He was born January 17, 1937, but you’re probably saying, “Who is Ed Mezvinsky?” and “Why should I care?”
Bear with me for a minute, as the answer has to do with Hillary Clinton’s run for the 2016 elections, and a great deal more. The “more” part will boggle your mind.
Ed Mezvinsky is a former Democrat congressman who represented Iowa’s 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977. He sat on the House Judiciary Committee that decided the fate of Richard Nixon.
He was outspoken saying that Nixon was a crook and a disgrace to politics and the nation and should be impeached.
He and the Clintons were friends and very politically intertwined for many years.
Ed Mezvinsky had an affair with NBC News reporter Marjorie Sue Margolies and later married her after his wife divorced him.
In 1993, Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, then a freshman Democrat in Congress, cast the deciding vote that got President Bill Clinton’s controversial tax package through the House of Representatives.
In March 2001, Ed Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. He had embezzled more than $10 million dollars from people via both a Ponzi scheme and the notorious Nigerian e-mail scams (yes, he’s “that guy”). He was found guilty and sentenced to 80 months in federal prison.
After serving less than three-quarters of that time, he was released in April 2008. He remains on federal probation. To this day, he still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.
About now you are saying, “So what!”
Well, this is Marc and Chelsea Mezvinsky. Ed Mezvinsky is Chelsea Clinton’s father-in law. Chelsea married his son.
Marc and Chelsea are in their early thirties and purchased a 10.5 million dollar NYC apartment (after being married in George Soros’ mansion).
Has anyone heard any mention of any of this in any of the media? No?
Gee… I wonder why…
If this guy was Jenna or Barbara Bush’s, or better yet, Sarah Palin’s daughter’s father-in-law, the news would be an everyday headline and every detail would be reported over and over. The liberal rags, however, are owned by the same corrupted cabal to which the Clintons, the Mezvinskys, and Soros belongs.
People are already talking about Hillary as our next President, and there is a distinct possibly Chelsea will run in the future. The headlines are already proclaiming, “How Hillary Clinton won the 2014 midterms.”
Apparently, the cycle of the rich and corrupt never ends.
The Democrat’s ongoing scheme is simple: Promise anything to the masses in order to keep being reelected, then abuse the power of their office to line their own pockets, the pockets of their friends, and the pockets of people and companies who funded their campaigns — at your expense.
Lying and corruption seem to make Democrat candidates more popular, yet Democrats who are repeatedly suckered into voting for them keep wondering when they’re going to get their slice of the pie.
The answer is, “Never, so long as you keep allowing yourself to be suckered in to voting for Democrats.” If the Democrats have you on a hook, and want to keep you on that hook, the only only solution is to get off the hook. Stop voting Democrat.
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” – Thomas Jefferson
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” – Abraham Lincoln
“…a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” – Martin Luther King
The 2014 elections are by far the most important elections to date of this century. Despite governmental reassurances to the contrary, America is tottering over the brink of economic collapse. Vote wrong, and we most certainly will lose. Vote right, and we might be able to haul her back from the edge.
As a registered Independent, I spent all afternoon Sunday reviewing not only the positions, but also the voting records of all 21 positions (42 candidates — half Republican, half Democrat) on my ballot. Given my “preaching” here on Facebook, I wanted to be absolutely certain I was electing the best candidate for each position, and not just “voting party line.”
I based my decisions mostly on their voting records. The criteria was simple: Had they supported and defended the Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land,” as per their oaths of office? Or were they perverting our government by actions which undermined our Constitution and the rights and freedoms it recognizes and protects?
It was close in only 5 of the 21 open positions. The other 16 positions were slam-dunks.
In ALL cases, however, the records of the Republican candidates made it clear they stood for our rights and freedoms, while the records of the Democrat candidates made it clear they stood for bigger government at the EXPENSE of our rights and freedoms.
Sunday’s exercise was yet another of countless confirmations that the Democrat Party itself is no longer American, that it has been usurped by a mix of communists, fascists, socialists, muslims, opportunists and just plain idiots, to be used solely for the purpose of pulling the wool over the eyes of mostly lower to middle-class voters in order to remain in power, raise taxes, and siphon off a great deal of our hard-earned tax dollars into their own pockets and those of their friends.
To be fair, some Republicans are doing this, too, but I continually find they’re doing so to a far lesser extent.
Bottom line: I remain an Independent voter, yet cast all my votes towards the Republicans. My decisions were not based on the color of their party, but on the content of their character.
