"Fight Club".

"Dana Houle ‏@DanaHoule 1h1 hour ago

Trump crowds seem like a mix of Abe Simpson, English football hooligans, and a Nuremberg rally." ~twitter~

What's more dangerous? Going to a Katt Williams concert? Going to a Hells Angels rally? Or, going to a Donald trump rally?

Well if you happen to be a woman, or a person of color, you might go with the third choice; the Donald trump rally.

Let's face it, Donald's peeps aren't exactly the kind you would find at the top of the  human pecking order. Those folks can be rough. I respect protestors and people who exercise their right to protest, but if you go into a trump crowd and you are planning to peacefully protest, you might want to take out some extra life insurance.

Poor Rakeem  Jones was assaulted twice at a trump rally while exercising his Constitutional right to free speech. First by an old geezer who sucker punched him, and then by the police. (Yep, you read that right. He was sucker punched and assaulted, and the po po jumped on him.) And let's be clear, the candidate himself has encouraged his people to antagonize and beat protesters in the past. I think he gets off on this stuff. He has even promised to pay the legal fees of those who break the law. (He can start with the loser who sucker punched Mr. Jones. That clown has been arrested.) 

"After his supporters beat up a Black Lives Matter protester on video, Donald Trump suggested that they may have done the right thing.

The protester, a black man, reportedly started chanting Black Lives Matter at a rally in Birmingham, Alabama on Saturday. In a video captured by CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond, rally attendees swarm around the man, kicking and punching him as he curls up on the ground." [Source]

But that was just some black man, and no one cares what happens to the black guy. But what if trump's right- hand man finds it necessary to manhandle and  assault a white female?

"Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields is discussing her "jarring" physical altercation with Republican presidential front-runner's campaign manager, saying she was "shaken" by the incident.

Fields wrote in a piece published Thursday that she was trying to ask Trump a question about affirmative action during a press conference earlier in the week when she was almost pulled to the ground.

Trump acknowledged the question, but before he could answer I was jolted backwards," she wrote.

"Someone had grabbed me tightly by the arm and yanked me down. I almost fell to the ground, but was able to maintain my balance. Nonetheless, I was shaken."

The Washington Post's Ben Terris told Fields that Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, pulled her. Fields said Lewandowski would "be out of line" if he had taken these actions, even if Trump was done taking questions.

"Campaign managers aren't supposed to try to forcefully throw reporters to the ground, no matter the circumstance," she wrote. " [Source]
Yes, but this is no normal "campaign manager"; this one belongs to trump. The guy who said that he could "stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone" and not lose any votes.

I hate to say it, but I think the guy might be right.

The RNC better start looking into some extra security for Cleveland.

*Pic from huffingtonpost.com



 

"Descending into "Barbarism".

           I have a trial tomorrow, so I don't have time to drop a post. Instead, I will leave you with a cut and paste job of William Saletan's writing which was done for Slate magazine.

 "How does an enlightened nation descend into barbarism? That used to be a question for historians. Now it’s a process you can watch in real time. In recent days, Donald Trump has been casting aside moral constraints on torture and violence against civilians. At his campaign rallies, crowds have cheered him on. What kind of country would the United States become if Trump and his followers get their way? Just listen as Trump spells it out for you.

1. Torture. Since November, Trump has said he would approve not just waterboarding, but “a hell of a lot worse.” That’s a change from George W. Bush’s administration, which justified waterboarding on the grounds that it wasn’t torture. Trump dismisses the taboo against torture altogether. “Let’s assume it is” torture, he said of waterboarding at a campaign event in South Carolina on Feb. 17. It’s still “absolutely fine,” he concluded, and “we should go much stronger.”

