photo by federico_ferrari via Flickr

This is a is a crime: this story only has three links to it according to Technorati. That must change right now. The writer is one I’ve respected since coming across his Village Voice pieces. Quoting:

A Low Down Crying Shame

The Down Low theory, as an overarching explanation for the spread of HIV, has been debunked several times over (see here and to greater effect here). Last week, an article in the Annals of Epidemiology took the measure of available research in the field and concluded that “the DL was neither new nor limited to blacks and sufficient data linking it to HIV/AIDS disparities currently are lacking.” Researchers don’t deny the existence of closeted black men in committed relationships with women or that some of these men infect their spouses. But they’re skeptical about the Down Low as a primary explanation for the high rates of HIV among black women. And they also don’t think black men in relationships with women are more likely than other men to have closeted sex with men.


Coates goes on to offer possible explanations for why the myth of prevalent Down Low brothers persists despite contradictions from science. Possibilities include

  • It’s catchy, secret and “carnal” phraseology
  • Conservatives’ ability to use it as another way to attack “inherent black amoraility”
  • Liberals’ ability to attack black homophobia
  • “In short, shaking your head over the DL is the perfect way to shake your head over how awful it is to be black.”
  • Finally, it’s a conspiracy theory which conveniently explains why it’s awful to be black

You’ve got to read the article. It’s short and sweet and, I believe, dead on.

To me, it also is part of the Crisis of Black Men story which looks at various “statistics of failure” from imprisonment rates to college admissions to drug use, unemployment and downright thugishness.

(p.s. I’ve been on the road and will be for the next week or so. This is a test of my mobile blogging abilities. Hopefully, we can keep the flow here at JJP. Appreciating all the comments yall)

photo via Flickr courtesy of Genista

In a move reminiscent of Abercrombie & Fiatch’s notorious hiring practices, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a class action suit against Walgreens, alleging widespread discrimination against black managers and pharmacists. According to the Chicago Tribune piece:

Walgreen Co. store manager Johnny Tucker claims it was an open secret among his African-American colleagues that their chances of being assigned to stores in white neighborhoods were slim.

“It was something many of us accepted and tolerated,” said the 21-year Walgreens veteran, who manages a store in Independence, Mo. “But it finally got to the point with me when I could no longer accept it.”

His breaking point came after taking a 90-day leave for stress from managing a store in a tough Kansas City neighborhood where he battled shoplifters.

The suit appears to be a positive sign of change at the EEOC which is taking more seriously (and addressing more quickly) workplace discrimination cases. Check out these fightin’ words from the commission chair.

“You can’t fight discrimination on a charge-by-charge basis,” said Commission Chair Naomi Earp, who said the agency must reduce the time it takes to process and litigate cases. “In the past systemic cases have taken 5 to 10 years. People who lose their jobs can’t wait that long. We want to come in like a strike force.”

A strike force! That is inspiring! The new commission chair is Naomi Earp, the first African-American to lead the commission since the Carter administration. Big up, Naomi.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Ford on Fox

8 Mar 2007

Wow, Harold Ford Jr. has signed to do a show on Fox News. According to The Politico

Shenanigans has learned that former heartthrob Tennessee Rep/Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council Harold Ford, Jr. has inked a deal with Fox News Channel as a political contributor. Lest we forget, they just signed former Pennsylvania Rep Rick Santorum last week – look out Mort and Fred — we see their own TV show in the making. Still, Santorum last week, Ford this week: it’s all about being fair and balanced.

Hat tip to Skeptical Brotha on the news

Technorati Tags: ,

On this date in 1967, the Selective Service ordered Muhammad Ali to be inducted into military service. Citing religious beliefs he refused, saying “War is against the teaching of the Holy Koran.”

This was a courageous move, and given today’s war situation, a reminder that we are closer to our history than we think. That seems to be the theme emerging from the past week or so of big headlines.