I’ll leave you with one last observation. Five years of digging into what goes on behind the curtains in both parties have lead me to conclude what the Democrats say about the Republicans are largely lies, often made up on the spot, and that the elements in the following graphic are largely true:
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, not a Democrat, and for many very good reasons which are even more sound today than they were back then.
Both the video and the audio are clear, steady, and in HD format. There’s no mistaking this one, folks. Total kudos to the videographer. Even though he’s using a cell phone, he does a fantastic job of keeping the video extremely steady for a cell phone.
I spent more than 90 minutes pulling every detail possible from 104 seconds of recording, using my talents as an audio/video enthusiast to slow things WAY down. I threw the video in HD on a large (24″) high-res (1920×1200) monitor with a 5.1 sound system several times, taking copious notes. My narrative is given below, in stage/movie script format, with video times on the left.
There’s a LOT going on, here, with at least 25 distinct comments made in the last 20 seconds alone, and with significant overlap in the last ten seconds. Try playing the video while reading along with the script, and you’ll see what I mean!
Note: I’ve taken significant care to mask the cursing.
Before you tackle the video and script, what lessons can we, as people who open carry firearms, learn from this event?
00:00 – (Video begins. NV speaking, walking slowly along the sidewalk towards the store and Kajieme Powell): So like, my homeboy just came and got me, and he said, “dude has just totally sold out the store.” (NV laughs). And he like, “F*** this.” He like “dude sellin…” Damn, this s***’s craaaazy.
00:23 – (NV steps off sidewalk into a parking lot next to the store in question). This s***’s cra… he f*****… what’s up? He’s cra… he just stole two sodas, like “f*** them I’m going to drink ’em.”
00:31 – (NV steps from the adjacent parking lot to the store’s parking lot). Hell, nah.
00:37 – (NV begins stepping to the edge of the store’s parking lot). He says straight, “put ’em on the ground, bro,” like daring sombody would touch ’em. Hell this s*** crazy.
00:44 – (unknown speaker, possibly the driver of the white pickup truck). All right man, head on down,
00:46 – (different unknown speaker, possibly Powell). All right, get out the f*** (unintelligible). Get the f*** way, f*** away from me. ****, I’m going to list the ground… I’m on facebook, you know who I am… I’m tired of this s***.
00:54 – (NV chuckles nervously). You tired, heh-heh… This the store, when the store do…
00:58 – (bearded man in red ball cap, horizontally red and and white striped shirt with red collar, black and silver watch, jeans, and red Nike shoes). Whas up, Mike?
00:59 – (NV). This craaazy.
01:02 – (NV). Whas up? Whas up?
01:10 – (Man in faded purple Route 66 T-shirt with off-white pants, black ball cap with purple Nike emblem, brown shoes with black laces and soles, something crumpled in his right hand). Brother, this not how you do it, bro. Know what I’m sayin’?
01:13 – (large man in brown collared shirt with orange R logo, bald, small beard element, black pants). Ain’t that (unintelligible, but sounds like, “Dunham”) boy, though.
01:15 – (NV). No doubt. The police gonna pull up. You see… Ya’ll call the police?
01:20 – (bearded man in red ball cap). Ya, I doin, yeah.
01:21 – (man in faded purple shirt). We called ’em, yeah. We didn’t want (unintelligible).
01:24 – (NV). You banging (could be ganging) up?
01:24 – (red ap or purple shirt, simultaneously with NV’s 01:24 statement). Come on, bro…
01:25 – (Driving officer). Take your hand out of your pocket, man.
01:26 – (Riding officer). Get your hand out of your pocket!
01:27 – (NV). Has he got his gun out?
01:28 – (Powell). Shoot me!
01:28 – (Driving officer). Take your hand out…
01:28 – (Powell). Shoot me!
01:28 – (Riding officer). Drop it.
01:29 – (Riding officer). Drop it.
01:29 – (NV). Oh, s***…
01:29 – (Powell). Shoot me! Shoot me!
01:31 – (NV). Oh, s***…
01:32 – (Powell). Shoot me!
01:33 – (Powell). Shoot me now, motherf*****!
01:34 – (Driving officer). Drop the knife.
01:35 – (NV). Oh, s***…
01:36 – (Riding officer). Drop the knife.
01:37 – (NV). Oh, s***…
01:38 – (either red ball cap or purple shirt). Come on, bro! Drop it, bro!
01:40 – (first of seven gun shots fired from gun A)
01:41 – (last of seven gun shots fired from gun A)
01:42 – (first of two more gun shots fired, sounds different than gun A)
01:42 – (last of two more gun shots fired)
01:43 – (lady in the background). Oh, s***!
