The Rebuking and Scorning of Cynthia McKinney

[reprehensor]

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2217/The_Rebuking_and_Scorning_of_Cynthia_McKinney

The Rebuking and Scorning of Cynthia McKinney

by David Vest

"Invisibility looks good on you"

A Washington press corps that stood idly by while Bush and Cheney plundered the country, wrecked the environment, spied on Americans without a warrant, tortured civilians and lied the country into a war that will only get worse, woke up one morning and collectively decided: “Let’s all play Get Cynthia!”

...

Let’s get her because, hell, she practically volunteered for it, and besides, she’s an easy target, standing practically alone, fired upon at will by Republicans—who seem to think her story cancels out DeLay, Abramoff, Katrina and Iraq—and virtually undefended by Democrats, except by the rolling of eyes heavenward, as though to say, “Oh, please! We’re not responsible for HER!”

Rep. Cynthia McKinney has now apologized for her part in the face-off at Checkpoint Cynthia. It was not enough to stop the cartooning of the coverage. Already the news wires are spinning her statement as a complete about-face, an abandonment of everything else she has said about the incident. Look, she said there was racial profiling in Washington! Look, now she’s apologizing!

...

She stood alone in 2002, when power brokers in her own party recruited a Reagan Republican stalking horse to defeat her, after McKinney expressed support for Palestinian rights and was among the first to call for an investigation of the Bush Administration after 9/11. The party line at that time was that “we’ve all got to stand behind the president” in the Wonderful War on Terror.

more@link

THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT ONE YEAR LATER... A CITIZENS’ RESPONSE – DID THE COMMISSION GET IT RIGHT?

[ShortnFiery]

1. Has anyone, besides myself, for whatever reasons ... reached

BURN-OUT on analyzing the few facts that we have ...

Can't we just "let it rest" until the jerk-offs in Karl Rove's office allow the Capitol Hill Police to dispense of the INANE issue without action?

Probably not, but I can dream, can't I? :P

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Please, let this die.

Even the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't agree with her. So the part where they imply Democrats are racist for not standing by her is completely asinine.

She apologized, no one is talking about this any more, and it's not even close to a winnable fight. Just let it die.

[ShortnFiery]

3. Yeah, something like that ...

<biting tongue> sure - no reading on CBC nor admission of guilt by CW McKinney ...

But I defer to Vash - in a way = let's wait until the results are in (Rove lets go after she's fully "swift-boated")?

*edit by the spelling and grammar police. :P

[1monster]

4. Let it die? Why? Injustice has been done to this woman. Not so

much just the incident so overly reported, but the fact that she has been denied her seniority by her own party because she has had the termerity to speak out against the hallowed, revered, royal, and most high, Our Precious and Sagacious Leader, George W. Bush.

God have mercy! The woman actually questioned what George Bush knew about the threats for commercial airplane strikes against the U.S. and when he knew it (there were at least seven separate warnings from different countries more than a month before). Definitely NOT a team player. Let's discredit every thing she says and does. Maybe we can even muzzle her like Sybil Edwards was muzzled.

She has been targeted, disrespected, insulted, and maligned ever since she demanded answers about the events leading up to 9/11. She's been there for Katrina refugees. She's fighting for us and the survival of this country as we once knew it.

It's time we started fighting for her, too. Until evidence is offered (perhaps the surveillance tape), then Cynthia is innocent. It's time we stood up for people who are standing up for us against odds that would destory other people.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Sorry - but I don't buy it.

Almost NO ONE buys it. Even the Congressional Black Caucus doesn't buy it.

My question is - why do you?

[ShortnFiery]

6. Oh STOP! For the love of all that is basic civility!

You just push and push and push ... but you don't know.

And NO! Just because the CBC wishes to "keep their powder dry" does not give you permission to make ill-informed attributions.

You and I have tangled before and it is not pretty.

How about just, for once, we back off from each other and make a clean break?

[seemslikeadream]

12. The highest respect for the law

I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
— Martin Luther King Jr.

[ShortnFiery]

15. Yah, quoting a NARCO - reference site

I just know you are not part of my NORML club. LOL

Shit, I'm late to lunch. :blush: bye :hi:

[Catrina]

8. Maybe you should read Mike Ruppert's recent article

on Cynthia McKinney ~ and Rep. Sheila Jackson Leigh did back Rep. McKinney on an important issue in this matter, as did Ruppert. Too bad we have a bunch of wimps in the Democratic Party. They certainly didn't back the base of their own party with many of their votes over the past few years, so it's no surprise they would back away from their own. That means nothing, like Cynthia, I've felt pretty betrayed by them myself for a number of years.

As Ruppert says, he has personally observed on numerous occasions the 'different treatment of Cynthia McKinney' ~ and that IS an important issue.

Who said the CBC 'doesn't buy it', btw? That they don't want conflict is one thing, but at least one highly respected member has publicly stated there is reason to be concerned about 'different' treatment of black, women members of Congress by the CHP.

Oh, and why do you 'buy' the word of someone (if he has spoken at all, that is) you know nothing about, not even his name? Or what he himself has said, over the word of a woman who has fought courageously and TOLD THE TRUTH CONSISTENTLY about issues that are supposedly the concern of true Democrats?

Where is this cop? Why don't we know something about him? And why has the video not been released? I believe Ms. McKinney's version of the incident because

1) I have never known her to lie before and
2) I am very suspicious of a cop who is in hiding. Until he speaks for himself, I have no reason to NOT believe Ms.Kinney.

What is your reasoning? That the rightwing talking points make sense to you despite their ever-changing nature? I can't think of any other reason. They certainly haven't proven anything, nor shown any inclination to do so.

Also, when someone compares a US Congresswoman to a 'ghetto slut' rather than seek the truth, they kind of lose me, especially if they have Tom (king of ethics) Delay on their side.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. Let's see

1) The accuser is NOT affiliated with the person who called her a slut. It's just some asshole right-winger trying to make a mountain out of a molehill - which is exactly what this is in ANY case.

2) Your "blame the victim" mentality is asinine. Are we blaming the victim in the Duke Lacross Rape case? Are we "suspicious" of her because she hasn't made a public stand? Just ridiculous.