There are people today refusing to fight in Iraq and explaining in great detail why our presence there is unjustified. I hope they keep telling it.

On June 22, 2006, U.S. Army 1st Lieutenant Ehren K. Watada stepped forward as the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to the Iraq War and occupation. He faces court martial and up to 6 years imprisonment for refusing to deploy and for speaking out against a war that he believes is illegal.

Four years ago, Boston Globe writer Derrick Jackson penned this prescient piece:

Black folks do not want to invade Iraq. The question for Americans is whether to view this as unpatriotic or as a tweet of sanity that warns us we are about to walk into a horrific explosion.

You hear that America? More than others, black folks told you so!

Technorati Tags: , ,

  • Comments Off on "I Ain’t Got No Quarrel with those Vietcong!"

I had this date marked in my calendar and was praying some other blogger had something smart to say about it, so I could do a nice link and clip.

Enter, Christopher Bracey at BlackProf:

As most of you know, in that case, the Supreme Court declared that Dred Scott and his family were not citizens of the United States and thus could not sue for their freedom in federal court. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, is perhaps the single worst opinion written in the history of our nation. It was a case driven by politics that undermined the Court’s legitimacy for years to come.

Bracey goes on to write a fascinating piece involving the descendants of Dred Scott, and in light of recent discussions on the influence of slavery, it’s a great read. Thanks Dr. Bracey!

  • Comments Off on Dred Scott Anniversary today

photo from eecue via Flickr

The news is spreading that NAACP President Bruce Gordon has stepped down. He held his position for only 19 months and cited “misalignment with the board” as his reason. Basically, the NAACP board has a lot more say in how the organization is run than the former corporate executive is used to.

In fact, a recent study of corporate board effectiveness at USC found that the average size of US corporate boards is 10.4 members. It must have come as quite a shock for Gordon, who’s spent most of his professional life in the telecom industry, to work with the NAACP’s 64 member board.

An excerpt from the AP story:

“I don’t view this as I’m right and they’re wrong. I view this as I see things one way and they see things a different way,” he said. “That misalignment between the CEO and the board is unhealthy.”

Asked about his plans after leaving the NAACP, Gordon said: “I’m going to catch my breath.”

“What I’ve clearly learned in my tenure here is that all is not well in black America, that’s for sure,” he said. “I believe I have a lot to offer. I’ve got to find a way to be engaged that optimizes what it is I bring to the table. My intention is not to disengage, but to find a different way.”

How relevant do you think the NAACP (I almost wrote NCAA, dang) is today? Afro-Netizen poses an interesting question

“How many NAACP directors does it take to build a better typewriter?”

The answer, of course, is immaterial because the question itself is flawed. But then again if the organization already knew this, the NAACP wouldn’t have a membership one-tenth the size of

Indeed. I’ve got to be honest. I’m one of those from the yoot generation, and my only frame of reference for the NAACP is historical. I don’t consider the organization when planning political action or even look to it for a black perspective. None of my peers ever mentions the group. What does the NAACP do nowadays?

JP Smith over at black…MYstory says:

Well, methinks it’s time for the NAACP to re-examine its mission to see if it’s really meeting the needs of the population it claims to serve.


Technorati Tags:

I found this editorial in the Detroit Free Press by a reporter who’s mother is white and father is Ethiopian:

Besides, many African American leaders before Obama were part white. Frederick Douglass, the legendary abolitionist, and Booker T. Washington, who founded the Tuskegee Institute, both had mothers who were slaves and white fathers.

And many had parents not of this country, such as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, with his Jamaican heritage.

If Obama is not African American, then many of those championed as African-American trailblazers aren’t either.

And neither am I.


Last month, four cops cornered me in a parking lot during rush hour for a routine traffic violation in a suburb I actually cover. When they told me to keep my hands visible even after I handed them my business card, I could have told them I’m sure the level of aggression was due to me being half-white, right?