01:44 – (unknown). Damn!
1. Any deciphering the details in the script, particularly “So like, my homeboy just came and got me, and he said, “dude has just totally sold out the store” (could be “stole out of the store”) and Powell’s later comment, “I’m on Facebook, you know who I am… I’m tired of this s***,” it appears the NV knew Powell. He certainly knew the man in the red ball cap, who addressed him as “Mike.”
2. According to The Guardian, “St Louis metropolitan police undertook to release the recordings of the Powell case quickly, hoping to make the circumstances clear and minimize its potential as a further catalyst for rioting and confrontation between crowds and police.”
Good for them!
3. Newsweek states, “Fewer than 20 seconds elapsed from the time police arrived on the scene to the time they shot Powell. The two officers fired 12 shots at Powell, according to police chief Sam Dotson.” I counted just nine shots fired, even when I slowed down the audio and analyzed it graphically. Gunshots appear as very sharp, high, and short spikes. I hope to put up the graphical gunshot analysis soon. Working with a new program…
As for Newsweek’s claim of 20 seconds, here’s my perspective:
01:25 – (Driving officer). Take your hand out of your pocket, man.
01:40 – (first of seven gun shots fired from gun A)
That’s fifteen seconds between the initial communication/contact with the suspect and the first shot fired. When you count from when the police cruiser turned the corner at 1:14, that comes to 21 seconds.
When I heard about the shooting, I thought, “Oh, no, here we go again…” and assumed this would be a slam-dunk case of police brutality, excessive force, or bad training. Even the first time I saw the video I thought the same thing. When I turned up the volume and ran through it a few times, however, I realized what the police were seeing and hearing were significantly different than what a casual observer might see in the video. That’s when I decided to put forth the effort to come up with a complete script, one that was as accurate as humanly possible.
Through that process, I saw and heard what the officers were seeing and hearing. They were responding to a 911 call of shoplifting. Arriving at the scene, everyone was behaving normally except for one visibly agitated individual with at least one hand in his pockets. They ordered him to remove his hand from his pocket and he comes up with a tightly-held knife, is taunting the cops to go ahead and shoot him. He backs off then comes back at them.
Knives can be deadly. Even with immediate and top-notch medical attention, there are knife wounds from which you simply cannot recover. “Assault” is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. It’s carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. Thus, approaching another in a threatening manner while brandishing a weapon is assault with a deadly weapon. Thus, the officers were fully justified in their use of deadly force to protect life and limb while facing imminent and reasonably credible threat.
Now, let’s address all the second-guessing about why they didn’t use tasers.
First, they’re not as reliable as firearms. Loose clothing can easily block a taser dart from reaching the skin, particularly if the loose clothing is heavy. The suspect’s hoodie was partially zipped, leaving a small V of viable area between belly and neck in which to obtain a clear shot.
Second, if I were facing an assault with a deadly weapon and had the option of reaching for a taser vs reaching for a firearm, I’d opt for the firearm. If the taser failed, I’d be seriously injured, if not dead. The firearm is far less likely to fail.
Thus, even if they were carrying tasers, I think the officers made the right choice to use firearms in that particular situation.
Getting back to their use of multiple rounds, my military combat training is different than their law enforcement training. In a combat situation, you might be facing a much larger number of attackers than most law enforcement officers face while performing their duties. The conservation of ammunition is a very real concern. Thus, in combat, if a target is somewhat distant, you shoot from cover, and use only one round. Hit your target and repeat as necessary to neutralize the threat. If an attacker is coming at you, we were taught, “two to the heart, one to the head, repeat as necessary until they’re dead.” Even so, that’s just three rounds and reassess. I hear some some police are taught to keep firing until they’re no longer moving, while others are taught to empty their magazines. I cannot attest as to the truthfulness of either, but the video showed at least nine distinct shots fired, and the police chief said it was twelve.
Regardless, the suspect started falling after the third round, hit the ground with the fourth round fired, and three more were fired as he rolled towards the officer. After a brief, half-second pause, two more rounds were fired. In all, at least nine shots were fired in two seconds. That’s nowhere near enough time for an accurate assessment on the part of the officers. The suspect caused these events to unfold when he assaulted them with a deadly weapon, and it really doesn’t matter whether they fired three times or twelve. He forfeited all right to life when he initiated the assault.