3) I buy the word of the cop because McKinney herself does not deny hitting him. Hell, if I had ONLY heard her side of the story so far, I'd STILL think she were guilty. You don't hit an officer, period. EVER. That's the law. And further, there's no excuse for her not wearing her lapel pin. And even further, even Rep. Jackson-Lee in her "support" said that she is frequently not recognized by Capitol Police and asked to go through the screening. Not a single Congressperson always gets recognized if they're not wearing their pin. There's not a single fragment in this issue where she's right. That's why I buy it.

4) If it were really racism, racism that affects one of their members DIRECTLY, you honestly think they'd lay low? If anything, the CBC has NEVER been accused of laying low and playing it safe. Why are they starting now?

[Catrina]

23. Well, it seems there are some answers to all of your questions

Thank to those whose instincts and their knowledge of McKinney as a truthteller, caused them to doubt the rightwing generated media reports of this incident, some further digging has revealed that Cynthia McKinney and the CBC had information the media CHOSE not to reveal!! Interesting indeed.

It seems that the CBC have been involved in the lawsuit filed by the 250 black CHP members against the Dept. for racial discrimination, Cynthia being a member of the CBC was certainly aware of this suit, and perhaps, like the black cops themselves, a target of those who resented the lawsuit:

but Myart pointed to a discrimination suit filed by more than 250 black officers against the department.

‘We are incensed and embarrassed at having to deal with these same systemic issues of discrimination against African American officers in our own U.S. Capitol Police force, now in the 21st century.’

Congressional Black Caucus Letter to U.S. Capitol Police Board and Chief

The truth is hard to find in today's media, but it has a way of getting out when good people refuse to take things at face value, especially when their coverage raises some serious and unanswered questions.

It's clear now why, in public, the CBC advised MsKinney not to take on the CHP over the incident at this time, since even black cops themselves have been subjected to harrassment. She may indeed have been a target being that the CBC supported this unpopular lawsuit.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. That doesn't make ANY sense.

Wouldn't this case prove the CBC's point? If so, wouldn't it benefit them to be as loud as possible in defense? I don't see how not defending McKinney is in any way a wise move if it proves their point in the case against the Capitol Police.

[JohnyCanuck]

19. Oh goodness gracious, Ruppert is a conspiracy theorists.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:


Since, he wears a tin foil hat, anything he says can be discounted out of hand without consideration or further examination, including any thing he writes in defense of Cynthia McKinney. He has even had a book published "Crossing the Rubicon, The decline of the American empire at the end of the age of oil which accuses Dick Cheney of being in charge of the war games on 9/11 which "coincidentally" led to confusion and delays in the NORAD response to the initial reports of hijacked aircraft. Imagine that!

Link to Ruppert's article: THE BELOVED CYNTHIA McKINNEY, A White Ex Cop Speaks Out About a Georgia Congresswoman

We know why everyone want Cynthia to sit down and shutup. You are only supposed to rock the boat just so far. Rock it too hard by bringing up questions in public that are too embarrassing for boths Dems and Repubs to examine, and the boat might actually tip over completely. Can't have that.

[1monster]

9. Read the article posted by the OP in this thread for a bit of background.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x904732

Perhaps you are unaware that Cynthia was targeted by the GOP in the election before last simply for having the guts to demand answers about 9/11 (answers we still haven't been given).

She sat out two years and when she returned to Congress, contrary to regular practice, she was treated as a Freshman representative, rather than being given recognition of her past service as a member of the House of Representatives. By her own party and by the Congressional Black Caucus. Why? Even if they disagree with everything she says and does, that doesn't explain or excuse such blatant discrimination.

As for the whole-being-stopped-by-the-CHPO-for-not-wearing-the-Congress-member-pin: That pin is perhaps a half an inch in diameter. She was wearing her distinctive Congressiona Identification badge which is much bigger. That alone is enough to doubt the the veracity of the stories coming from the GOP regarding the incident.

And you are aware, of course, that it was the GOP who released this story in the first place aren't you? That means they got to frame the story any way they chose. And the first teller's story always gets the most attention.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. A few points of note

1) Yes, I'm aware. Are you aware that the Capitol Police is NOT ruled by a political party?

2) There are only around 540 pins, yet over 10,000 nearly identical ID badges, which every Capitol employee wears. Further, that is the protocol - you can take issue with that if you want, but it IS the protocol. She broke protocol, and even if she didn't, taking issue with protocol is NO excuse for hitting an officer.

3) Why would the Congressional BLACK Congress discriminate against their own member? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Catrina]

20. So why doesn't everyone wear their pin? Do you know how many

other congresspersons did not wear their pins and were treated the way McKinney was? This question has been asked, but as yet, no answer from the CHP.

The CBC did not discriminate against their own member. They advised her, counseled her, most likely aware, as articulated by Sheila Jackson Leigh, of the truth of McKinney's statements, and deciding to let the situation calm down for the moment, because they expect the truth to come out under less heated circumstances.

Please check the link regarding the lawsuit filed by 250 black CHP officers if you think there are no racial problems within the department. Apparently at least 250 of their own officers disagree with you.

[NYCGirl]

21. This article says they all usually do:

http://www.slate.com/id/2139273/?nav=navoa

The U.S. Capitol Police referred the case of Rep. Cynthia McKinney to the Department of Justice on Monday. The congresswoman allegedly struck an officer last week after he stopped her and requested her credentials. McKinney called the incident racial profiling and said the officers should recognize members of the House even if they're not wearing their official lapel pins: "It is true that at the time I was not wearing my pin. But many Members of Congress aren't wearing their pins today." How many members of Congress actually wear their official pins?

Most of them do—at least in the House. With 435 representatives walking around, it can be hard for staffers, lobbyists, and police officers to remember who's who. Even the members themselves sometimes rely on the pins to identify their colleagues. Each election cycle brings 30 or 40 (or even 87) new faces to the floor, and the pins help the veterans and the freshmen to get acquainted. The official Senate pin isn't as popular, since there's less turnover and fewer people to keep track of.

Each chamber has its own pin, and the designs change from year to year. In the House, the chair of the Administration Committee gets to choose the pin.* Some designs are more popular than others: Rep. Mark Foley told Roll Call he thought the newest design was "stunning. I didn't think much of the last pin and I didn't wear it often—it looked like it was trying to accomplish too much."

