controlling spending. Its subcommittee chairmen are often called “Cardinals” because of the power they wield over the budget.”

EIGHT MONTHS and WE WILL KNOW. No, Pope Benedict XVI did not install Reps. Sanford Bishop and Chaka Fattah as cardinals last week.  We’re talking about Appropriations “cardinals” here.  Reps. Sanford Bishop of Georgia and Chaka Fattah of Philadelphia are both ranking members of the most powerful committee in Congress: House Appropriations. Bishop is the highest ranking Democrat on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies and Fattah is the highest ranking on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies.

Was Louis Stokes the last Black cardinal? Not to jinx anyone or anything… but these cardinals could fly high.  They would be joined by Rep. Jose Serrano if the Democrats win control of House in 2013.  Congress has the lowest approvals in history and House leaders Eric Cantor and John Boehner and other Rs will have to run on a do-nothing record of gridlock that began with their much celebrated 2010 takeover. By this time next year we will know the answer to whether Bishop and Fattah will fully in the driver’s seat.  Already as ranking members of Appropriations the duo have had a major say in how millions are spent.

If the two are elevated to the rank of “cardinal” their heavenly budgeting powers would more than likely be directed towards many of the problems the CBC focuses on.  Even though Sanford Bishop is the most conservative member of the CBC, he would also be a major contributor to those issues.  It’s not exaggerating to say that Chaka Fattah and Sanford Bishop would be in the #2 and #3 positions as most powerful members of the Congressional Black Caucus if the House flips — they would be followed by Rep. Maxine Waters should she Chair House Financial Services.   More than being the most powerful CBCers — they would be easily be amongst the most powerful members of the 113th Congress.

ELECTION POLITICS? Though Bishop experienced a count-all-night-long crazy close re-election in 2010, Georgia’s redistricting have made his seat more comfortable for a Democrat than it was two years ago.  Meanwhile in Philadelphia, barring alien abduction, King Chaka will glide into his 10th term in the U.S. House.

COULD ETHICS DERAIL? It’s not a coincidence that the two most powerful black members of Congress, Reps. Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters, were investigated in ethics matters at the height of their power.  Black members of Congress are disproportionately investigated in ethics matters and targeted by conservative groups filing complaints.  Just today, THE ROOT wrote about this constant problem.  READ: http://www.theroot.com/views/author-uncovers-harassment-black-officials?wpisrc=root_lightbox.  Bishop has already been investigated and cleared. Fattah has never been involved in an ethics matter.  If one just “happens” to come up right before this would-be cardinal is set to fly — be suspicious.  There are no coincidences in politics.

(black and white photos: members of House Appropriations circa 1930).

After a report in the Charlotte Observer by @FrancoOrdonez with the headline U.S. Rep. Mel Watt Also Considering Retirement read here on Feb. 9, Rep. Melvin Luther Watt of North Carolina has filed for re-election as expected and reported on this blog last week.  Despite the story, several of his colleagues never had a doubt.  Watt is not a chaser of TV cameras and cheap attention but is one of the CBC’s strongest behind the scenes players.  He had until February 29 to file.  There have been no CBC retirements announced this year so far.  Rep. Watt, who has represented the 12th district in North Carolina since 1992 and is very highly respected by his CBC colleagues and others for his sharp + strong legal expertise.  He issued the following statement:

“I have filed today for reelection to Congress from the 12th Congressional District of North Carolina. In these times of continuing economic challenge for the citizens of North Carolina and the 12th Congressional District, it is especially important to have elected officials who have experience and a proven track record of getting results for citizens who want better education and skills, health care, jobs and real prospects for a better future.”

“The congressional districts are being contested in the courts and could very well be changed. This has already led some experienced members of our congressional delegation to announce that they will not seek reelection. We need experience and seniority to maintain the influence of our delegation and we need representatives who will continue to work for progress, not return to the same old rhetoric and policies that led to the mess we’re trying to dig our country out of.

“The residents of the 12th District know that I will fight for them in challenging times and in good times and that I will work with anyone who will work with me to help make their lives better. I look forward to having their support and to representing them again.”

The above photo is from the CBC ceremonial swearing in on the first day of the 112th Congress (2011).