As Jill mentioned, the MSM may have been premature in jumping on the “black folks haven’t leapt to Obama” meme, and this editorial reminds us that, in terms of heritage, purity of blood is hardly an historical standard. Besides, find me an “authentic” African-American who doesn’t have white blood in him. Seriously. Find me one. Al Sharpton, whose black credentials no one questions, is kin to Strom Thurmond. If Black folk can accept that, Obama should be ok.

What’s more interesting are the man’s policies, not bloodline, as Bruce Dixon posted in a comment today. Excerpted:

Another layer is the shallowness of what the corporate media claim is at the root of black unease with Obama. To hear them tell it, it’s all about ancestry, a “black tax”, and authenticity. Nowhere in these discussions in corporate media do I hear any discussion of real issues, and issues there are aplenty. Obama had to be constantly prodded even during his Dem primary campaign in Illinois to be noticeably against the war. Obama’s first act as a senator was to NOT stand with Boxer and the entire black caucus in questioning Ohio’s nullification and suppression of tens of thousands of black votes. Obama campaigned vigorously against the Patriot Act, then voted for its renewal and its successor. He voted to protect corporations against lawsuits from people they harm and kill, and opposed an amendment to the bankruptcy bill that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30%. He threw softballs at Condi Rice when he should have been advising and withholding consent, and on and on. And he has never stepped back from his statements that Iran should be bombed.

I would welcome any discussion which focused on issues like these. In fact, this is a great opportunity to highlight a potentially powerful website at It’s a project of the Sunlight Foundation and offers extensive legislative coverage in a blog-friendly web 2.0-y kind of way. Check out Obama’s profile, and report back if you find something interesting.

Technorati Tags:

There’s a new poll out today that shows Brother Barack gaining some steam among black voters. Let’s face it — unlike the proven product that are the Clintons, Obama is a new face for African-Americans. Black people are like other people. We actually take voting seriously (if you consider our voter registration and participation rates) and many African-Americans are discerning values voters. They listen to a candidate before deciding to vote for him or her.

Ari Melber at the Nation writes:

Then this month, The New York Times offered a front page news flash under the headline, “So Far, Obama Can’t Take Black Vote for Granted.” The article quoted Debra J. Dickerson’s claim that “Obama isn’t black” in an American racial context, and then explored why “some black voters” are “so uneasy” about Obama. One barber explained that Obama might not be right for the Presidency because he was not “born, raised, bred, [and] fed in America.” Whatever. That kind of talk has been shredded by The Nation’s Patricia Williams, among others. Now these new poll numbers should remove one crutch reporters were using to write premature stories about how black voters supposedly did not like Obama “enough.”

Couldn’t agree more. I hope we’ve all learned something from this experience.

Loathe Thy Neighbor

28 Feb 2007

This is a frightening video segment from the Daily Show. More evidence that Muslims are the new blacks. (hat tip: Dean Obeidallah) Very worth watching:

When I read that the Congressional Black Caucus was considering partnering with FoxNews for another presidential debate, I couldn’t believe my eyes. It was one thing to do it in 2004. Perhaps the motive was increased recognition of the CBC among a new audience.

Isn’t time to question both the CBC and FoxNews’ motives here? Let’s first look at FoxNews. These are the same people who have at least twice publicly attacked a CBC member, Barack Obama and got pushed back by other media sources. First there was the consistent, disingenuous linking of Sen. Obama’s name with Osama, as in Bin Laden. Newscasters and commentators would repeatedly make a pseudo-Freudian slip…”Sen. Osama…pardon me, I meant to say Obama!” The confusion extended even to photos and captions on TV. This continues today, btw, on Fox and other channels. Then there was the fabricated story that Obama had attended a madrassa in as a child living in Indonesia in order to spread the mis-information that he is a Muslim and not Christian. When confronted, FoxNews blamed the Clinton campaign for spreading the story, thus managing to damage two Democratic contenders with a single blow.