You don't have to wear your pin, but it's the best way to get past the security lines if the guards don't know your face. In the Roll Call article, Foley declared himself "not a big pin-wearer, I don't like to damage the suits." Cynthia McKinney has refused to wear her pin for more than 10 years.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. I've answered it for you in other threads.

I know for a fact I have.

Yes. They ALL have gotten stopped.

[Catrina]

26. Please provide a link to that. Because I personally have witnessed

members of Congress going in and out of Congress without wearing their pins. You can also see those who do wear them, and those who don't, on a regular basis without going to DC at all. All you need do is watch footage on C-Span. The pin is easily identifiable, and you are simply wrong, since members of Congress have not denied forgetting to wear their pin.

As for the CHP? In view of the lawsuit against them by their own officers, and the harrassment of those who are involved in the suit, including the CBC, their word on the pins, means little at this point. Especially since they've been contradicted by members of Congress ~

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Perhaps you should read my post again.

Or perhaps you're intentionally distorting it, because little of what you said reconciles against what I actually did.

[Catrina]

34. I did read your post. You said they 'all have gotten stopped'

I disputed that, but asked for your proof of your statement ~ so far, no proof, not from you, not from anyone, but proof to the contrary ~ that they all DO NOT wear their pins, and no, they all do NOT get stopped.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. You're skewing.

I didn't say they all ALWAYS get stopped, which is what you're trying to say I'm saying. I said they've all gotten stopped in the past at some point. Even the highest of the high go unrecognized and are asked to go through the metal detectors. And for proof, just look at the Sheila Jackson Lee interview. She says it herself.

[Catrina]

53. Actually no, you did not say 'they all have gotten stopped in the past at

some point'. Maybe that's what you meant to say, but please do not accuse me of deliberately misinterpreting what you actually said which was Yes. They ALL have gotten stopped. You have now added to that statement. I am not a mind-reader, I can only read what you write, not what you're thinking.

I care about facts, not someone's assumptions.

We now have knowledge of a lawsuit, backed by the CBC claiming that there is racism in the CHP dept. That seems to back McKinney's claims, which many here said had no basis in fact. Now, we know it does.

I think I would have more respect for those who previously were unaware of this, but did not believe her, were they to acknowledge that apparently she did have a basis for her statements. And that she is backed by members of both the CHP dept AND the CBC in the claim of racism.

You were all wrong on at least this point. I know it's difficult to admit being wrong, but it does gain respect, credibility and a degree of understanding when someone does so.

This is what was demanded of McKinney by those who chose to believe she was wrong, that she admit it. We now see she had no need to do so, the very least they can now do is to admit that THEY were wrong.

Perhaps you should read what happened to at least one female black Capitol Hill Police officer when she dared to ask for justice within the department. This explains McKinney's statement that she has always 'supported the CHP'. She did, as did the entire Black Caucus

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

72. You know what? I've had enough of this.

It's really not worth debating this with you. You've skewed everything so that it nicely fits your side, but you can't dispute a damn thing I've said. Good bye.

[Catrina]

82. When I have facts on my side, I never back off ~ but to each his own

I have given you facts and links, I have pointed out that you misspoke about your own quotes. Sorry if the truth hurts, but in the end, it's a lot less painful than the other alternative.

Sorry, also, the facts have gotten in the way of your 'opinion' of Cynthia McKinney ~ it's never pleasant to have our core 'beliefs' disturbed by facts. I know, it's happened to me on occasion, so I understand. Still I take this as a good sign that the truth, and I'm sure there's lots more we don't know yet, like why they're hiding the ID of the cop involved, will come out. I've learned a lot about this incident today. I know it doesn't gel with the McKinney basher's original claims, but so be it.

Have a nice day ~ I'm off to the beach ~ :hi:

[Karenina]

42. CHP, Nepotism and the Good Ol' Boys Club...

Capitol Police Chief Resigns
Gainer Appointed In 2002

Kathy Patterson Needs to Deal With Terrance Gainer
David F. Power

(snip)
Executive Assistant Police Chief Terrance Gainer seems particularly out of control. Gainer's concept of how to police legal protests is confused. Gainer's approach is bound to cost D.C. taxpayers millions of dollars in damages, unless Ms. Patterson can quickly steer the MPD to get appropriate legal advice. For example, Gainer admitted that MPD has sent undercover casual clothes officers into private residences to attend and report on private meetings of D.C. citizens. When one of the private citizens objected publicly to the Post, Gainer told the Post, “It would seem to me that these so-called peaceful groups are doing counterintelligence work . . . . What nefarious things are they up to that they need to keep tabs on police?” Gainer should have consulted legal counsel (if MPD has any) before sending police agents into private residences to listen and report on private conversations concerning lawful citizen activity protected and encouraged by the first amendment. Any law student who has covered the first and fourth amendments will recognize that Gainer admitted to a per se violation of civil rights. The FBI was forced to adopt specific rules against exactly what Gainer allowed his snitches to do: police and FBI have no lawful right to breach the privacy of a private residence or private conversations in a private residence without a warrant and without probable cause to believe that a criminal act is being committed. Sending police agents into private homes with instructions to remain unidentified specifically in order to breach the privacy of conversations about political activities is a blatant violation of the first and fourth amendments. Civil rights statutes permit and encourage private citizens to seek monetary damages from state or municipal police agents who engage in that conduct; Gainer's and MPD's actions during the World Bank protests already resulted in multiple lawsuits; the city will suffer substantial financial damage if Gainer is not stopped.

http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/2000/00-12-31.htm

EXCERPT FROM LAW SUIT

This complaint is the most recent in a series of lawsuits with a shared factual allegation: That the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department's Civil Disturbance Units maintain and execute unconstitutional tactics to disrupt lawful protest and assembly including specifically the routine use of mobile police lines to interfere with freedom of association, assembly, speech and free movement; and the use of administrative detention, false imprisonment and false arrest tactics in which the CDUs will trap protesters (and others in physical proximity) on all sides, seize, detain and arrest those trapped/seized in the absence of probable cause. These actions are accomplished through the use of paramilitary force and threat of force in order to deprive, interfere with, and deter the exercise of constitutionally protected rights. . .

The conduct challenged is neither aberrational nor the consequence of overzealous but well intentioned law enforcement. It was the implementation of a pre-designed plan to engage in unconstitutional preemptive arrests intended to round-up political activists and lock them up in the absence of probable cause. U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer testified - before the protests - that he and D.C. police had discussed preemptive action against protesters.