Tuskegee Airman Clarence Dart Dies at 91 - Clarence Dart, a Tuskegee airman who I covered in 2007 when the Tuskegee Airman were awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, died at 91 last week after a stroke.  I was on a photo assignment for the Albany Times Union and had the thrill of hanging out with him and then Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand who was then a member of the U.S. House.  Read the Albany Times Union

The Albany Times Union: Calling hours for Clarence Dart will be held from 2 to 4 p.m. and from 6 to 8 p.m. Monday at the William J. Burke & Sons Funeral Home, 628 N. Broadway, Saratoga Springs.  The funeral is set for 10 a.m. Tuesday in the Saratoga Springs United Methodist Church, 175 5th Ave. He will be buried in a family plot at Greenridge Cemetery in the city.

The Albany Times Union: — Clarence Dart, who battled racism and flew 95 combat missions in World War II with the elite African-American pilots known as the Tuskegee Airmen, will be buried with military honors Tuesday.

Dart, 91, was one of the last living members of the segregated all-black fighter pilot unit that waited decades for formal recognition from the military. He died Friday at Wesley Health Care Center where he had lived for three years. He suffered a stroke on Feb. 4 and did not regain consciousness.

99 weeks, 73 weeks, 60 weeks. CLICK Most of the 14 CBC members who voted against the payroll tax deal didso because of the cut in unemployment benefits. CNN Money has a chart with NEW length of jobless benefits by state. CLICK RIGHT HERE

The payroll tax vote.  It didn’t fix the “doc fix,” punished federal employees and shortened unemployment benefits.  Well, 14 CBC members weren’t having it and voted NO.  Voting against the payroll tax cut deal were CBC members Chair Emanuel Cleaver, Reps. Yvette Clarke, Lacy Clay, Elijah Cummings, Danny Davis, Donna Edwards, Hank Johnson, Keith Ellison, Marcia Fudge, Alcee Hastings, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Barbara Lee, Bobby Scott and Allen West.  Note that the authors of the 99ers bill, HR589, both voted against.

The payroll tax deal passed 293 to 132 — 91 Reps voted against and 41 Dems, including a member of the leadership, Steny Hoyer voted against the bill.

CBC Chair Emanuel Cleaver: “Even though this bill extends unemployment insurance, many states could lose significant benefits due to the nature of the calculation of the total unemployment rate in the overall bill. We are literally taking one step forward and ten leaps back.”

Rep Bobby Scott: “This bill adds $101.1 billion to the deficit in fiscal year 2012 alone, it cuts billions from preventive health programs, it scales back unemployment insurance … it fails to find a long term solution for Medicare physician reimbursement rates…”

ESPN takes action and fires the “Chink in the Armor” headline writer. The headline appeared late Friday night under a photo of kickass NY Knick Jeremy Lin.  So hopefully Linsanity can continue without foolishness and we can go three days without yet another blatantly racist Jeremy Lin related reference — but stay tuned.  I’m sure they thought they were just so funny and witty back in the newsroom.  This was first reported by media reporter and blogger Bill Romenesko.  But now, ESPN takes quick action — their statement:

Saturday we apologized for two references here. We have since learned of a similar reference Friday on ESPN Radio New York.

Follow-up statement and action

At ESPN we are aware of three offensive and inappropriate comments made on ESPN outlets during our coverage of Jeremy Lin.

Saturday we apologized for two references here. We have since learned of a similar reference Friday on ESPN Radio New York. The incidents were separate and different. We have engaged in a thorough review of all three and have taken the following action:

• The ESPN employee responsible for our Mobile headline has been dismissed.
• The ESPNEWS anchor has been suspended for 30 days.
• The radio commentator is not an ESPN employee.

We again apologize, especially to Mr. Lin. His accomplishments are a source of great pride to the Asian-American community, including the Asian-American employees at ESPN. Through self-examination, improved editorial practices and controls, and response to constructive criticism, we will be better in the future.

(Statement also appears on ESPN’s MediaZone) and at ESPN.com

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland will host a jobs fair in Baltimore on Monday, April 16.  For more info call 410 685 9199.  Cummings’ job fair events draw thousands and are held at the Fifth Regiment Armory.  More than 80 companies will attend and past events have offered assistance for ex-offenders and general job readiness.