This is just par for the course for the regularly racist, rightwing Fox News. Maybe it’s news to some, but the whole point of FoxNews is to deliver a conservative slant on the news. FoxNews is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a well-known conservative moneybags man originally from Australia.

Does Murdoch really have black voters’ best interests at heart in sponsoring a presidential debate? Or does he want to appear to be modern and open while creating a forum in which his team can control the outcome. What influence does he want to have over the presidential campaign – one in which Republicans are entering even weaker than they did in 2004 if you go by the TechPresident blog mention rankings?

Murdoch is the same guy who publishes the neoconservative Weekly Standard magazine. According to RightWeb, “Conveniently, every Monday one of Vice President Cheney ‘s aides stops by the office to pick up 30 copies of the magazine…”

Not only does this hand legitimacy to those who fight regularly against the priorities of our communities, it erodes alliances in the progressive movement and even undercuts the existing African-American owned media outlets like TV1.

Cathy Hughes
and her investors including Quincy Jones founded TV1 to provide an alternative to the disgusting, unrepresentative BET. How better to show our new power than supporting a black-owned channel that is trying to provide positive programming that is more representative of our culture. Did you know TV1 is going to re-broadcast Roots during Easter week? Why not have the presidential debate on TV1?

Furthermore, Hughes has proved herself as someone who is on our side. A good old progressive organization the National Council of Negro Women honored her in 2006 with their Uncommon Height Award which is named after stalwart civil rights soldier/saint Dr. Dorothy Height.

I hope no one is taking some kind of under the table kickback from FoxNews at the CBC. I really do. I think our CBC brothers and sisters are better than that though. I want to think that the new CBC wants to show America how strong we really are and represent. Let’s hope they make a different choice.

This just came down

(AP) All but closing the books on a crime that helped give rise to the civil rights movement, a grand jury has refused to bring any new charges in the 1955 slaying of Emmett Till, a black teenager who was beaten and shot after whistling at a white woman in the Mississippi Delta.

The district attorney in rural Leflore County had sought a manslaughter charge against the white woman, Carolyn Bryant Donham, who was suspected of pointing out Till to her husband to punish the boy for what was a grave offense in the segregated South.

But the grand jury last Friday issued a “no bill,” meaning it found insufficient evidence, according to documents made public Tuesday.

I don’t know if this happens with kids today, probably not, but when I was coming up in the 80s, you couldn’t be a black boy and have avoided the tale of Emmett Till. It was a rite of passage to be told about the brutalization of someone your age a few decades earlier for the crime of being black.

This legal effort was the last best attempt to being someone to justice. The men who committed the crime had been acquitted and later admitted to the murder.

I love the stubbornness of one of the players in the situation. From the article:

Horace Harned, 86, a former Mississippi legislator and member of the Sovereignty Commission, a state agency that worked clandestinely to preserve segregation, said he was glad to see no charges filed. He said the suggestions that Donham had a role in the crime are “a bunch of foolishness.”

“Of course, I don’t believe in murder. That’s the wrong thing. It always backfires on you. That shouldn’t have happened,” he said. But he added: “You can’t correct all the ills of the past. If we did, the Southerners were treated much worse than anybody back in the Civil War.”

Yes, murder should not be committed because it always “backfires” not because it’s wrong, and Southerners were of course treated much worse than anybody in the Civil War. I suppose if you don’t consider blacks to be people, that’s a very easy statement to make.

Recently on Feb 8, I quoted from the Wikipedia entry for “African-American” on our economic status. The comments I received in part showed that even black people have trouble seeing ourselves in a new light. We have been so conditioned by what we see in TV and hear on the radio to think of black people in America as uneducated, deprived, disadvantaged, diseased and dysfunctional. Listen up Progressives, Liberals, Democrats and other well-meaning people who want to “help minorities”. It’s time that all Americans sat up and looked around.