Advertisement 

2. Retribution. Other Republicans, such as Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, argue that brutal interrogation methods are justified only to prevent an attack. Trump rejects that constraint. On Nov. 23, he told a crowd in Ohio that waterboarding extracts useful information from terrorists, but that even if it didn’t, he would approve it, and “more than that,” because “if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway

3. Collective punishment. In a Trump administration, you don’t have to be a terrorist to be targeted for retaliation. You just have to be related to one. On Dec. 3, Trump said of terrorists, “You have to take out their families.” When Fox News host Bill O’Reilly asked Trump to explain himself, Trump replied, falsely, that wives and children of the 9/11 hijackers had been sent home before the attack to “watch Daddy tonight on television knock down the World Trade Center.” He continued: “There has to be retribution. And if there is not going to be retribution, you are never going to stop terrorism.”

4. Hostage taking. Trump says he would target terrorists’ family members because they’re the
people terrorists care about. On Dec. 6, he said on Face the Nation that although terrorists “say they don’t mind dying ... I can tell you this: They want their families left alone.” At a Republican debate on Dec. 15, he added: “I would be very, very firm with families. Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” The audience applauded. The next day, Trump repeated that terrorists “care more about their families than they care about themselves” and that he “would do pretty severe stuff” to a terrorist’s wife. The crowd roared its approval.
 

5. Religious war. Trump routinely demands payback against ISIS for killing Christians. “The enemy is cutting off the heads of Christians and drowning them in cages, and yet we are too politically correct to respond in kind,” he wrote in a USA Today op-ed on Feb. 15. Often, Trump mentions that ISIS kills other people, too. But the only victim group he identifies by name is Christians.
 

6. Weakness. If you don’t accept torture or targeting civilians, Trump says you’re soft. In the Dec. 15 debate, Jeb Bush said these ideas were “crazy.” Trump replied that Bush was “a very nice person. But we need tough people.” In another debate on Feb. 6, Cruz rejected torture and waterboarding. Trump called Cruz’s answer “really weak.” At a rally in New Hampshire on Feb. 8, Trump gleefully told the crowd what a woman in the audience was calling Cruz for his answer: “She said he’s a pussy.” [Source]

*Pic from slate.com


 

(Continued from Page 1)

7. Level playing field. Trump views laws and scruples as foolish impediments. At a rally in Florida on Saturday, he complained that in the war on ISIS, “We’re playing with two sets of rules: their rules and our rules.” At a press conference that night, after winning two primaries, he went further: “It’s very hard to be successful in beating someone when your rules are very soft and their rules are unlimited.” He vowed to loosen American torture laws “so that we can better compete with a vicious group of animals.”

In an interview that aired Sunday on Face the Nation, Trump reinforced this point: “We are playing by rules, but they have no rules. It’s very hard to win when that’s the case.” He pledged to “strengthen the laws so that we can better compete.” Trump’s exchange with moderator John Dickerson continued:

Dickerson: Isn’t that separates us from the savages—rules?

Trump: No, I don’t think so. No. We have to beat the savages.

Dickerson: And therefore throw all the rules out?

Trump: We have to beat the savages.

Dickerson: By being savages?

Trump: No. We—well, look, you have to play the game the way they’re playing the game. You’re not going to win if we are soft, and they are—they have no rules. Now, I want to stay within the laws. I want to do all of that. But I think we have to increase the laws.  

You can see where this line of thinking would take us. To even the odds—to equalize the rules—we would have to behave like ISIS. Trump thinks about the laws of war the same way he thinks about trade barriers: The only way to get a level playing field is to do to others what they’ve done to you.

8. Imperial presidency. In Thursday’s debate, Trump was asked what he would do if the military, citing U.S. law, refused his orders to target the families of terrorists. He replied, “They’re not going to refuse me. ... If I say, ‘Do it,’ they're going to do it.” The next day, apparently after consultation with cooler heads, he issued a statement promising, “I will not order a military officer to disobey the law.” But by Saturday, at a rally in Florida, Trump was vowing to push back those laws: “We’re going to stay within the laws. But you know what we’re going to do? We’re going to have those laws broadened.” On Face the Nation, he said he would “have the law expanded.” Trump has previously suggested that he could restore waterboarding without changing the law: “You reclassify [it], and you’ll see what happens.”