So wait, explain to me again why Fox News sports analyst Jason Whitlock didn’t get suspended or fired on Feb. 13th? read here Notice how quiet it was? It was “just a joke.”  Now we have — less than 4 days later — a racist headline from ESPN with “Chink in the Armor”. Really: How much more blatantly racist can it get? Both racist incidents are by journalist who presumably are hired to be careful in communicating information to others.

So let’s review: The second blatantly racist reference towards New York Knick player Jeremy Lin has surfaced in less than four days folks.  Jeremy Lin is an American who won a basketball scholarship and graduated from Harvard.  He was born in Los Angeles and has Asian ancestors.  What year is it again? Is the year 1925?  He was mysteriously passed over in the draft (I wonder why…).  Now: Boom here he is.  But, like most people who doesn’t fit into stereotypes, Lin is treated like an alien from another planet rather than a really good baller who happens to be Asian.

In what may easily go down as one of the most racist jackass moments in journalism, ESPN posted a racist headline last night written under a picture of the best thing that’s happened to the New York Knicks in 20 years: Jeremy Lin.  Bill Romenesko posted the headline this morning and twitter appropriately blew up. Will anyone get fired? If not, someone sure as hell should.  And don’t give me the we’re-just-too-sensitive BS.  No way was the headline a coincidence.  Sports reporters with their locker room jokes think everything is just oh so funny.  Just like Jason Whitlock did.

On February 13, Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock way-not-funny racist reference to Jeremy Lin (FOX Sports columnist Jason Whitlock tweeted, “Some lucky lady in NYC is going to feel a couple of inches of pain tonight.”)  received minimal press. “Complete review” my ass. Fire someone.  If there is no price to be paid for racism people will keep right on doing it.

Statement on New York Knicks Jeremy Lin Headline

Last night, ESPN.com’s mobile web site posted an offensive headline referencing Jeremy Lin at 2:30 am ET. The headline was removed at 3:05 am ET. We are conducting a complete review of our cross-platform editorial procedures and are determining appropriate disciplinary action to ensure this does not happen again. We regret and apologize for this mistake.

And I can’t say I blame them.  After Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar told the MLK Foundation and the world that 47 words would replace 10 on the side of the MLK Memorial — many wondered what some of the biggest supporters of the memorial felt about the plan.  If you say you believe the words should be changed you side against the people (led by Alpha brother Harry Johnson of Texas who did all the work for 15 years) who made the MLK Memorial happen. If you say the memorial should be left alone or adjusted in another way you side against the King family, the Obama Administration and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

And with that in mind it is no surprise that when I asked John Lewis (on Friday) and Al Sharpton (on Thursday) what should happen with the MLK Memorial they didn’t weigh in.  Rev. Al said he had to speak with Martin King III first and Lewis, walking into his office from a voter suppression event, said he didn’t want to comment yet.

For Lewis and Sharpton a simple comment could blow the thing up even bigger and feed a situation that is a growing fiasco.  Let’s face it: Everyone loves the King Memorial.  There isn’t much anyone can do to change that — even if there is an adjustment to be made here or there in the future.

SEE UPDATE to STORY @ POLITIC365.

Officials from the Commerce Department met with members of Congress yesterday to inform them of the Obama Administration’s plans to close all regional Offices of Minority Business Development.

According to members at the briefing the reason given was cost savings. The Office of Minority Business Development has a total budget of $30 million dollars.

The five regional offices are located in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The Office of Minority Business Development’s mission is to promote competitiveness and provide access to capital and contracts to minority businesses.  In 1969 Richard Nixon established the Office of Minority Business Enterprise by executive order. In 1979 the name was changed to the Office of Minority Business Development.

Present at the meeting were Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX), Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Judy Chu (D-CA) and Reps. Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Mike Honda (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Bobby Scott (D-VA), G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) and Bobby Rush (D-IL) among others.

Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) was not at the meeting because he had to travel to Kansas City, his district.