While poverty and its corresponding symptoms of poor education, income and healthcare still afflict African-Americans disproportionately, the facts show that we are an emerging economic power whose strength and contribution is growing. Sure, the nation was built on our sweat, blood and tears and America still owes us a great debt for that. Yet, from the Wikipedia, here are more facts you need to recognize if you want to work with us, help us, understand us.

Original links and footnotes can be found here. Emphasis mine. Note that the entry recently changed and deleted some interesting info comparing African-American wealth as comparable to that of Poland and 80% of Russia’s. I hope that gets added back in. The original entry I saw was even stronger and better-written and researched.

By 2003, sex had replaced race as the primary factor in life expectancy in the United States, with African American females expected to live longer than white males born in that year.[17] In the same year, the gap in life expectancy between American whites (78.0) and blacks (72.8) had decreased to 5.2 years, reflecting a long term trend of this phenomenon.[17] The current life expectancy of African Americans as a group is comparable to those of other groups who live in countries with a high human development index. In 2004, African American workers had the second-highest median earnings of American minority groups after Asian Americans, and African Americans had the highest level of male-female income parity of all ethnic groups in the United States.[18] Also, among American minority groups, only Asian Americans were more likely to hold white collar occupations (management, professional, and related fields),[19] and African Americans were no more or less likely than whites to work in the service industry.[20] In 2001, over half of African American households of married couples earned $50,000 or more.[20] Although in the same year African Americans were over-represented among the nation’s poor, this was directly related to the disproportionate percentage of African American families headed by single women; such families are collectively poorer, regardless of ethnicity.[20]

Collectively, African Americans are more involved in the American political process than other minority groups in the US, indicated by the highest level of voter registration and participation in elections among these groups in 2004. [3] African Americans collectively attain higher levels of education than immigrants to the United States.[21]

It’s time to stop feeling sorry for black people and structure outreach accordingly. We don’t want your noblesse oblige or your pity. But we do want to be partners with you in building a stronger nation both culturally and economically.

  • Comments Off on The Secret Wealth of African-Americans Part II
  • Tags:

Update: Welcome Blog Report Readers! I’ve gotten a lot of great comments from folks. A reader calling his/herself “No Note” found the cite for the Martin Luther King Jr quote below

The “nourished by …” quote is from MLK’s Letters from a Birmingham City Jail, April 16 1963.

Also, “Face” left a comment after looking up “judicial activism” in the Conservapedia:

If you search “judicial activism”, as an example they offer “Brown v. Board of Ed”.

They cast jud. activism in a very negative light, then list desegregation as an example of it? This would appear as though the author is pro-segregation, which is about as racist as one could be.

I looked it up too. They use Roe v. Wade as the classic example and then swing into Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia — the case that removed the bar for blacks and whites (and any other ethnicity) to marry one another legally. So that puts the Conservapedia squarely in the camp of those who believe America was better off when we kept the darkies in their place and disallowed racial mixing in public or private places. Classic KKK racism. Original post begins below.

The Conservapedia was recently launched as a rival to the Wikipedia. The Eagle Forum sponsors this repugnant trash. You know the Eagle Forum — it’s Phyllis Schlafly the anti-feminist ultra-conservative. She’s against Title IX, against “judicial activism” (code word = nigger loving dismantlers of segregation) and pro-Mexican border fence. Here’s a quote from one of her recent columns supporting Pat Buchanan’s just-published book State of Emergency on immigration:

Today, our elites celebrate diversity rather than American ideals and identity. To justify the enormous numbers of foreign born entering the United States, legally and illegally, we are reminded ad nauseam that we are a nation of immigrants.

However, immigrants, legal and illegal, don’t come to America because of our diversity of residents, but because we are a land of freedom and opportunity. Most of the creators of our unique land were not immigrants.

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 48 were native-born Americans and two of the others came to this country as babies. Of the 39 signers of the U.S. Constitution, 32 were native-born Americans, and the few signers of both documents who were not native-born all came from Great Britain or British colonies.