9. No limits. Trump rarely specifies what he would do to terrorists’ families. On Dec. 6, when Dickerson asked Trump what he meant by “going after the families,” Trump told him, “I’m going to leave that to your imagination.” In a Dec. 16 interview, O’Reilly asked Trump, “You’re not going to assassinate them, are you?” Trump replied, “I don’t know what I’d do.” Trump keeps his answers vague on the same grounds he uses to justify his vagueness about future military action: He wants to keep the enemy guessing. In both cases, the effect is that Americans have to guess, too.

Top Comment

Why does Trump talk so poorly?  More...

1.9k CommentsJoin In

Fifteen years ago, in an address to Congress after 9/11, President George W. Bush described the moral pathology of terrorists. “We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety,” said Bush. “By abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism and Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it leads, in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.”

Some day, God willing, that’s where Trump’s ruthless ideology will end up, too.

Read more Slate coverage of the 2016 campaign.

 

 

    

Open thread Tuesday.

Give me your thoughts on tonight's primary races......

"Veep"

Now that Donald trump is firmly on his way to becoming the republican nominee for president of these divided states of America, it might be time for him to start looking for a running mate.

Just in case any of Donald's peeps are reading this blog, I would like to make a few suggestions.

1. Charles Barkley-Pros: Charles would help Donald with the male African American vote. Chuck also has a high profile because of his past professional sporting life, and he spends a lot of time on ESPN, so this might help trump with the white male vote as well. Also, like the man that he would be running with, Charles is known for speaking his mind. Cons: Sometimes Charles tends to speak first and think later, and he is from a state (Alabama) that trump is already going to win, so it might not necessarily be a good strategic move for trump to pick Sir Charles.

2. Paula Deen-Pros: I think they have shared views about "the blacks". Trump will also more than likely be running against Hillary, so having a woman on his ticket will help with the female vote. Cons: Their shared views about "the blacks", and Paula Deen's age. (I know she is only 69, but she can't be healthy with all that fried food that she likes to cook.)

3. Clint Eastwood- Pros: This pick would reinforce trump's tough guy straight talking cred with his base, and it might help get him votes in California with all its electoral college votes. Cons: A real debate opponent might give Clint some problems. Just a few years ago we saw him struggle with a chair.

4. Sarah Palin-Pros: Nothing gets a certain type of republican fired up like the name Sarah Palin. Cons: It's Sarah Palin.

5. Caitlyn Jenner- Pros: Let's face it, this pick would help show America that republicans can be progressive when it comes to social issues. Also, Caitlyn dislikes Hillary and is a strong conservative. Cons: Trump supporters might give her a hard time when they campaign together in the bible belt, and trump's jealousy of her hair might prevent him from warming up to her.  

6.  Megyn Kelly- Pros: He would be showing FOX viewers that he values their vote, and he would be showing America that he is not as petty as he seemed earlier in the campaign season. Cons: He would spend too much time on the campaign trail trying to hit on her.     

7.  Peyton Manning- Pros: He is out of football now so he has some time on his hand. Also, he would definitely help in the swing state of Colorado. Cons: Peyton would probably want to be the one calling al the shots, and this would definitely not sit well with trump. ("Peyton, I am not one of your dumb offensive linemen".)

8. Stacey Dash- Pros: She is a black female, so trump could claim that his campaign is inclusive. Cons: She is Stacey Dash.

9. Ted Nugent- Pros: Ted would really fire up trump's base and get them to the polls. Cons: Ted would really fire up blacks folks and get them to the polls.

10. Donald Trump- Pros: No one loves trump as much as trump, and not choosing a running mate would send a signal to the country that he can do it all alone. Cons: The members of the  electoral college would choose one for him, and there is no telling who they would select.  

