The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Wattree's picture

    The Real History of The Poverty Tours

    By Wattree on Sun, 03/24/2013 - 11:39pm |

    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE


    The Real History of The Poverty Tours
    .
    The hostility that Tavis Smiley and Cornel West have for President Obama is so transparent that if it were glass we would have walked right through it and cut ourselves to shreds. These two are shameless, and it’s not only a national disgrace how the establishment media is allowing them to prance around posing as the savior of the poor and middle class, but they're actually helping them to perpetuate this fraud by providing them constant coverage and millions of dollars worth of publicly supported air time.
    .
    These two thought that they were gonna become the Grand Dragons of the Black Community - which is a very profitable gig when you’re in the business of selling ALEC-connected corporations access to the Black community like Tavis Smiley. Tavis is the biggest corporate shill in the Black community. He fronts for Wal-Mart, Wells Fargo, Exxon/Mobile, Allstate Ins., Nationwide Ins., etc. - a veritable who’s who of the corporations that are most responsible for victimizing the poor and middle class in the country, and who are spending millions of dollars to obstruct minority voter rights. That’s what makes it so ironic that they’re trying to portray themselves as the saviors of "the poor minorities."
    .
    During Obama’s first campaign for president Smiley and West had already hitched their wagons to Hillary Clinton. She was 37 points ahead of Obama in the Black community at the time, so they were all set to gain the clout, prestige, and riches of having presidential access and being acknowledged as the new grand viziers of the Black community. But then, Obama won the election - in spite of their most ardent efforts - and caught them by surprise. In fact, Cornel West tried to jump the fence and began campaigning for Obama when it became clear that Obama might actually win, but Obama wasn’t having it. That's what caused the controversy over West not being invited to the inaugural celebration.
    .
    At the time, West tried to frame the issue like Obama was an ingrate for not inviting him to the inauguration after he campaigned for him. But he failed to mention the fact that less than an hour after Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States West went on national television and told the Black community that Obama couldn’t be trusted.

    .
    That’s right - on the very day that Obama went to Springfield, Illinois to maximize the historic significance of announcing his candidacy for president in the shadow of Lincoln's former statehouse instead of coming on Tavis' "State of the Black Union" jibfest, West stood up and did an impassioned rant indicating that Obama couldn’t be trusted to be president because he didn’t come on the Tavis Smiley show, as though Tavis was the gatekeeper of the Black community - and all the while Tavis is standing there grinnin' like a chess cat as though they'd caught Obama committing some sort of unconscionable act.
    .
    Look at the video below and notice how entitled West sounds, as though it was more appropriate for Obama to come kiss Tavis’ ring than to announce his candidacy in the shadow of Lincoln’s former statehouse. I remember becoming slack-jawed at his unmitigated arrogance. Up until that moment I had been a big fan of both Tavis and West, but that was when I first realized that they were egomaniacal fools. That was also the morning that I started investigating them, and I’ve written nearly 30 articles on them since.
    .
    The video is also ironically prophetic. Notice how even as West is lecturing the nation on how Obama is surrounding himself with people who can’t be trusted, you can see Wells Fargo and Exxon/Mobil logos floating by in the background behind him. What makes that so prophetically ironic is Tavis was later involved in the Wells Fargo "Ghetto Loans" scam, where Wells Fargo ended up having to settled a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice agreeing to pay poor and middle-class minorities $175 million as a result of the scam. This is the biggest scandal EVER perpetrated by a Black man on the Black community, but the establishment media is refusing to cover it. That’s why I’ve become so fixated on bringing the machinations of these two demagogues to the attention of the Black community.
     

    .
    .

    So the Bottom Line is this - when people like myself criticize Tavis Smiley, Cornel West, or Boyce Watkins, we’re not criticizing them because they’re critical of President Obama; our problem with them is they’re cherry-picking their facts and telling half-truths to promote their own agenda.
    .
     

    HEY, AREN'T YOU THE SAME GUY
    WHO SAID I COULDN'T BE TRUSTED?