The most diversity we had in the founding of America was that some came from big states like Massachusetts and some from small states like Delaware.

Buchanan’s book lists all the obvious solutions: no amnesty, a border fence, eliminate birthright citizenship and taxpayer-paid social benefits, prohibit dual citizenship, require businesses to match employees’ Social Security numbers, and time-out on legal immigration.

Right. So let’s take a look at her alternative to the Wikipedia which supposedly provides, according to Conservapedia’s homepage:

… an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of “political correctness”.

1) In the Wikipedia there is an extensive and well-written entry on the term African-American which serves as an anchor pages for many other related topics on our history, culture, religions, political movements, civic organizations and more. In the Conservapedia, I could find no entry for African-American, Black or even Negro. There is however, a page there for “Mulatto“. Just in time for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign! That said, the Wikipedia entry for Mulatto could also use some work.

2) The Conservapedia entry for Baraminology which is supposedly an alternative to the “secular concept of species” has a few nuances that the Wikipedia entry on the subject does not share. Apparently creationist theory conveniently makes room to perpetuate discredited racist scientific theory. The terminology used below somehow implies that people of certain ethnicities are not the same biologically(an excerpt):

  • Monobaramin: A monobaramin is an ad hoc group of organisms who share common descent. Caucasians and Negros are a monobaramin, as are any group of specific members of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers or the humans Tom, Dick, and Harry. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.
  • Apobaramin: An apobaramin is a group of holobaramins. Humans and Dogs are an apobaramin since both members are holobaramins. A group containing Negros and wolves is not an apobaramin since both members are monobaramins.

3) In contrast to the rich biography in the Wikipedia for Martin Luther King Jr., the Conservapedia chooses to dwell in their King entry on a seldom cited quote that no doubt furthers their agenda to combat the ahem, dark forces of “judicial” and other forms of “activism”:

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers …

I stand in the middle of two opposing forces … One is a force of complacency … The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups … the largest being Elijah Muhammad’s Muslim movement.

Nourished by frustration over racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America …

I have tried to stand between these two forces … for there is the more excellent way of love …

The quote is given no time or place. There are many gaps here in between the cited passages. Which speech or book of Dr. King’s is this quote from, exactly?

4) The Conservapedia’s entry on Slavery focuses on the encouragement of the slave trade from 1455 to the 1800s by Africans themselves for profit. The style of the passage is best described as 4th grade book report. The Wikipedia entry on Slavery is lengthy and covers slavery throughout the ancient world, the same period as the Conservapedia and slavery as it exists today. The entry also describes the abolition movement, apologies and reparations, and links to other forms of human rights abuses.

5) There is no entry for W.E.B. DuBois or even Booker T. Washington but there is one in the Conservapedia for Marcus Garvey who advocated a “Back to Africa” approach for African-Americans in the first half of the 20th century to solve the problem of American racism.

I could go on. And on. Ms. Schafly thinks she can bamboozle her supporters with a false set of fact free information. But I’m not fooled. And her Conservapedia is about to get schooled.

I agree with Prometheus 6Oliver Willis couldn’t be more right on in taking the Democratic Party to task for ignoring its own values voters: African-Americans. The whole lexicon of speaking religion and politics to Christian and other religious voters that the right has been using frankly was stolen years ago from us.

From Oliver:

Imagine if you will, a substantial group of regular churchgoing Christians. They are active in their community, they believe in God and Heaven and Hell. Their entire life is about living up to the Word of God, and when they vote that belief is a driving moral force in how their ballot is cast. These Christians are vital to their party, if they stayed home on election day there’s no way the party could win.

Surely these people are part of the “values voters” so often courted by the GOP.

Did I mention that they’re black. Because, you see, they’re Democrats.

This really isn’t that hard. The way you speak to African-American voters will also work with many other voters who are informed by big ideas, by a desire for a better future and by faith.