*Pic from washingtonpost.com

Drinking coffee while black, and the Democrats have a debate.

I, like most working professionals, will sometimes hit up Starbucks or my local coffee shop in the mornings before I get my work on.

Sometimes there is nothing like a little jolt of java to get your juices flowing.

This is, of course, unless you happen to be a black man in America.

Tonight my racism chase takes me to Cincinnati, Ohio.   

"It was just another morning in Cincinnati, Ohio for 29-year-old Charles Harrell when he was making his way back from a early morning coffee run. Filming his trip, Harrell recorded his interaction with police officer Baron Osterman, who can be seen trailing behind Harrell on a bicycle. Sharing that the police office asked if he “had a problem,” Harrell noted that this was a normal occurrence in his hometown.

 

“This is what we have to go through in Cincinnati, harassment” he said. “You can’t be a black man and enjoy your morning, because the police are going to harass you in Cincinnati, Ohio.”

 

As the video continues to roll, Osterman approaches Harrell for allegedly crossing against the light. In response, Harrell admits that he was frightened by the officer’s trailing of him, stating, “You were scaring me, sir. I don’t know why you’re following me anyway. You followed me all the way down the street.” Osterman then demands that Harrell put his phone and coffee on the ground. Refusing to lay his objects down, Harrell instead offers his I.D., and the officer become physical, warning him: “Don’t reach around.” Harrell is pinned against the wall and handcuffed.

 

According to Cincinnati.com, this is not the first time Officer Osterman has been linked to the use of excessive force. He reportedly was involved in the death of a black man, Nathaniel Jones, in 2003 in a local White Castle restaurant. The Citizen Complaint Authority ruled that Osterman and his fellow officer James Pike used excessive force in subduing Jones in 2004. They were both cleared in 2008 and awarded financial compensation.

 

Harrell was arrested for a pedestrian violation, resisting arrest and possession of a small amount of marijuana. The police department released a statement saying that the incident was up for internal review. Watch the footage of the incident below: [Video and story]

 

I hope, for his sake, Charles had decaf.  

 

Finally, I am watching the democrats debate each other, and Bernie is doing his usual shouting about Wall Street, and Hillary is trying her best to tell the people what they want to hear by wrapping herself around his Oness.

 

The moderators are having a much easier job with this one, because there are only two people and they are both, for the most part, sticking to the issues. No my d**k is bigger than yours shouting match going on with these two.

 

Bernie is telling Hillary to release her transcript of her speeches on Wall Street and I believe that she should. She has to stop hiding behind this argument that she will do it when ALL of her opponents to the same. That argument just has disingenuous written all over it.  And worse, it is giving Donald trump and the New York Times cover for their disgraceful refusal to release the transcript of his "off the record"  conversation with the Time's editorial board where he allegedly told them that his entire campaign when it comes to immigration might be a scam. 

 

Sorry Joe Concha, I get the whole confidentiality thing, but this man is running to be the president of the United States for crying out loud. Nothing a presidential candidate thinks or have said in the past should be kept from the American people. 

 

This election is way too important to allow a scam artist to pull the wool over our eyes.

 

Oh wait....too late.

 

*Pic from rawstory.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAPTION SATURDAY.

I need a caption for this pic.

*Pic courtesy of politicalwire.com via twitter.

 

Motown madness.

  Let's see now, where do I begin?

As America's political process sinks deeper into the abyss of hopelessness and despair, one major political party has become Exhibit A of what can happen when you allow hatred, blind passion without reason, and bigotry, to take hold of your party and its operatives.

Watching the republican debate from Motown last night almost made me feel sorry for my friends on the right. Almost. I was waiting to hear, Maury! Maury! Maury! from the wild and irreverent audience at any minute.

