No wonder Byron Daniels is not allowed into the Congressional Black Caucus

[Anonymous]

Very inflammatory writing from Jeffries' college days defending his antisemitic uncle and Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan.
He also has disdain for black conservatives like Byron Daniel.

His office (not him) put out a statement:
Jeffries’ office maintained his record in public service was one of “bringing communities together” and said he did not share his uncle’s views.

“Leader Jeffries has consistently been clear that he does not share the controversial views espoused by his uncle over thirty years ago,” spokesperson Christiana Stephenson told CNN in a statement Wednesday.

If this were Speaker McCarthy who had written something this incendiary in college, the media would be hounding him day after day seeking a comment.
Will they do the same to Jeffries? Doubtful.
He and every Democrat should have to respond to questions about this story. It's only fair.

For years, Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has told a similar story: he was off at college and shielded from controversies surrounding his uncle, Black studies professor Leonard Jeffries, who eventually lost his job over incendiary comments about Jewish people. Hakeem Jeffries has said he had only a “vague recollection” of the controversy, saying he couldn’t even recall coverage of it in local press.

But a CNN KFile review of material from a 30-year-old college campus incident sharply undermines Jeffries’ claims.

While Jeffries was a college student at Binghamton University in upstate New York, the Black Student Union, in which Jeffries was an executive board member, invited his uncle to speak on campus after his inflammatory comments caused an uproar.

And in a previously unreported college editorial, Jeffries defended his uncle along with Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan, writing, “Do you think that a ruling elite would promote individuals who would seek to dismantle their vice like grip on power?” He added that they were unfairly targeted by “White media” for challenging “the longstanding distortion of history.”

Leonard Jeffries faced widespread backlash in the early 1990s after comments he made about the involvement of “rich Jews” in the African slave trade and “a conspiracy, planned and plotted and programmed out of Hollywood” of Jewish executives who he said were responsible for denigrating Black Americans in films.

“Dr. Leonard Jeffries and Minister Louis Farrakhan have come under intense fire,” wrote Jeffries in February 1992. “Where do you think their interests lie? Dr. Jeffries has challenged the existing white supremist educational system and long standing distortion of history. His reward has been a media lynching complete with character assassinations and inflammatory erroneous accusations.”

The editorial was mainly harsh criticism of Black conservatives, and contained other inflammatory remarks from the future congressman.

“The House Negro of the slavery era and the Black conservative of today are both opportunists interested in securing some measure of happiness for themselves within the existing social order. In both cases, the social order has Blacks occupying the lowest societal echelon,” wrote Jeffries.

Soon after he was elected to Congress, Jeffries told The Wall Street Journal in 2013 he only had “a vague recollection” of the controversies with his uncle, remembering it only as a tough time for his father and claimed his mother shielded him and his brother from the controversies because he was off at college.

[Anonymous]

“The House Negro of the slavery era and the Black conservative of today are both opportunists interested in securing some measure of happiness for themselves within the existing social order. In both cases, the social order has Blacks occupying the lowest societal echelon,” wrote Jeffries.

Tell me what's false about that statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“The House Negro of the slavery era and the Black conservative of today are both opportunists interested in securing some measure of happiness for themselves within the existing social order. In both cases, the social order has Blacks occupying the lowest societal echelon,” wrote Jeffries.

Tell me what's false about that statement?

This is just liberal BS.

Blacks conservatism is not an anomaly or opportunistic - it's the default. In addition, The house negro was still a SLAVE - it is not opportunistic to try to stay alive. And it matters not what social order exists in America, black people are at the bottom of the barrel.

[Anonymous]

There seems to be a concerted effort by liberals to label conservative-leaning black folks as sellouts, opportunists and Uncle Toms. Why can white folks be conservative but not black folks? Why are white conservatives not labelled opportunists?

[Anonymous]

All conservatives are just greedy liars. Tucker, Cruz, Lindsey, et al all know that what they are saying is total bullshit. Modern “conservatism” is all greed, anger, and paranoid delusion, and they need some captive Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and women to enrich and send out to disguise the bigotry underlying their agenda.

[Anonymous]

Weird thread title. Republicans are never in the Congressional Black Caucus.

[Anonymous]

If this were Speaker McCarthy who had written something this incendiary in college, the media would be hounding him day after day seeking a comment.

OMG Speaker McCarthy had an affair with another sitting member of Congress which is why he didn’t become Speaker McCarthy years ago and Paul Ryan had to step in instead. In all the coverage of him actually becoming Speaker this time no member of the media ever said a peep about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Weird thread title. Republicans are never in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Why not? It is not called the "Democratic Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Liberal Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Exclusive to Democrats Black Caucus."
Byron Daniels has requested to join several times. He has not received a response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If this were Speaker McCarthy who had written something this incendiary in college, the media would be hounding him day after day seeking a comment.

OMG Speaker McCarthy had an affair with another sitting member of Congress which is why he didn’t become Speaker McCarthy years ago and Paul Ryan had to step in instead. In all the coverage of him actually becoming Speaker this time no member of the media ever said a peep about it.

OMG. "People are saying" is the weakest of arguments.
There was no corroboration of such a story and both parties accused have denied it.
Maybe the media didn't hound him because the story wasn't true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird thread title. Republicans are never in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Why not? It is not called the "Democratic Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Liberal Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Exclusive to Democrats Black Caucus."
Byron Daniels has requested to join several times. He has not received a response.

I don’t know why not but I’m pretty sure Jeffries’ uncle has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird thread title. Republicans are never in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Why not? It is not called the "Democratic Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Liberal Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Exclusive to Democrats Black Caucus."
Byron Daniels has requested to join several times. He has not received a response.

If there's one thing conservatives are fantastic at, it's expressing grievances and acting in bad faith!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird thread title. Republicans are never in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Why not? It is not called the "Democratic Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Liberal Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Exclusive to Democrats Black Caucus."
Byron Daniels has requested to join several times. He has not received a response.

If there's one thing conservatives are fantastic at, it's expressing grievances and acting in bad faith!

Also making stupid mistakes. OP doesn’t even have the guy’s name right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird thread title. Republicans are never in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Why not? It is not called the "Democratic Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Liberal Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Exclusive to Democrats Black Caucus."
Byron Daniels has requested to join several times. He has not received a response.

It's also just wrong. Mia Love was a member of the CBC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird thread title. Republicans are never in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Why not? It is not called the "Democratic Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Liberal Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Exclusive to Democrats Black Caucus."
Byron Daniels has requested to join several times. He has not received a response.

If there's one thing conservatives are fantastic at, it's expressing grievances and acting in bad faith!

Also making stupid mistakes. OP doesn’t even have the guy’s name right.

Like saying Republicans are never in the CBC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird thread title. Republicans are never in the Congressional Black Caucus.

Why not? It is not called the "Democratic Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Liberal Congressional Black Caucus." Or, the "Exclusive to Democrats Black Caucus."
Byron Daniels has requested to join several times. He has not received a response.

This indicates that they’re not interested in him joining because he voted not to certify the election.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/558048-black-republican-claims-hes-being-ostracized-from/amp/