“Why didn’t they just shoot him in the leg?” That’s just absurd. First, the area below the waist is more than 50% open space, so even attempting to do so creates a serious possibility of a ricochet that would either injure or kill a bystander. Second, even if the shot found it’s mark, shots in people’s limbs rarely stop an immediate attack. It’s highly likely that even with two rounds in each upper thigh, the suspect would have continued to press his attack, injuring or killing at least one of the officers. Thus, the leg shot is dangerous for the officers, dangerous for bystanders, and stupid all around.
No matter how many times I run through the video, I can’t spot anything which suggests it was anything other than an appropriate response and a good shoot. Textbook.
“Congress shall make no law … ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH…” – Amendment ONE of our United States Constitution.
I support your right to blabber incessantly and without reason, Ms. Jackson, EXCEPT when you
abuse your own right to infringe upon mine. At that point, you have overstepped the bounds of your Constitutional rights and the limits on your authority, and you have infringed upon my own inalienable freedoms as recognized and respected by our Constitution.
If this sounds unfamiliar to you, then you are probably unfamiliar with the Constitution, at which point I must ask: How can you possibly abide by the oath of office you swore to support and defend when you clearly know so little about the document behind it?
State-sponsored socialism has many names. Regardless of whether you call it Naziism, fascism, Leninism, Marxism, communism, Islamism, or Obamaism, they all have a huge downside: Human extermination i.e Genocide. It follows a three-step pattern:
1. Registration – identifies those who will soon be disarmed.
2. Disarm the people so they can’t resist the armed police state.
3. Exterminate all who are either a burden to or a resistor of the police state.
By the way, extermination isn’t limited to only those who owned firearms. In fact, extermination has
historically been visited primarily on the poor, as they’re the greatest burden on the state. All those promises of “we’ll take care of you!” during the elections only last long enough for socialists to secure their stronghold in the government. That’s when the masses start dying.
Extermination is then extended to the III% who would refuse to knuckle under and who stand against the massacre no matter what. In the 20th Century alone, socialism exterminated 135 million humans, according to the U.S. Congressional Record. The vast majority of those were NOT dissidents, but merely the poor, who could not exist without handouts from the state. Most were relocated away from their farming tools, where they simply starved.
Point 1: If Obama was a “Foreign Student” in 1981, he was most certainly not an American citizen in 1981.
Point 2: If he was not an American citizen in 1981, then he was not a natural born citizen at all.
Point 3: If he was not a natural born citizen, then he is ineligible to be President.
Point 4: If he is ineligible to be President, then he is NOT our President.
Our Constitution is crystal clear on this matter, folks:
Article II, Section 1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
As per this evidence, as well as the as yet unsettled evidence involving his birth certificate forgeries, Sheriff Arpaio’s volumes of evidence, as well as Dr. Taitz’ case before the Supreme Court, Obama is NOT a natural born Citizen. Unless he’s 236 years old, he wasn’t a citizen of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, either.
We thus return to reexamine points 1 through 4, above, and, since Obama fails every test, the only logically conclusion is that Barack Hussein Obama IS NOT OUR PRESIDENT.
Since that is the case, the following actions also apply:
1. All generals relieved of their command under Obama should be reinstated, effective immediately.
2. Each and every one of Obama’s “Executive Orders” should be declared null and void, effective immediately.
3. Each and every bill signed into law should be returned to both the House as well as the Senate for full review and consideration under the first LEGITIMATE President of the United States of America.
4. Since Obama and Biden ran on a ticket together, and Obama was ineligible to be President and therefore ineligible to run for president, their ticket should be declared null and void effective immediately, with the Romney-Ryan ticket declared the winners by default, again, effective immediately.
5. Any an all legislation that was either requested, proposed by, modified by, or influenced by Obama or his 2008/2012 running mate, Joe Biden, should be declared null and void effective immediately.
Yes, folks. It is a mess. However, it is far less of a mess than America will find herself in if we allow this fiasco to continue.
STOP THE LIES. STOP THE DECEPTION.
At the very least, Obama is an ignorant pawn in global conspiracy to instill a puppet of a sinister group into the office of the Presidency of the United States of America.
At worst, however, he is a willing participant, a liar to the American people, and perpetrator of countless scandals, lies, deceits, corruption, usurpation, espionage, and traitorism. If it’s discovered this is the case, he should be impeached, tried as a traitor, and sentenced to either death (maximum penalty) or life in prison.
Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear at least Dr. Taitz’ arguements: SCOTUS Schedules Obama Eligibility Case To Be Heard In Conference. I sincerely hope they bump the hearing up to prior to the swearing in, and postpone the swearing in if there’s any evidence which requires further discovery and examination.