    A prime example of that is they are going out of their way NOT to tell the Black community that the United States Constitution gives sole control of spending to the United States House of Representatives, which is controlled by the Republicans. So the only way that President Obama can spend any money to assist the Black community, or anyone else, is to get the Republican House to go along with him.
    .
    That’s why it’s so important for the president to hold together a coalition of Blacks, women, gays, Hispanics, and every other segment of the American population. He needs ALL of us to place pressure on the Republicans to loosen the purse strings in order for him to get anything done. So anytime you hear Tavis, West, or Watkins pointing their finger at what President Obama is doing for any other segment of the population, they’re doing you a disservice.
    .
    Here’s how politics works - "you support me when I need you, and I’ll support you when you need me." So whenever President Obama does anything for other segments of the population, he’s building up political capital so he can help you. But, of course, he doesn’t discuss what he’s doing for the Black community for a very good reason - as Cornel says himself (when it’s convenient), "Race Matters."
    .
     

    These gentlemen know full well that if President Obama runs around bragging about what he’s doing for the Black community, the Republicans are going to use that as leverage to tear his coalition apart. They would tell women, gays, Hispanics, and everyone else in America that Obama doesn’t care about them; all he wants to do is help his own people, and that message hurts the Black community. Don’t these so-called intellectuals recognize that? If they don’t, they’re dumb. If they do, that means that they’re purposely trying to mislead you. The question, then, is why?
    .
    So the fact is, when people like Tavis, West, and Watkins run around telling you that the proof that President Obama is not working for you is that he refuses to throw his fist in the air, these people are working against you, not for you - and they know it. You see, their primary agenda is NOT about helping the Black community. Their agenda is about tearing President Obama down, and again, that hurts you. But they don't care - and that's the problem.
     

    .
    .
    RELATED ARTICLES
    .


    Eric L. Wattree 
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

     

    Comments

    If you read the TARP report on high loans, Wells Fargo does much better than most other banks.

    Citigroup, PNC & Regions pushed high-priced loans to over 2/3 of all black mortgage holders. JP MorganChase & KeyCorp hit up almost 1/2 of their all black homeowners. Wells Fargo had 1/3 high loans to black homeowners.

    When it comes to wealthy black home buyers, Wells Fargo did better - only 17% paid high rate loans. Compare that with over 70% for Regions, PNC & Citigroup, and 38% for JPMorganChase.

    Looks to me like WellsFargo got left holding the bag for some much worse conduct, as did Bank of America. Who's talking about Citigroup and exploitive loans?

    Any comments on these statistics?

    http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/09/pdf/ta...


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/25/2013 - 2:43pm

    Well, yes. What, are we giving awards these days for who's screwing minorities less?  They should ALL be brought to the table to account for their actions.


    by Wattree on Mon, 03/25/2013 - 5:07pm

    Previous "Real Histories" made it sound like Wells Fargo was leading minorities like lambs to the slaughter. That 17% of well-off blacks paid high mortgages doesn't sound so big, and might be as much attributed to overstretch and long-term risk as it is to "screwing minorities".

    Read those numbers again - 70% of Citigroup's wealthy black clients paid high rate loans. 17% of Wells Fargo's clients did.

    But you've demonized Tavis Smiley for his association with Wells Fargo, comparing him to fronting for the Klan, over and over and over again.

    You didn't note that Citigroup was much much worse in your "Real History".

    Remember when banks got all that low-interest money from the Fed so they could loan to businesses - but most just hung on to the money and loaned back to the gov? Well here's Wells Fargo at #6 for small business loans, while most of the others on the list are mom-and-pops.

    Could it be that Wells Fargo simply isn't as bad as one court case gave it?

    I don't mean that I don't think Wells Fargo did illegal robo-signing, or that some of their 17% wealthy black customers might have been fleeced.

    I just think it's nice to get facts straight, and in proportion. Especially if you're going to write 25 diaries on the same subject.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/25/2013 - 6:39pm

    Baltimore was ground zero in Wells Fargo's racially-biased loan scam. The practice added to the blight plaguing the city.

    Wells Fargo followed the loan scam with a foreclosure scam.

    Wells Fargo is not a one time offender.

    Suggesting that Wells Fargo is less of a criminal corporation than another institution is not a strong defense for West and Smiley


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 12:10am

    No, it's not a strong defense. It's perspective.

    [to keep perspective, Wells Fargo's predatory lending in Baltimore & Chicago during the period of the lawsuit seems quite a bit worse than their national averages over the years in question]

    But you 2 have been writing about Smiley (this has nothing to do with West) for a year.