There he was, the presumptive nominee of the party, boasting to all the world about the size of his private parts. It was crass beyond belief, but not surprising given that earlier in the day he (trump) hinted that the man who was in his position four years ago would have done what Monica Lewinsky did to Bill Clinton just to get his support. (Imagine, if you will, Barack Obama boasting about the size of his Johnson in a national prime time debate such as the one we saw last night. It would have been BREAKING NEWS on every station including the sports networks.)

Lost in all the hoopla over trump's pronouncement was the big fat lie he told about his hand having never being an issue before. I swear this guy must think that the Internet stopped existing when he started running for president.

But that's trump for you; a man who changes positions even in the middle of a debate. I use the word positions loosely of course, because I still have not heard his position on one single issue. Well, except for the wall. I know where he stand on "the wall." Little does he know that if he gets elected he will have to  build a wall to keep Americans in. Even the illegals that are here will be trying to get out and they can't leave. Señor Trump, please let us go; we just want to go back to our families in Mexico. 

The Washington Post found that the man has changed his mind 20 times since June for crying out loud! The third Mrs. Trump (Or is it four? I lost count.) must be getting nervous. 

The antics of front runner was sad and pathetic, but what was scarier was some of the thing that he was actually saying.

His insistence, for instance, that he would order his military people to water-board enemy combatants even though it is an illegal act was terrifying and  Mussoliniesque.  He told that nation that they (the military leaders) would follow his illegal orders whether they wanted to or not.  

 "When asked about former CIA Director Michael Hayden’s recent comments that the military could defy unlawful orders to torture or kill civilians, Trump said, “They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse, believe me.” 

But it's not only the despicable terrorist who would feel the wrath of the orange one, the families of the terrorist would be eliminated as well. Something about  the family of the 9/11 hijackers getting away. Another lie.

Anyway, today it seems that there was yet another position change my Mr. trump.

"Donald Trump has reportedly reversed his position on ordering the military to use torture against America’s enemies and to target family members of suspected terrorists, policies he has advocated while on the campaign trail.

The switch, indicated in a statement to the Wall Street Journal on Friday in which Trump said he understood that the US “is bound by laws and treaties”, came two days after prominent Republican national security and military figures published an open letter on the subject.

The letter stated “we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency” and adding that the authors were “obligated to state our core objections clearly”.

Those core objections included the statement that “[Trump’s] embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable”.

The open letter also pointed to the question of whether the military would or could follow potential extra-legal orders made by a hypothetical President Trump without going through the secret process they use now to deem such actions legal." [Source]

Trump will be very upset about this, because, as we all know, Donald doesn't like it  when people oppose him. 

Just ask John McCain.

"When asked about McCain’s comments by CBS News’s Major Garrett after the Republican debate in Detroit on Thursday, Trump said McCain had better watch out. “That’s not nice, he has to be very careful,” Trump said. When asked why, he added, “He’ll find out.” [Source] 

Oh ohh, watch it senator; you might find yourself laying on a table with a towel over your face.

*Pic from usatoday.com





























    

This is not what we meant when we said that he should add some color to his campaign.

I thought that Donald trump was cool with "the African Americans". (It used to be "the blacks", but now that the general election is almost here, and he is leading the right-wingnut field, he has started his pivot to normalcy.)

You would think that Donald would be able to call on at least one of his African American friends to act as an apparel model for his campaign. *Stacey Dash jumping around shouting, me me me*  

I am guessing that with all the KKK love Donald has been getting lately, he decided that it was time for his campaign to get a little browner. (Hey, at least the didn't make the model orange.)

Of course some folks were not pleased with the coloring of the model, and they thought that it was just a calculated move by trump and his peeps to seem like they get brown love as well.

"Donald Trump, a disappointment, managed to rise to the top of the Republican presidential field with a mixture of racism, fascism, and general bigotry. Despite his near-constant hate-mongering, Trump has boasted a good relationship with people of color (“I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks,” he once said). Then how come he couldn’t find a black woman to model his apparel?