Bill Clinton got it and won. Gore kinda sorta did and kinda sorta lost. Kerry didn’t get and lost. Which candidate will get it this time finally and decide to win?

I disagree with Willis on whether black churches are at risk of dying out as a political force. They remain as strong as ever — the Bush campaign figured that out and used them as a wedge to increase their share of the Black vote in 2004. We’re still out there but our priorities have changed. Democrats mis-read those shifts in what we are talking about — education, the war, healthcare, Africa, building greater prosperity in our communities — at their peril.

I was surprised by Nancy Pelosi’s appointment of William “Dollar Bill” Jefferson (D-LA) to the Homeland Security Committee. James Collier over at Acting White and I agree: The thought that a criminal like him can represent the interests of New Orleans residents post-Katrina would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.

Jefferson, 59, is the subject of a federal investigation into whether he accepted bribes related to a telecommunications deal in Africa. The FBI’s evidence against him includes $90,000 found in his freezer fodder for late-night talk show jokes but not funny to Pelosi, who had promised to run the most ethical Congress in history.

Pelosi stripped Jefferson of his seat on the Ways and Means Committee over objections from some members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

I was surprised, that is, until I took a look at who’s on the HS Committee. The chair, Bennie Thompson, is a Congressional Black Caucus member who has spent quite a bit of time in the House. Let’s take a look at the other Democratic members and see how many CBC members there are (I will bold them):

Majority Members

Bennie G. Thompson (MS-2)
Chairman of the full Committee on Homeland Security.

Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
Vice Chair of the full Committee and Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism

Ed Markey (MA-7)

Norman D. Dicks (WA-6)

Jane Harman (CA-36)
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment

Peter DeFazio (OR-4)

Nita Lowey (NY-18)

Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC)

Zoe Lofgren (CA-16)

Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection

Donna Christensen (USVI)
Rep. Donna M. Christensen continues to distinguish herself as a leader in the United States Congress. As a Member serving her fifth term, she is the first female physician in the history of the U.S. Congress, the first woman to represent an offshore Territory, and the first woman Delegate from the United States Virgin Islands…

Bob Etheridge (NC-2)

James R. Langevin (RI-2)
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, and Science and Technology

Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response

Christopher P. Carney (PA-10)
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight

Yvette D. Clarke (NY-11)

Al Green (TX-9)

Ed Perlmutter (CO-7)

Interesting, isn’t it, that two non-voting reps, both CBC members, are also both on the HS Cmte. Doesn’t that strike anyone else as strange? Look, Homeland Security is no place for games and cronyism. It should not be a dumping ground for weakened reps, either, if Democrats want to be taken seriously on national security.

Bennie, I am certain that Dollar Bill plays a great game of golf and has a mean jambalaya recipe. But exposing the nation and the Democratic party to perceived risk and deserved censure just so you can stock the Committee with friends that you can easily persuade? Not cool. And Pelosi? Don’t you want to distinguish your term as Speaker from the protectionism of the previous Congress? Ugh.

Who We Are

Cheryl Contee aka "Jill Tubman", Baratunde Thurston aka "Jack Turner", rikyrah, Leutisha Stills aka "The Christian Progressive Liberal", B-Serious, Casey Gane-McCalla, Jonathan Pitts-Wiley aka "Marcus Toussaint," Fredric Mitchell

Special Contributors: James Rucker, Rinku Sen, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, Adam Luna, Kamala Harris

Technical Contributor: Brandon Sheats


Advertise here!

Obamacare – Get Some


Peep ‘Em

I Am A Community Organizer (300x243)

Community Activity

Black Behind Coverage/Disclaimer

This is a personal weblog which does not represent the views of the authors' employers, clients nor vendors.

Ain’t Like All The Rest

Jack and Jill Politics is not affiliated with Jack and Jill of America, Jack and Jill Magazine, "Jack and Jill Went Up the Hill to Fetch a Pail of Water" nor any of the other Jack and Jills out there on the Google. Just so's you know.