When one plaintiff asked why she was being arrested and whether she could please go free, one officer candidly explained that she was being arrested because she was displaying political "propaganda." Others were let out apparently based on their perceived loyalty to the government. The Washington Post reported that police lines yielded for at least one detainee when he displayed a Department of Justice identification card. . .

(snip)

DEPARTMENT OF PRE-CRIME -"I don't know why we have to wait until after they've inflicted damage." - Capitol police chief Terrance Gainer

(snip)
THE CAPITAL'S TOP COPS are talking about the upcoming IMF-World bank more like Mike Tyson before a fight than like professional police officers in a democracy. Chief Charles Ramsey and US Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer (formerly Ramsey's assistant) set a bad precedent with their law and constitution-battering approach to the April 2000 demonstrations including illegal raids and mass arrests - consequences of which are still in court. But this time Gainer even talked about getting an injunction against the protesters until someone at the US Attorney's office apparently briefed him on the Constitution. Now he's threatening to charge people who discommode the sidewalk under federal anti-racketeering statutes, which is like shooting a parking violator.

(snip)

http://prorev.com/dcprotest902.htm
=====

Gainer’s resignation could have ‘chilling effect’
By Jackie Kucinich

The sudden retirement of Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer, who stepped down Friday after allegations of nepotism surfaced, is raising numerous questions that remain unanswered.

Jim Pasco, executive director of the national Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), questioned the validity of the nepotism charge against Gainer, explaining that law enforcement has a “proud tradition” of having several members of a family serve on the same force.

“Generations go into the same department,” he said. “All federal agencies have fathers, sons, daughters serving together.”

He speculated that Gainer’s assertive leadership on national-security issues could have offended members of Congress and staff who might have reacted by trying to push him out.

“Gainer was an extraordinarily articulate chief and shortly became the go-to guy on national-security issues,” Pasco said. “There was a certain amount of jealousy of that.”

During the past few years, Gainer repeatedly clashed with some congressional appropriators over budget proposals, which many House members considered extravagant. Last year, House members of the Appropriations Committee stripped the Capitol Police of its mounted horse unit.

“It’s like having to report to a 535-member City Council,” Pasco said. “The best way to make yourself a target in D.C. is to stand out.”


Gainer’s retirement “could have a chilling effect on proactive, preventative law enforcement,” he said. “You need a guy who thinks strategically as well as tactically as Gainer does.”

(snip)

It is still unclear how and why Gainer was alerted to a 1967 law barring agency heads from hiring relatives. When asked how the information was initially communicated to him and why it had been brought up several years after his son-in-law had been hired, House and Senate aides said they were unsure.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/030706/gainer.html


POSTED: 11:22 pm EST March 3, 2006
UPDATED: 10:25 am EST March 4, 2006

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said he has resigned after there were objections to the hiring of his son-in-law on the police force.

Gainer told a local radio station that he did not intend to break any law. But he said "the law was pretty clear: One of the two of us had to go." Gainer says his son-in-law is quitting the force as well.

The U.S. Capitol police force is in charge of protecting the 535 members of Congress as well as about 200 square blocks around the Capitol building.

(snip)

http://www.nbc4.com/news/7667663/detail.html

[Catrina]

55. That deserves a thread of its own imo ~ along with this

Black U.S. Capitol Police threaten second lawsuit


WASHINGTON (FinalCall.com) - When the Black U.S. Capitol Police filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Government in 2001, they expected to get justice. What they say they’ve gotten is retaliation and they’re threatening a second class action suit.

The officers took their case to Capitol Hill July 30 for a press conference alleging the Capitol Police department’s pattern of filing excessive and unfounded disciplinary charges against prominent members of the class action, as well as a pattern of harassment, including exclusion of class members from the U.S. Capitol Complex and a series of auto tampering, break-ins and vandalism of class members’ automobiles.


........

When will someone become accountable for the blatant acts of discrimination the African American officers have had to endure throughout our tenure? How can we be responsible for egregious acts committed against us?" he asked.


In Officer Bolden-Whitaker’s case, she refused to sign a form without being given an explanation of what she was signing. Officer Field allegedly was punished because, in a break room full of officers at lunch, he did not have his radio on, even though, he said, there is no clear requirement that officers keep their radios on while they are off duty during their uncompensated lunch breaks.


http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_956.shtml

Sounds familiar?? Repub talking point:

'She did not have her pin on, even thought there's no requirement etc. etc.
'
'He did not have his radio on, even though there's no clear requirement etc, etc.'

No, the Capitol Hill Police would NEVER discrimate against a black female, cop, congresswoman or otherwise!! :sarcasm:

The Congressional Black Caucus, which includes McKinney, was onboard with this lawsuit. Surely the CHP would not hold this against Rep. McKinney? Or, as implied in her cautious statement, Rep. Sheila Jackson Leigh and other black members of Congress?

Seems there's way more to this story than at first we knew, and of course our crack media reporters, dealt only with the RNC memo on the 'incident'. We should have known! I guess some of us suspected.

Thanks for all your research ~ makes you wonder why the McKinney cop is still 'anonymous'!

[Karenina]

94. Would you do the honors, Catrina?

:hug:

[ThomCat]

56. A lot of us "buy it."

It appears obvious to us that she's being targetted and cast-out because she's outside the big-money, DLC approved circles. She stands up there with Kucinich, but he has the protection of being white and male.

Even being white and male, Kucinich gets a lot of the same garbage press. he's considered "to radical to take seriously." He's "outside the mainstream."

I don't see why you and other people here don't see this and don't support the true progressives we have in DC. It's not like there are so many of them that we can afford to lose one by sitting on our hands and allowing witch hunts.

[cali]

7. I'm with Vash.

Let it die. Raising a big stink about Ms. McKinney's lack of seniority isn't going to do anything for her, and it's just divisive. Ms. McKinney has apologized, and hopefully nothing will come of the GJ. I mean really, what do you have in mind when you say we should stand up for her? Endless posts about how she's getting screwed by the leadership and not geting enough support from the left? How will that help?

[ShortnFiery]

11. You've always been with Vash, doesn't make you any more

special than any of the rest of this MB.

Newsflash: She has NOT claimed guilt.