 

On Thursday, Eric Ming, the digital director for Donna Edwards’ Senate campaign, tweeted the following:

So it appears Donald Trump’s campaign photoshopped their model to be brown:

 

 

• Retweets 3,405
• Likes 2,898

The image on the left is taken from Trump’s apparel store. The one on the right is from the online shop for jcgapparel, a custom printed apparel company.

The Trump campaign has not responded to request for comment.

 

Update (4:45 p.m.): While the campaign did not respond to Jezebel’s request for comment, it did photoshop a different, slightly lighter model into the same t-shirt." [Source]

Oh well, just one more thing for Mitt to talk about.

 

SHIYA'S BAD NIGHT.

        *As the kids in the neighborhoods like to say, "the shit just got real."

I think I found a person who had a worse Super Tuesday than Marco Rubio. But unlike Marco this poor young lady did not ask for the beating she got from trump's peeps.

Trump and his supporters are not even hiding the fact that they are going all white supremacist anymore. I suppose that beating up on your opponents in a republican primary will have that type of  affect on you. It makes you feel empowered to show off your true feelings and motives.

A young African American female was assaulted at a trump rally last night, and I am hoping that the police in Louisville, Kentucky will review the tape and arrest her attackers for assault.

“I was called a n—– and a c–t and got kicked out,” Nwanguma said, the New York Daily News reports. “They were pushing and shoving at me, cursing at me, yelling at me, called me every name in the book. They were disgusting and dangerous.”

 

Among the men who were involved in the incident was Matthew Heimbach, who is a member of the Traditionalist Worker Party. He was pictured at the Louisville rally donning the same red hat and glasses as the most aggressive man in the video, pushing and yelling at Nwanguma in the clip. Taking to Twitter after the backlash, Heimbach claimed Black Lives Matter activists “comes to a Trump event to fight:” [Source]

 

Easy there tough guy. I am not sure how cool it is to beat up on a girl who was outnumbered by you and your friends. 

 

This would not be so disturbing if it wasn't so clear that the candidate himself has co-signed with this type of behavior. Sadly, trump rallies are looking more and more like Klan rallies these days.

 

You will notice that I am not giving trump the benefit of the doubt with these types of incidents, and the reason that I am not is simple: The weight of evidence is not on the side of trump and his cohorts.  

 

Just today I read about another disturbing story.

 

"As the controversy surrounding white supremacist support for Donald Trump continues, the man behind what’s been labeled an “overtly racist” radio show revealed that he received full press credentials to a rally for the GOP frontrunner.

   

While promoting an interview with Donald Trump Jr., radio host James Edwards wrote on March 1 that he “attended a Donald Trump rally in Memphis on Saturday night as a fully credentialed member of the media and enjoyed the unique experience of being able to air a live broadcast of The Political Cesspool Radio Program from inside the press pen while the event was in full swing.”
Edwards added that he was granted VIP parking access while he was at the event.

Citing Trump’s plan to deport undocumented immigrants and build a wall along the US-Mexico border, Edwards praised the billionaire as the first Republican nominee to have earned his vote.

The Political Cesspool radio show labels itself as “unapologetically pro-White … Even though Whites represented the vast majority of the American population, we had no mainstream voice.”
However, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors hate groups across the US, called The Political Cesspool “an overtly racist, anti-Semitic radio show.” The group noted that Edwards has featured a number of white supremacists as guests, including former Ku Klux Klan David Duke and Holocaust denier Willis Carto.

Duke himself recently endorsed Trump, igniting a firestorm of controversy. The Republican frontrunner then exacerbated the situation by declining to disavow the endorsement, arguing that he wasn’t knowledgeable enough about Duke to make a statement one way or another. He has since backtracked those comments by saying, “I disavow.”