    You've never noted that Citigroup and others' practice was much worse.

    The Justice Department began its investigation of WellsFargo in 2009 - the year Tavis Smiley cut off relations with WellsFargo. Should Smiley have been ahead of the DoJ? Maybe.

    Was getting more loans into the black community a good idea? Sure. Should Smiley have known many of these mortgages were over-priced? Hard to tell - likely he went off the standard mortgage rate chart like everyone else, and didn't know what was offered in individual deals.

    The NAACP filed a suit in 2007 against Wells Fargo - and 14 other banks - so it's not like Wells Fargo was singled out. Did the NAACP talk to Smileý about this? You'd think so. The NAACP then droopped its suit in 2009 - did you ever bring this up?

    You don't want to talk about the robosigning/foreclosure scam as it has to do with Obama & Holder - only as it has to do with Smiley, who'd already split from Wells Fargo by then.

    The manipulating of the LIBOR rate stole billions from poor black (and white) communities around the country. But you don't want to talk about the lack of prosecution for that.

    Here's more goodies for you - the NAACP accepted Wells Fargo as a sponsor in 2009. Did you blast the NAACP for that? No, you only care about pouring dirt on Tavis Smiley, assuming he and he alone should have been responsible for Wells Fargo's excesses towards the black community.

    Oh my, Smiley & West had the audacity to talk about poverty in America.

    You two are hacks and shills for Obama.

    http://themilwaukeedrum.com/2010/06/06/naacp-hooks-up-with-wells-fargo/

    NAACP Hooks Up With Wells Fargo

    In 2007, I applauded when the NAACP filed a class action lawsuit against 15 of the nation’s largest subprime lenders for “systematic, institutionalized racism in sub-prime home mortgage lending.”

    The defendants included Wells Fargo Bank & Company.

    Though Well Fargo’s role in the subprime mortgage scheme was well-known, the predatory lender was the “title sponsor” of Tavis Smiley’s annual talkfest.

    Smiley claimed ignorance. He finally severed his ties with Wells Fargo when the glare of media spotlight got too hot.

    NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous was an outspoken critic of Wells Fargo. So you can imagine my surprise when earlier this month, I read the NAACP dropped its lawsuit against the predatory lender:

    The NAACP announced today that it is ending its lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Since 2007, the NAACP has filed lawsuits against more than a dozen of the largest financial institutions alleging violations of the Fair Housing and Equal Credit Opportunity Acts and racial discrimination.

    Unlike other pending lawsuits that seek monetary damages on behalf of individual borrowers, the NAACP lawsuits seek to change mortgage lending industry behaviors.

    So what did the NAACP get? Wells Fargo endorsed the NAACP’s “Banking Principles on Fairness and Lending.”

    Jealous said:

    We brought these lawsuits against lenders to change and stop patterns of racial discrimination and other mortgage lending behaviors that have shattered American lives, families, and neighborhoods. We developed the NAACP banking principles to ensure that our country moves toward higher rates of sustainable homeownership. We commend Wells Fargo for taking a leadership role by being the first to embrace our principles, and hope this effort becomes a model for collaborating with other financial institutions.

    Query: how will the NAACP enforce the agreement?

    Jon Campbell, Wells Fargo’s executive vice president for social responsibility, told the New York Times it will be a while before there’s any change in their lending practices:

    But now we have a partner, and we can look at ourselves through their lens. Will there be tweaks? We hope so.

    So that’s what the NAACP got? Hope.

    The NAACP is headquartered in Baltimore. On the same day the civil rights organization dropped its lawsuit, the City of Baltimore filed an amended federal complaint accusing Wells Fargo of steering blacks into subprime mortgages.

    City Solicitor George Nilson said:

    Our purpose in bringing this lawsuit remains the same as it always has been. We intend to expose Wells Fargo’s illegal, discriminatory practices to the light of day in a court of law. We want to make sure Wells Fargo reforms its lending practices, and takes specific, constructive steps to assist the City in repairing the damage caused by the many unnecessary foreclosures its irresponsible practices caused.

    Fast forward to yesterday. I visited the NAACP’s website to confirm the dates of its annual convention. I nearly spilled my coffee when I saw this banner.