Please tell: What motivates you venomously SLAM CW McKinney on so little evidence?

It's just "sick" - the specious attributions you, "Hang McKinney out to dry" folks try to sell to us.

Just perhaps, you could try first looking DEEP into your heart and soul before you viciously condemn her on little to no evidence? It's like you're on a mission (from God?) - a hate filled mission? I know that above is far too much to ask, but I'll be damned if I'll waste another afternoon sparring with you.

Everyone knows the personas who will condemn without evidence.

Your reputations now proceed you. You're busted! :thumbsdown: :smoke:

Now I have a real world to enjoy ... It's a beautiful day in the D.C. area. :hi: :nuke:

[cali]

29. Your post is contemptible and filled with falsehoods.

I have never slammed McKinney, not viciously or any other way. In fact, I started a thread about how I support her, and why. I have been cautious on the whole matter, and I still am, but I expressed clearly that I felt that people were going after her on this as a pretext for another agenda. You posted on that thread, so you must know that you're prevaricating here.

As for sparring with me, don't. I prefer not to engage with people who wouldn't know the truth if it hit them upside the head.

Let me repeat: Your post is contemptible, and so by extension........

[ShortnFiery]

44. I was using the Generic You ...

Granted, I apologize to have lumped you in with the "hate McKinney crowd."

Yes, I was wrong there ... excuse me -

I WILL CORRECT AND REPHRASE: On this issue, you're all over the map! :scared:

I stand corrected.

No prevarication here (or lying even :P). :hi:

[cali]

32. LOL,

editing your post was a good idea, but the slight changes you made, don't absolve you from the false claims you're making.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. Cali, don't bother

If it's who I think it is, I've decided to ignore her posts because she lied to me too.

[ShortnFiery]

40. I did not ... There was written proof that the Cap. Hill police study

FACE RECOGNITION.

You have flat out called me "a liar," "a racist" and "a lunatic" ...

Yet still, I remain so fond of your person. :hug: :hi:

We all have our cross to bear. ;)

[ShortnFiery]

38. Oh gosh Cali, you're just one BIG mystery!

Tis' true, who the hell knows exactly where you stand? First you're against McKinney (April 2-3 posts) Then you have some sort of enlightenment - begin a thread where, Shazam! You are now with McKinney! But today (this thread) you think it's cool to side with the opposition.

No, I did not lie, I was MISTAKEN - yes, I mistaken you for Mondo Joe. Until I started researching your posts, I did not realize that YOUR POSITIONS on this MB comes across to me like a weather vane?!?

Stop the prevarication contest for you have little to rise above me with in your opinions. You can't get caught in a misconception, or heaven forbid, <shriek> a LIE. Why not? Because you're like my Nephew, you'll tap dance (to the left then to the right) and act fair and intellectual ... but you can only be pinned down when the verdict comes down - then you'll boast, "SEE! I told you."

You have no right to discredit me while you're sharpening your blades on those "waffle skates."

But the Junior High tag-team play above was really CLASSY. :P

[cali]

45. It's difficult to make much sense out

of your largely illiterate posts. Let me make it clear: I have never attacked McKinney. I no more attacked her than did Will Pitt or Skinner who both posted cogent threads on their thoughts regarding this affair. Like them, I took a cautious approach, as have many others here. Nuance, it is easy to see, is not one of your strong suits. I don't know enough about what transpired between Cynthia McKinny and the Capitol Hill Police to pass judgement. That's not waffling. It's called witholding judgement and keeping an open mind; something you, alas, exhibit very little of.

You really shold try and keep it together rather than repeatedly flying off the handle and accusing people of saying things they never said. Ranting does not an intelligent argument make.

[ShortnFiery]

52. You and Vash have something in common :-)

So now I'm "illiterate" to Vash's "liar" You two just give me too much credit. :hi:

Shhh! Don't tell my Thesis Chair that :cry: or I won't be able to get my Proposal past him. :blush: :P

Oh, Will Pitt and Skinner, perhaps you too (with Vash) also rant ... in your own, you don't know who I know ... a sort of <wink wink> "name dropping" way? Perhaps, just a little?

I think we have both skimmed the bottom of the barrel. I'm motivated out of respect and faith I have in CW McKinney's person. Yes, I get a little taken away at times because it seems so unfair to her person ... I feel that it's important to defend her. What motivates you and Vash to start threads? I have not been so motivated as to have started a thread on this ... so perhaps I'm just in a defense posture?

[ShortnFiery]

41. dupe - self delete

[mondo joe]

83. Part of a long list of false statements.

My favorite being these two contradictory statements:

1. "I never said that I worked IN POLITICS in D.C."

and

2. "$35 K a year for a lobbyist? I was one of the 'beltway bandits' for years."

[cali]

89. Are you sure you've responded to the right person?

Because I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. I didn't make either of those statements. Your post indicates that you were responding to post #32. That was mine, but.....

[mondo joe]

90. My post was intended as support for your post -

by pointing out other examples of falsehoods by that poster - not saying you said them.

Sorry!

[ShortnFiery]

91. You're forgiven Mondo Joe :-)

After all we have become fast friends. How many times does this make that you've rabbit punched me with inappropriate and untrue insults? Information which is true - I have NOT worked in politics in D.C. I HAVE held a Security Clearance though. And yes, to me, just my personal opinion, $35 K seems low on a pay scale for a lobbyist. That's just MY opinion from the outside looking in buddy. How much was Abrahoff paid? ;)

Why are you SEEMINGLY always following me ... er ... let me rephrase, why do you often end up insulting me on the side in McKinney threads? We must stop meeting like this. Psst! I've noted the forgoing to you before but you really should listen to me. You know that it's a no-no to do this repeatedly, don't you?

I know that you'll control yourself in the future.

I know that you're better than what your recent behavior may suggest.

I like you Joe. If you're nothing else, you're persistent on one theme. :hi:

[mondo joe]

92. I've presented your own statements.

If your own contradictory statements "insult" you, then you insult yourself.

[ShortnFiery]

93. And my statements stand as true ...

Really, as I stated before - we've got to stop meeting like this ... people will think we are an item. ;)

Having only worked in Security Fields within the D.C. area I'm not entitled to an OPINION to what I think lobbyist are paid? Really? Yes, MY opinion - to the best of my knowledge, I have not even associated with a lobbyist. I'm just a former "beltway bandit" - it means working for private companies serving the beastie - the government.