Regarding Edwards, the Huffington Post asked the Trump campaign to explain why he was credentialed and why Trump’s son sat down for an interview with his show, but the campaign did not respond." [Source]

If you are going to run a campaign for white supremacist, you are going to need white supremacist radio to cover  it. I suppose that when you think about it all it makes sense.

Anyway, I am looking at trump's son, and I can totally see him sitting down with the David Duke wannabe radio guy. Dude just has that look.

"Donald Trump was the leader “our people” had been waiting for.

“Our people just needed a viable candidate and they’ve identified Trump as that man. There is no doubt that Trump’s populism and nationalism is galvanizing our nation and may change the course of American history for the better right before our very eyes.”

Sieg heil!

*Pic from talkingpointsmemo.com













 

 

     

 

 

 

Super Tuesday.

The Rent A Negro placement agency will get a lot of calls from the trump campaign tonight. They will no doubt need some Negro faces for the ample camera shots that will focus on the campaign as he gives all of his victory speeches.

If the Rent A Negro agency depended on Hillary or Bernie they would go broke, because Negroes are going to show up at their rallies free of charge.

Trump still can't convince most of us with a brain that he is not a virulent racist--- or at least trying to play to them--- so the perfect Negro placement will be particularly important for him.

Disturbing stories like the one where he kicked out approximately 30 African American students from his campaign rally before it even started is just adding to the narrative that trump is a racist. 

I am watching the early returns on television as I write this post, and the trump strategy to clean up with the god ole boyz and gals seems to be working.  The networks are already calling Georgia and some other Southern states for him, so if you people in America with a conscience thought that trump letting his Klan flag fly would hurt him, you are wrong.

Hillary's black wall strategy seems to be working as well. Those Southern Negroes are coming out for her big time. (Memo to Bernie: You can't campaign with Negro leftists such as Cornel West and expect to beat Hillary among black folks. In case you didn't notice those guys hate Obama almost as much as republicans do, and sadly for them, black folks still love President Obama.) Bernie should have paid me for my advice. I could have saved him a lot of wasted resources. 

Finally, there are a couple of stories in the news today that have me heading to my shoe closet to get my racism chase sneakers out.

Seriously wingnuts? What did Maya Angelou ever do to you guys? I mean everyone loves Maya. The woman is an American treasure for crying out loud. And yet.....

"You know how Congress sometimes votes to honor people by naming post offices and other things after them? Well, that normally uncontroversial honor was bestowed upon Maya Angelou today. The House overwhelmingly voted in favor today of naming a post office after her.

I say “overwhelmingly” because not everyone was on board. Yes, there were actually members of Congress who opposed naming a post office for Maya Angelou.

According to NBC News, nine Republicans voted against it. Mo Brooks, Ken Buck, Michael Burgess, Jeff Duncan, Glenn Grothman, Andy Harris, Thomas Massie, Alex Mooney, and Steven Palazzo  all voted nay.

Don Young, another Republican, voted present.

Congressman Steve Israel called out his colleagues for their “disrespectful” move:

Naming post offices is one of the most benign and bipartisan duties we perform in the House of representatives and there is rarely any opposition. That’s why I was shocked today as nine Republicans voted against naming a post office after Maya Angelou, indisputably one of our country’s greatest poets, authors and civil rights activists. The fact that these nine Members would cast a no vote shows a blatant disrespect and only adds to the damaging actions they’ve taken this year to reverse progress from long and hard fought civil rights battles.

 

Most of the nine Republicans haven’t yet explained their votes, but a spokesperson for Harris provided this actual explanation to NBC News:" [Source]

Something about her being a Communist sympathizer or something.

Then there are the series of police killings over the past few days that have yet to be explained. 

There is the sad story of Gregory Gunn in Alabama, the case of that Kenyan immigrant in Utah, Rolanda Byrd's son in North Carolina, and that sleeping couple in California. 

There are more. But I am going to have to do more training.

Chasing the Big R can be exhausting. 

*Pic from abcnews.go.com