    While no money changed hands on April 7, Wells Fargo is now a “lead sponsor” of the NAACP’s 101st annual convention.

    To be fair, it does seem Wells Fargo's predatory loan practice changed after 2009. The robosigning foreclosure scam took off after the 2008-2009 crash.

    PS - should Melissa Harris-Perry have compared the NAACP as well to the nurse in the Tuskeegee syphilis experiments for having Wells Fargo promote their convention and collaborating on the "fairness in banking lending"? A rather harsh condemnation reserved for Tavis Smiley alone. But we've got a witch to burn, let's get on with it.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 2:00am

    The NAACP action with Wells Fargo was in 2010 putting things in perspective. MHP debuted in 2012, so it wasn't on the front burner of issues. MHP did criticize the NAACP for not taking a stand on LGBT rights.The NAACP subsequently did make a public statement in favor of Gay marriage. Harris-Perry criticized the NAACP despite being congratulated on her new show by the organization.

    The NAACP screwed up things in the Shirley Sherrod slander and it was bought off by Wells Fargo. What else do you have? The argument seems to be that Smiley and West could have hung with even worse corporations and should be free from criticism.

    The NAACP reversed course on LGBT issues and apologized to Shirley Sherrod. Should Tavis follow suit?


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 8:27am

    The argument seems to be that Smiley and West could have hung with even worse corporations and should be free from criticism.

    After we [you and me and millions more] decided to vote for four more years of not-as-bad-as-it-could-have-been,  you obviously buy into that form of argument yourself.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 8:44am

    So given the choice, you would go with Tavis Smiley and perhaps Rand Paul? Smiley wanted to deep six ACA because it didn't include single payer. Rand Paul hates drones but loves suppressing women's rights and blocks back ground checks on guns. Do I have a problem thinking Smiley and Paul are sideshows? No.

    Tavis Smiley is an activist on paper only. He does not follow the activist tradition of Frederick Douglas. Booker T Washington,  WEB DuBois, Fannie Lou Hamer, Daisy Bates, Baysrd Ruston, Whitney Young, Martin Luther King, etc. Those individuals actually put skin the game to bolster organizations to challenge the status quo.


    by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 9:59am

    I view the Republican assault on voting rights, Unions, women's rights, gun laws, etc as a D-Day invasion of the rights of US citizens. It seems wise to marshal a massive effort against the GOP. You seem to want me to be apologetic about that stance. Actually, I'm pumped to be alive at at time when the country is at a critical crossroad. 


    by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 10:17am

    So given the choice, you would go with Tavis Smiley and perhaps Rand Paul?

    Given a choice between Tavis and who? Paul and who? The choice between Romney and not-as-bad-as-it-could-have-been is the only one I mentioned so why the question? I was given that choice and you are responding to a comment where I already said what choice I made. So, you do not have to wonder any more, simply read what I wrote just a few inches above.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 12:02pm

    Was your point that we vote for someone not as bad as someone else? Unless, I'm voting for myself, I expect to have differences with a given politician. 


    by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 1:56pm

    Tee hee hee, you're so funny.

    Yes, the NAACP dropped suit against Wells Fargo in 2010, as Wells Fargo and others were busy with illegal foreclosures on hundreds of thousands suffering from the financial meltdown. Perspective, he said.

    Did either of you ever stop and note that the NAACP sued 14 other banks too, that NAACP then made up with Wells Fargo, that if Smiley was negligent, so was the NAACP and DoJ and a host of others? Did you ever note that increased loans to black communities and small businesses was high priority, that likely a vast number of people were snookered by all 15 banks? [were they all tap dancing with the Klan?]

    Harris-Perry compared Smiley to the black nurse from the Tuskeegee syphilis scandal, akin to calling them a modern Josef Mengele, and you provide a piss-warm rejoinder about how she criticized the NAACP too?

