Real Brother Here.

I was moved by a number of people on Twitter who were boasting of someone named Tammy Baldwin who  had supposedly made a compelling and moving argument for Progressivism and while I admit I ignord it at first because I knew it was some Occupy Wall Street Racist or White Supremacist who hates President Obama because he’s black. 

But when the Black Self-hating Sellout married to the White girl Van Jones touted the Baldwin speech I had to click onto the link to see what really goes on. Right off the bat I saw the article was from the Huffington Post the former Progressive site that has been purchased by the racists at AOL Time Warner who have turned it into no less then a daily Newsletter for the Tea Party.

The article written by Amanda Terkel entitled; Tammy Baldwin Delivers Passionate Defense of Progressivism can be read it its entirety here;

My problem with the Terkel article as well as Baldwin’s speech is the same problem I have with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street and with whites in general who seek to mask their racism and white supremacy behind their principals and ideology. The argument that racism and white supreamcy is  a matter of principal is in a word dumb.

Racists and white supremacists who argue racism as principled ideology remind me of Sandusky arguing that pedophilia is OK because he “Loves” children.

In this case Baldwin argues that its white progressives that must lead the way.  “It’s not that we’ve forgotten how to create wealth in this country. It’s that we have allowed that wealth to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. And as the distance between top and bottom has widened, the bonds between us have stretched — and broken,” she said according to her prepared remarks, which were provided to The Huffington Post. “[White]Progressives want to restore those bonds.”

Now people who think I’m stupid will argue that Baldwin said nothing about “White Progressives” as oppose to Progressives in general who are ALL WHITE. I would counter by saying she doesn’t have to distinguish between White Progressives and a Black President because the distinction is obvious. Indeed calling themselves the 99 percent is designed to pit White Progressives against the Black President who represents the 1 percent of Americans who would serve as President. 

Still not convinced? Allow me to continue.

Terkel next quotes Baldwin about her “proud progressive tradition“.  Now other then agitating from the outside looking in what “proud tradition” do these white supremacists have? I hope they aren’t trying to lay claim to the Civil Rights Movement? These white hypocrites were nowhere to be found. There is no “proud progressive tradition” all they’ve ever done is take successes like President Obama’s and try to make it their own while stabbing him in the back claiming he’s not progressive enough.

Proof that Baldwin and Turkel in conjunction with the Right Wing Racist Machine are in cahoots comes in a thinly veiled attempt to contrast the Conservative Racist position with that of the White Supremacist Progressives. Terkel takes a seemingly innocuous quote from Baldwin and uses it to insult President Obama. “Our vision cannot be defined on the other side’s terms or on the other side’s turf,

One can read all kinda’ stuff into the above qoute but “alluding to a frustration that has often characterized the progressive base, which gained steam in 2004 by outlining its opposition to the Iraq War and President George W. Bush’s not among them. It was a young BLACK budding  Senatorial Candidate from Illinois who so articulately expressed opposition to the Wars and Bush’s policies in 2004 and it didn’t have a damn thing to do with Progressivism.

The fact that a Huffington Post reporter would tell the LIE that Obama was ever a hard core Progressive is vital to their argument that he’s unfit to be President. Is Obama a Conservative? Hell no, but he’s not a Progressive in the sense of being a Socialist which is simply another way for racists and white supremacists to hide their racial bias and hatred. Again, white progressives have no record of success and can’t get elected President so they like cry babies seek to destroy President Obama who has advanced more progressive legislation then these white supremacist nuts could ever imagine.

Indeed whenever these Occupy idiots talk policy they simply put Obama’s policies on steroids and call it a day. There is no policy or ideological difference between white progressives and President Obama, there is however a racial divide and that’s why progressives are so angry. Are we really to believe that when a black man was elected President all of the sudden these white nuts noticed inequality? Could there be more of an insult to progress then the notion that a black President fostered inequality? Where have these white hypocrites been for the last 250 years?

The balance of the article is more of the same nonsense about white Progressives being the 99 percent and the black President being the 1 percent and against the 99 percent and then Terkel ended with this line; “If elected, Baldwin would become the first open lesbian in the upper chamber. There it is. The Hillary Supporting White Lesbians are in the 99 percent but the black President isn’t.

Directly below the Terkel article is a video of the Sellout Van Jones[Did I mention he’s married to a White woman?] with the caption “Van Jones says Occupy has to become like the Tea Party“. There it is again. Occupy should be like the Tea Party and hate the President because he’s Black.



Theron K. Cal is a Writer and Political Commentator who hosts The Real Brother Radio Show weekdays on Blog Talk Radio and U-Stream




  1. Nobody alive today was alive 250 years ago – let alone 450 years ago – so there’s a limit to the amount of blame for racism you could even theoretically place on anyone currently alive.

    There were people who were WELL aware of the inequality between the so-called “black community” and others, but when they were told that it was the groups’ adherence to Marxist beliefs that made them poor (as it does to everyone), they were ignored.