Joe, you really should stop repeating yourself?

It reflects poorly on you as well as me.

[rinsd]

37. Actually alot of the fighting is due to lunatic McKinney supporters...

...who can't stand anything that isn't praise be said about their hero.

See the author of the article in the OP.

Denise Majette runs against McKinney, she's a Reagan Republican. What a huge stinking load of bullshit.

I consider many McKinney supporters to be like Bush supporters at this point, nothing untoward may be said about dear leader.

[1monster]

16. She stands up for us. One of the very few who does and one of the

even fewer who have from the beginning.

If we don't back and stand with those who stand up for us, pretty soon there will be no one who will stand for us.

Have you never taken notice of how many of our leaders have died in mysterious or criminal (read assassinaton) incidents? And those who don't die have their characters assassinated. Remember Al Gore, a man with a sterling reputation for integrity and honesty being labeled a liar? How 'bout John Kerry? War hero who was then labeled a coward on the same evidence that netted him a silver star?

Those like Cynthia McKinney who won't toe the line are destroyed one way or another by this type of campaign. Unless we put a stop to it.

[mondo joe]

86. Al Gore's sterling reputation? McKinney didn't think much of it.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, she wrote that "Gore's Negro tolerance level has never been too high. I've never known him to have more than one black person around him at any given time."

Never mind that Gore's campaign manager was black.

[ThomCat]

57. Letting her get trashed is divisive.

Helping to trash her is divisive.
Allowing them to set a precident for denying earned seniority is divisive.

Are we going to start having two tiers of representative? The tier of people who are allowed to speak and hold committee possitions, and the tier of those who aren't?

Is that what you are advocating?

[cali]

69. Nope.

I'm not advocating that there be a two tier system for reps. I'm suggesting that the general public, and even advocacy groups have very little impact on the minority leader when it comes to committee position. None of us know why McKinney didn't get her seniority back after her two year gap in service. I don't even know what the usual practice is. I do know that plenty of progressive members and plenty of members of the CBC have good committee assignments. Heck, even my rep does, and he's not even a democrat. I do think McKinney should get her seniority back, but It shouldn't shock anyone that politicians play politics. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some in the party who do want to keep her quiet, though I don't think it has anything to do with racism.

I agree that trashing McKinney is counter productive. But to many of her most fervent defenders, anything less than full throated allegiance to her is considered trashing. I find that almost as bad as trashing her. Sorry, but I've seen disgusting remarks about cops and others from McKinney's supporters. That makes them akin to those that trash her.

[mondo joe]

84. Simply holding people accountable and admitting errors

is not "trashing" except in a purely partisan world.

[ThomCat]

87. "holding people accountable"

becomes something entirely different when you only hold certain people "accountable," and when go out of your way to find reasons to hold those certain people "accountable."

[mondo joe]

88. Indeed. And I don't believe in making exceptions for "some

people" of either party.

We Dems have talked a lot during the * administration about responsibility and how no one is above the law.

We talked about it so much I was lulled into believing we all meant it.

It seems a lot of Dems are very much like Freepers in their willingness to excuse their own.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Hear, hear!!

[rinsd]

27. The injustice coming from her hypocritical defenders....

No one in their right mind can call Denise Majette a Reagan Republican like this author did.

[mondo joe]

54. If injustice was done, she should file suit.

If she's not pursuing it, why not?

[ThomCat]

58. Because that would be political suicide.

It would be nothing but amunition for the republicans.

She loses the least by shutting up and putting up with injustice and abuse. But we lose the most.

Edit for spelling

[mondo joe]

66. So she's just being political?

Okay.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

76. Wait, I thought her zealot followers loved her because she DIDN'T stoop to

being political. So now it's a good thing? I don't understand - perhaps you can clarify this for me.

[ThomCat]

77. You're being deliberately obtuse

Every politician has to manage their career. EveryONE has to manager their career. Rule number one is don't give your opponents ammunition, and if you have already given them some amunition don't give them any more.

So you think she shouldn't have a practical response to all of this? Do you think she should tilt at more windmills and go on a self-defeating quest for justice?

I thought it was your opinion that she goes on too many pointless quests?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

78. But isn't exactly that what everyone bashes people like Ben Nelson for?

And isn't that exactly why people love Rep. McKinney, because she DOESN'T "manage her career" and just "speaks for the people"?

I'm not being obtuse here - I'm just pointing out the possible hypocrisy involved here. It's okay for your guy (or woman) to do it, but no one else can. Interesting double standard involved.

[ThomCat]

80. Nobody says that she should not manager her career.

She's praised for the values she uses while she manages it.

I'm very sorry you don't see that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

81. I'm going to remember you said this.

So, the next time someone votes a particular way because they're from a red state, I'm going to remind you that it's okay to manage one's career. :hi:

[ThomCat]

85. I've never said differently.

So I'm not sure what your point it.

For example, I've always said that I understand why people from rural districts vote against gun control. I believe in gun control, and I support it, but I understand why many dems would never support it.

Supporting gun rights is not the same thing as voting for metaphorically handing out machine guns to kids. I often critisize dems for votes that "hand machine guns to kids."

I hope you're able to see the distinction. I support politicians who support people and real values, not politicians who are corporate whores. And I will speak up when one of the rare good representatives gets targetted and trashed for being outside the status quo.

[seemslikeadream]

10. And everyone likes to watch a hangin’, don’t they?

When’s the last time you heard of someone “assaulting” a cop and being allowed to walk away?

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2006/4/5/221242/7457

[Catrina]

18. Thank you! So the Capitol Hill Police apologized to Cynthia McKinney

after the incident? And the Chief of Police confirmed her story, that she was grabbed first by the cop?

And, very interesting piece of information, there are, apparently racial problems within the CHP department itself ~

but Myart pointed to a discrimination suit filed by more than 250 black officers against the department.

Something maybe, Cynthia knew about ~

Very interesting article ~ too bad some are so quick to believe the ever unbiased MSM :sarcasm: without checking first what the facts may be.

The same media that has admitted using RNC memos when disseminating 'news'! Looks like the by-now infamous media once again neglected to do its homework, and as has become their custom, based its 'interviews' on RNC talking points, the same ones we've seen repeated here on DU over and over again.