    [Sherrod was set up by Breitbart, like ACORN - congrats to NAACP for reversing a stupid hasty comment, though the damage was done all around- Sherrod still didn't get her job back with USDA - assholes. She should have sued the USDA, not just Breitbart]

    Of course I never said "should be free from criticism". But Wattree's written 20+ diaries attacking West & Smiley, aligning them with the Klan & what-not. Isn't that criticism greatly excessive? Yeah, I think Smiley should account for his cooperation, better than just saying "I cut ties". But lots of people have cut nasty lobbying & promotion deals - do I think Smiley was really setting up blacks to get higher loans? No, I still think he got used unwittingly like many others. If you find some direct or indirect evidence, let me know and I might reverse my position. Until then, I think your hatchet job has gone on well past what's warranted, and all because they dared talk bad about Obama.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 10:09am

    I said that the NAACP screwed up the Sherrod case. You agree. I said the NAACP  apologized. You agree. The Sherrods had a history of work within the NAACP,  thus there should have some skepticism to the racism charge. The NAACP apologized for it's action, has Smiley apologized?

    You are concerned that MHP did mention the NAACP in addressing Smiley. Is the argument that MHP is responsible for what Wattree writes? Lastly, regarding what you think about how many times Wattree has written about West and Smiley, I doubt that he cares. I think in past responses he stated that you are not his target audience.


    by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 11:47am

    For the reading challenged:

    Yeah, I think Smiley should account for his cooperation, better than just saying "I cut ties".

    Whether that requires an apology once explained, I don't know, but yes, running Wealth Management lectures that were intended or hijacked for overcharging, he should have dug in and gotten some Wells Fargo response & action outside of these actions.

    And the NAACP looks pretty stupid for signing on with Wells Fargo after that, and in the middle of a rash of illegal foreclosures. Wait for an apology next... never.

    Re: MHP, she compared Smiley to someone who intentionally infected people with syphilis. I think she's a nasty piece of work, kinda like comparing anyone who disagrees to a KKK Grand Dragon. So much for being an academic intellectual.

    Yes, Wattree's audience seems to be you & DickDay, perhaps a couple other paranoids that someone didn't walk in lockstep with Obama, while Lulu & I are the disbelievers who occasionally drop by to gape in amazement at his rhetorical overreach.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 3:28pm

    Your analysis of what has gone on with Tavis is flawed. Smiley had to end his annual State of the Black Union event which mainly served as an homage to West and Smiley. The West/Smiley radio show has a small audience. 

    Tavis is spending his time trying to silence a former employee.

     


    by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 5:40pm

    I don't really care if he's jacking off in the shower. Are his comments on poverty relevant & accurate, and was his work on Wealth Management for Wells Fargo abusing trust.

    Everything else is just trade-rag gossip and normal human stupidity. Obama's as brittle to criticism as Smiley - I only care when it hurts policy I want. Politicians & media stars are supposed to be self-absorbed jerks - most rise to the occasion.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 8:23pm

    Hmmm, Rand Paul style myopia again. Style over substance.

    Tavis Smiley and Cornel West are the only ones speaking out on poverty, got it.

    By the way, the number of reads that Wattree gets here is similar to other posts. His audience is just fine.

    Time to start reading Bindman and Gates' "The Image of the Black In Western Art From the Early Christian Era to the "Age of Discovery". a fascinating view of black images from the time of the Pharaohs to the time of European masters of art like Rembrandt. While Cornel West merely provides word salad, Gates actually educates.

    We are just going in circles here. Time to move on.


    by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Wed, 03/27/2013 - 9:35pm

    People forget and I have misstated the 'announcement' in '07 as being in Iowa.

    Good reminder that President Obama's announcement came in front of the Lincoln's former statehouse!

    We have really evil people attempting to erase the Voting Rights Act of '65 along with the Civil Rights Act of '64.

    We have Supreme Court Justices (4 of them) who would love to do real damage to both Acts.

    We have a majority of repubs in Congress who would wipe out both acts.

    We have a majority of repubs who would do away with Affirmative Action on every damn level--not the Affirmative Action that has existed for 500 years in this country giving a leg up to the Bushes and hundreds of thousands of white folks in this country.

    We have a majority of repubs who call all minorities moochers--at least those who are not kissing the ass of the RNC.

    We have Congressmen who liken immigrants (all Black and Hispanic) as animals.

    Oh enough of that!

    See, you get me mad all the time Eric. hahahahaha

    And the Bobsey Twins are just out there to win fame and funds!

    Keep on keepin on Eric!

     

     

     


    by Richard Day on Mon, 03/25/2013 - 3:57pm

    Very nicely said, Richard.


    by Wattree on Mon, 03/25/2013 - 5:13pm