    Of course, any evidence that showed that the free-er the market is the more wealthy are the “black” people who participate in it, was written off as race-traitorous.

    Contrary to Obama’s speech, today, free markets HAVE proven to raise the standard of living for everyone who participated, as noted in the following two articles:

    Race and Economics / Legal Obedience

    Blacks and Politics

    As to the sudden influx of people who now care to address the issue of inequality, generally speaking, it was obvious that free markets allowed people to prosper, just as it was obvious that, as a culture, the so-called “black community” was against free markets and blamed it, as well as “institutional racism”, for the inequality – so what else could the rest of us do, including those “black” people who did NOT identify with the culture of the “black community” (such as Walter Williams), but to hope that one day they would just embrace the free market and make themselves richer.

    But now that there is an effort to destroy the free market, of course more people are going to try to explain why the “black community” is poorer because of their economic policies.

    There is more to this influx, though. We didn’t see the right-wing version of statism as destructive of the free market because it came in the form of crony Capitalism, which we confused with deregulation, anti-socialism, and the like.

    It turns out that the statism of Bush is not that much better than the statism of Obama (crony Capitalism at least promotes Capitalism, per se, if also a protectionist form of Capitalism):

    If you want to understand the difference between crony Capitalism and the free market, see this video:

    How to Reach the Left | Roderick T. Long

    And if you want to see why Obama was wrong when, today, he said that it was a good thing that the so-called “monopolies” were broken up, and also why Bush was wrong for his belief in stimulus packages and for his abandonment of free market principles, again I refer you to the following article:

    Anti-trust, Anti-truth

    In short, we – including “blacks” who do not define themselves by their race or by Marxism – could ignore the Marxist ideology of the “black community” before, letting them believe whatever they wanted about economics, but now that the government is trying to force us all into collectivism, we must correct Obama’s, as well as Bush’s, ignorant economic policies to preserve our own liberties.

    1. Real Brother here.

      You are 100% WRONG. First of all that Racists and White Supremacists alive today weren’t when the 450 years of Racism and White Supremacy began doesn’t excuse the fact that you continue the tradition of Racism and White Supremacy today nor are sore at the fact that the election of a Black President rendered moot the justification for Racism and White Supremacy which is the assumed genetic inferiority of Blacks.Since the premise of your argument was DUMB the rest of the post is not even worth reading. Get it right. Australian economics has NEVER been tried and that’s because its STUPID. The ONLY reason you Racists are willing to destroy America’s Democracy is because you’re upset that America’s Democracy resulted in a brilliant Black genius becoming President.


      1. You can’t continue a philosophy simply by being born, so it is literally impossible for you to pin 450 years of racism on anyone alive today.

        Not only that, but I keep trying to tell you that, if I granted you your premise that it was possible for racism to be genetic (and I don’t), the same 450 years of slavery of which you speak could just as easily be attributed to some genetic proclivity on the part of “black” people to choose a Marxist economic worldview – “Look at how committed black people are to their collectivist economic worldview. It makes them so poor that they need others to provide for them”.

        Of course, I don’t believe this, as I’ve always said.

        Further still, racism is a belief system, and beliefs are not genetic. This is true of ALL beliefs. Nobody is born genetically predisposed to ANY beliefs.

        In my very first post, I argued for why there is NO significant difference between “black” and “white” people, so I’m not sure how you reasoned from that that I believe in the genetic inferiority of any race.

        And since I don’t define people by the color of their skin, I don’t see why a “black” person being elected as President is significant. He’s a smart guy.

        It’s obvious to me that he’s been in a lot of debates; which I think is great because more people desparately need to argue about many things more than they do – such as racism.

        But he’s a crafty guy, too: Avoiding the Constitutional issue of Obamacare during the Health Care Summit; and dodging certain questions with “Your premise is wrong”, but not stating WHY the premise is wrong, and then answering a question he likes better; for example.

        And contrary to your belief about the racist motivations for “white” people electing Obama, I would suggest (can’t know for sure, technically) that those who are not part of the so-called “black community” saw a black man who did not seem to adopt the culture of the so-called “black community” to a significant extent – cared about logic, cared about etymology, cared about family – and they figured “Let’s finally put this whole ‘The US is racist’ lie to rest so we don’t have to deal with all the economic hurdles that it comes with.”

        But now, all the actual racists will say “See, even the most intelligent of them cannot help but to feel entitled and to destroy economies”. This, of course, is short-sighted on their part, because they – like you – still do not understand that the color of one’s skin cannot make someone believe something.

        We need to be able to separate color from culture, if we’re to deal with the issue of racism, once and for all – color and ancestry are not a choice, but culture is ALWAYS a choice.

        And if you look at Obama’s history, you will see that he was raised by Marxists. He’s not a bad President because he’s black – he’s a bad President because he believes in collectivism, and collectivism destroys people’s wealth and liberty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s