[ThomCat]

60. Good post.

Good information. Nice points. Thank you.

[rinsd]

24. Fuck those lies against Majette!

"Reagan Republican stalking horse"

Yeah whatever......

My ass, what a fucking hypocrite, complains about smears against McKinney then smears a good Democrat.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. Pay no attention to that.

Or any other details in this case.

McKinney was framed!!!

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

[rinsd]

31. The details don't matter, the incident was political BS.

The apology was the correct political move to remove this from the spotlight.

I just dont understand why we must revere McKinney so much that we must hate anyone who opposed her even if that person turned out to be a damned good Democrat who I wish was in the Senate right now.

[JohnyCanuck]

35. Because she is the only politician of the whole sorry lot of them

with balls big enough to take on the administration over the 9/11 lies, whitewash and coverup.

THE BELOVED CYNTHIA McKINNEY

A White Ex Cop Speaks Out About a Georgia Congresswoman

by
Michael C. Ruppert

© Copyright 2006, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

SNIP

There are millions of Americans who still have major unanswered questions about the attacks of September 11th. Some are wives, husbands, and children of the victims. Some, like me, are investigative journalists. Many are just average people who could never swallow the galactic inconsistencies of the government account and who have refused to succumb to pressure for conformity. Cynthia McKinney was the one to ask “What did the Bush administration know and when did it know it?” about the scores of detailed warnings received by the administration in the months before the attacks. Contrary to one account from a black commentator recently, she has never retracted that question.

For that question, she was tarred and feathered in the press. From her long-standing support of Palestinian rights and objections to Israeli strong-arm tactics in the occupied territories emerged a new double-edged motive to remove her from congress at all costs. Cynthia McKinney was an un-American, anti-Semitic supporter of terrorists!

SNIP

Cynthia McKinney will tell you that I and the entire 9/11 movement stayed with her loyally throughout her two-year imposed vacation. And I believe she will tell you that it was in part because we organized fundraisers for her and kept her name out there that she made it back—to everyone’s surprise except ours—in 2004.

Cynthia McKinney had been the only member of congress to ask real questions about 9/11. And she didn’t stop or forget when she got back either. More than that, she continued to do—no matter what—the things that her conscience bade her to do as an African-American woman who is anything but a racist (unless you want to refer to the human race). In hearings she questioned Donald Rumsfeld about the multitude of wargame exercises I had identified in my book Crossing the Rubicon. She asked repeated questions about 9/11 in repeated hearings and no one on the Democratic side backed her up when her questions were brushed aside, ignored and forgotten. She also kept up her support for the rights of the oppressed everywhere and she didn’t change one single note of her sheet music or its cadence.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/041106_beloved_mckinney.shtml

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. Sorry, but that doesn't make her infallible.

Even the best of people make mistakes.

[rinsd]

47. Poor McKinney, her defenders are worse than she could ever be

Fucking Ruppert called Majette and oreo for crissakes.

[JohnyCanuck]

49. BOO FUCKIN' HOO n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

74. So you approve of someone using a directed racial slur at Majette?

That makes you a racist. I hope you know that.

[ShortnFiery]

48. Or worthy of our BLESSED forgiveness?

You've started threads and argued in others like your whole being depends on it.

I'm a little out there because I admire her ... so yes, I jump the track a little out of blind FAITH.

But Vash, what motivates you to *dedicate* your last 72+ hours into countering every defense of CW McKinney?

The Inquiring Minds of DU would like to know? <that was a tease!> :-)

Honest, what gives with the passion that you have devoted to this ONE TOPIC?

[rinsd]

46. What a lovely link

I wonder why you choose to snip this passage?

"An Oreo black candidate named Denise Majette emerged as lots of money poured from the coffers of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) funded not only a hate campaign against McKinney, but in support of her opponent as well. Illegally, thousands of Republican voters crossed over to vote for the Oreo in the primary while the seat stayed safely Democratic, and all were quietly relieved when Cynthia didn’t even make it to the general election."

Fuck Michael Ruppert, he called Majette an OREO for crissakes. A white man who now thinks he is black after being a racist cop calls a black woman an oreo?!?!?!

After that I could care less what he says about Cynthia McKinney, his word means shit.

[cali]

50. I also find that offensive

I can't help but wonder how those touting Mr. Ruppert will respond to such a statement. I suppose they'll just ignore it. Too bad, because for the most part, I found his defense of McKinney very touching.

[JohnyCanuck]

51. Good for Rupert. He calls 'em like he sees 'em. n/t

[rinsd]

62. Lovely, well at least now I know to ignore you.

[ThomCat]

63. If you rush to ignore everyone here you disagree with

these boards are going to look very empty. Why are you so insistent about damning CM?

[rinsd]

65. Where am I insistent in damning CM?

If anything its her supporters who I have issues with because I don't like race traitor bs smears especially when its directed at someone I know was a damn good Democrat.

Do you think its okay to call a black woman an oreo? How about a white man doing so?

The poster thinks that okay and support it.

As far as the boards go, I have had many arguments with people that have gotten heated. My ignore list is very small because a difference in philosphy or feelings isn't enough to shut that person out. Continued nasty behavior and racist bullshit like using terms implying one is a traitor to their race, well that poster will join the ignore list.

[ThomCat]

61. You usually make sense.

But I guess everyone has their blind spots.

[reprehensor]

43. Stalking Horse.

I can't speak for the author, but I did post the article.

Majette was a Republican Judge appointed by Zell Miller, encouraged to run as a Dem to take advantage of the Press campaign to take out McKinney the first time she was politically assassinated;

...Denise Majette’s prospects for a second term in Congress were iffy at best. Her 2002 victory was massively assisted by a national media campaign of slander against McKinney. Majette’s racially polarizing campaign concentrated on maximizing the white vote in a district almost evenly split between African American and white voters. Majette joined the Congressional Black Caucus on the strength of less than 20 percent of the black vote, but backed by over 90 percent of an abnormally large white turnout – including tens of thousands of white Republicans who crossed over to vote in the Democratic primary election...