Several members who attended the meeting expressed concern about the regional offices closing and were unenthusiastic upon hearing the news.  The members cited concerns that contracting for minority business is already challenging and may be made even more problematic by the closings.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) who added language to create an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion to the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform bill, commented on the closings.

Like many other members, Waters was unsure of what the effect of the closings would be.  She said she would talk to business leaders in her district saying, “I’ll be calling my Chamber of Commerce people” and several others. Waters was not at the briefing but had heard of the closings prior to the meeting.

Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) who is the ranking Democrat on the House Small Business Committee said the move was an effort to consolidate offices and bring “things under one umbrella.”  Though Velazquez was not in the briefing with Commerce officials she was aware that the five offices would be closed.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee expressed dismay about the closing and called the move “not good.”  Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) a Republican who was once on the House Small Business Committee said consolidation was “a good idea.”

Several members pointed out that the the work of the regional offices might be best done on the local office level but still fear the office closings would effect minority businesses.  They were also concerned about whether the current employees will be reassigned to local offices or cut completely.

Several members of Congress sent a letter dated February 10 to Commerce Secretary John Bryson expressing concerns on minority business efforts. The meeting yesterday was effectively the answer to that correspondence.

The press contact for the Offices of Minority Business Development was in a meeting at the time of this filing.

Also at http://politic365.com/2012/02/17/sharpton-cbc-join-forces-on-voter-suppression/

Though to coincide with history the march is on a week Congress is in session, about 12 members of the Congressional Black Caucus will join National Action Network President Rev. Al Sharpton for a March from Selma to Montgomery beginning on March 4th READ DETAILS HERE.  Additionally, the CBC will have a voter protection tour that will include voter registration and voter ID.  Lacy Clay will have an event in St. Louis that Rev. Sharpton will attend on March 16th that will include voter registration.

At a press conference today in the U.S. Capitol, Rev. Sharpton was joined by CBC members Lacy Clay, Frederica Wilson, Hansen Clarke, Sheila Jackson Lee, Gwen Moore and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Charlie Gonzalez to speak out against voter suppression and inform reporters about Sharpton’s Selma march.

All the details of the Selma march against voter suppression can be found RIGHT HERE on the National Action Network website.  Below is video from today’s event and a page of information on the march from the National Action Network website.  To go directly to the National Action Network’s DETAILED info  on the march click here.  

On Sunday, March 04^th, 2012 – Friday, March 09^th, 2012, with the voting rights laws and immigration laws passing in America, we will march to protect our rights and the rights of our children!

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is widely considered a landmark in civil-rights legislation, though some of its provisions have sparked political controversy.

Join the March! Call 877-626-4651 & Fill out Registration Below.

The Selma to Montgomery March consisted of three different marches in 1965 that marked the political and emotional peak of the American Civil Rights Movement. These three marches grew out of the voting rights movement in Selma, Alabama, launched by local African Americans who formed the Dallas County Voters League. The first march took place on Sunday, March 7, when 600 civil rights marchers, assembled on Brown Chapel. This day became known as “Bloody Sunday”-when the civil rights marchers were attacked by state and local police with billy clubs and tear gas as they tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The second march took place on March 9; it was known as “Turn Around Tuesday.” Only the third march, which began on March 21 and lasted five days, made it to Montgomery, 51 mile (82km) away. The marchers averaged 10 miles (16km) a day along U.S. Route 80, known in Alabama today as “Jefferson Davis Highway.” Protected by 2, 000 soldiers of the U.S. Army, 1,900 members of the Alabama National Guard under Federal command, and many FBI agents and Federal Marshals, they arrived in Montgomery on March 24, and at the Alabama Capital building on March 25, 1965. National and international attention of the march highlighted the struggle, the adversity, the violence as well as the determination of the Selma protestors. As a result of the media coverage worldwide, Congress rushed to enact legislation that would guarantee voting rights for all Americans. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on August 6, 1965. Click here for more history.

When: Sunday, March 04^th, 2012- Friday, March 09^th, 2012

Here’s how to get involved:
If you want to participate in the commemoration of Bloody Sunday and other Jubilee Activities from March 1^st- 5^th log onto http://www.bcjubilee.org/
**This includes the actual crossing of Edmund Pettus Bridge.