...Like her fellow DLCers, Majette has no progressive message. Her only rallying cry to black Democrats in the general election will be that the other guy is still worse. On the other hand, the DLC’s friends in the corporate media will be delighted to sell Majette to whites as a certifiable “moderate" who had the “courage” to stand against McKinney and the Black Consensus; someone for whom they can safely vote and know that they are not racists after all. They will try to market Majette to black voters any way they can: as a Great Black Hope – or the only Black Hope – and as proof of their discredited thesis that black voters are aching to discover their inner conservatism.

In large and diverse jurisdictions, Democrats run strongest when they have truly progressive social and economic messages and can count on a large and unified black vote. Majette’s failure on both counts would seem to doom her in the primary, and doubly in a general election. What use is a black Democrat who can’t mobilize black voters? A Republican until recently, a protégé of Zell Miller, and a captive of the DLC, AIPAC and other interests, Majette’s entire political act consists of flogging out big numbers of white voters (including Republicans) to vote against black Democrats. But in general elections, Republicans won’t need her; they can win on their own...

http://www.blackcommentator.com/84/84_dixon_georgia.html

[rinsd]

59. I'm talking about the author

The other shitbag Ruppert calls Majette an oreo.

And calling Majette's campaign racial polarizing is laughable in the face of what McKinney has done election after election.

People call Mejette a republican because she said Alan Keyes should be supported as the only black man running for President in 2000 which while I find it misguided given what Alan Keyes is about I can still understand it.

She voted against the IWR, she voted consistently liberal(some stalking horse for the gop) and yet some people cannot get over that fact that Saint McKinney got her ass handed to her.

My favorite is the "documented" claims that Republicans crossed over massively. Two things(and this has been hashed out considerably during the battles after the primary), one is that GA has an open primary. And two GA does not require voters to declare their party affiliation while registering. I'll add a third, exit polls were not conducted by VNS so I am not sure what they are basing their numbers on. I find one quoted to a Republican strategist claiming his "analysis" showed over 24,000 crossover votes. Hmmmm now why would a little guy want to inflate the impact of his efforts at taking down a thorn in his party's side? The AJC found slightly over 3000 registered republicans had voted in the Dem primary. The lawsuit (which she was behind the scenes) was lost. And the "malicious" crossover voting angle is especially funny to me when many registered Democratic Californians voted overwhelmingly for John McCain, including yours truly, in hopes that he still had a shot of stopping George Bush. Of course the Supremes shot that down because CA requires you to declare your affiliation.

[Catrina]

64. Thank you, so Majette was a Republican and a protege of Zell Miller?

And funded by the war-mongering AIPAC currently embroiled in the Pentagon Spy Case ~ and some here want us to view her as a 'good Democrat'! Facts are always more persuasive than emotion ~ thanks for taking the trouble to deliver some. It seems Mike Ruppert had good reasons for his characterization of Ms.Majette.

[rinsd]

68. LOL...."facts"

Do you even know what Majette's voting record was?

"It seems Mike Ruppert had good reasons for his characterization of Ms.Majette."

Hmmmm.....so its okay to call someone a race traitor? I guess I shoudl apologize to the Klan.

[CatWoman]

70. during the primary

I saw Majette at this restaurant I visit routinely for take out lunch.

I tried to approach her, and she was immediately enveloped by her "handlers".

The waitresses there told me that she was all about snubbing the black patrons, and cozying up to the white ones.

I even talked about this on Mike Malloy's show.

I guess they didn't want the black rubbing onto her.

[rinsd]

73. That;'s disconcerting. (nt)

[Catrina]

75. I am gathering facts in order to assess the allegations being made

against Ms. McKinney and now, Ms. Majette, who I do not know. In this thread I have discovered that the Capitol Hill Police have been sued by 250 black CHP officers for discrimation against them. That one of them, a black, female officer was 'punished' for asking a question about a form she was asked to sign, before signing it.

I have also learned that the CBC supported those police officers and that included Cynthia McKinney ~ I now understand a lot more about this 'incident' that I did before reading this thread and following up on the information provided.

I have learned that Ms. Majette was a Republican judge, nominated by Zell Miller which leads me to wonder about the claims that she is a 'good democrat'.

Please, if you want your claims to be considered, post a link to her voting record, I have no idea how she voted.

You have made many claims, but have provided no links to back them up. Was she, or was she not a Republican judge, nominated by Zell Miller before switching parties to run against McKinney? I will click into any links you provide to counter that information, and would be interested in her voting record.

But ranting against either McKinney or Majette won't convince anyone of anything. We have provided many links here that give context to the smearing of Cynthia McKinney ~ and today, I have learned a great deal that supports my instincts about the whole affair and maybe, the reason why we know nothing about the cop involved. That is what I want to know now. Who is he?

[CatWoman]

67. Majette was a bought and paid for whore

and a protege of Zell Miller.

Does that constitute being a "good democrat"?

I resent the fuck out of her.

[rinsd]

71. Majette's voting record....

http://www.issues2000.org/GA/Denise_Majette.htm

She was a better Democrat than most and it would be great if she was in the Senate now.

[Catrina]

79. Thanks, she does have a good overall voting record

The only areas that are questionable are foreign policy, although she did, to her credit, vote against the IWR. And business, that seems to be mixed. Otherwise her record is good.

[Kailassa]

95. Oreo was a well deserved insult, when used about Majette.

Majettte was a Black who was selling out to the Whites.

Like an oreo, black on the outside, but white in the inside.

oreo: Term for African Americans that the black community is generally offended with for betraying their roots usually for dating caucasion girls, dressing too white, talking too white, etc. The term is branded OREO since they are "Black on the outside, White on the inside"

"Damn Marcus, have you seen Deon lately? The brother is a total Oreo, he's all drivin' a BMW with his white biatch. The brotha forgot where he came from!"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=oreo

[mondo joe]

96. How did Majette "sell out to whites"?

Thank you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

97. Even the quote to that definition is insulting.

So, in order to "remember where you come from", you should drive an 84 Honda Civic and only date black women? Is that to say that black people should always be poor and interracial couples are never okay? And that's an appropriate thing to say about Majette... how?

I'm sorry, I just don't see how that term is any better than n*****.

[rinsd]

98. You do realize how nasty a racial slur that is....

...I suppose we should apologize to the Klan now for calling white people who work with monorities race traitors. Thank god for the Klan keeping it real.

:sarcasm:

If you think Majette is a sellout, why the need to add racially charged lanuguage?