America deserves better from the U.S. Supreme Court than a delay which will lead to far more hassle and consternation than is necessary.
African Americans originally came to America unwillingly, having been stolen and sold by Muslim slave-catchers in Africa to Dutch traders journeying to America in 1619.
The Three-Fifths Clause dealt only with representation and not the worth of any individual.
In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights.
The 13th Amendment to abolish slavery was voted for by 100% of the Republicans in congress and by 23% of the Democrats in congress.
Not one Democrat either in the House or the Senate voted for the 14th amendment declaring that former slaves were full citizens of the state in which they lived and were therefore entitled to all the rights and privileges of any other citizen in that state.
Not a single one of the 56 Democrats in Congress voted for the 15th amendment that granted explicit voting rights to black Americans.
In 1866 Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan to pave the way for Democrats to regain control in the elections.
George Wallace was a Democrat.
Bull Connor was a Democrat.
In the 19th century, Democrats prevented Black Americans from going to public school.
In the 20th and 21st century Democrats prevented Black Americans trapped in failing schools from choosing a better school. In fact Democrats voted against the bill by 99%.
Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, Literacy tests, white only primaries, and physical violence all came from the Democratic Party.
Between 1882 and 1964, 4,743 individuals were lynched. 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites. Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and Democrats successfully blocked those bills.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. His father, Daddy King was a Republican.
Though both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed into law under Democrat President, Lyndon Johnson, it was the Republicans in Congress who made it possible in both cases – not to overlook the fact that the heart of both bills came from the work of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
In the 108th Congress, when Republicans proposed a permanent extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it was opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (composed only of Democrats).
Following the Civil War, Frederick Douglass received Presidential appointments from Republican Presidents Ulysses Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James A. Garfield. Democratic President Grover Cleveland removed Frederick Douglas from office but Republican President Benjamin Harrison reappointed him.
Very few today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. Although slavery still had not been abolished in all the states, things definitely were moving in the right direction.
By 1820, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson’ party (the Democratic Party) had become the majority party in Congress.
In 1789, the Republican controlled Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance that prohibited slavery in a federal territory. In 1820, the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise and reversed that earlier policy, permitting slavery in almost half of the federal territories.
In 1850, Democrats in Congress passed the “Fugitive Slave Law”. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or else pay huge fines.
Because the “Fugitive Slave Law” allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery, this law was disastrous for blacks in the North; and as a consequence of the atrocious provisions of this Democratic law, some 20,000 blacks in the North left the United States and fled to Canada.
The “Underground Railroad” reached the height of its activity during this period, helping thousands of slaves escape from slavery in the South all the way out of the United States and into Canada – simply to escape the reach of the Democrats’ Fugitive Slave Law.
In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery: the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Even though Democrats in Congress had already expanded the federal territories in which slavery was permitted through their passage of the Missouri Compromise, they had retained a ban on slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats repealed those earlier restrictions, thus allowing slavery to be introduced into parts of the new territory where it previously had been forbidden.
Following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, in May of 1854, a number of the anti-slavery Democrats in Congress – along with some anti-slavery members from other political parties, including the Whigs, Free Soilers, and Emancipationists, formed a new political party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans. The name of that party? They called it the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom and equality first set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.
One of the founders of the Republican was U.S. Senator Charles Sumner. In 1856, Sumner gave a two day long speech in the U.S. Senate against slavery. Following that speech, Democratic Representative Preston Brooks from South Carolina came from the House, across the Rotunda of the Capitol, and over to the Senate where he literally clubbed down Sumner on the floor of the Senate, knocked him unconscious, and beat him almost to death. According to the sources of that day, many Democrats thought that Sumner’s clubbing was deserved, and it even amused them. What happened to Democrat Preston Brooks following his vicious attack on Sumner? He was proclaimed a southern hero and easily re-elected to Congress.
In 1856, the Republican Party entered its first Presidential election, running Republican John C. Fremont against Democrat James Buchanan. In that election, the Republican Party issued its first-ever Party platform. It was a short document with only nine planks in the platform, but significantly, six of the nine planks set forth bold declarations of equality and civil rights for African Americans based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
In 1856, the Democratic platform took a position strongly defending slavery and warned: “All efforts of the abolitionists… are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people”.
It is worth noting that for over a century and a half, Democrats often have taken a position that some human life is disposable – as they did in the Dred Scott decision. In that instance, a black individual was not a life, it was property; and an individual could do with his property as he wished. Today, Democrats have largely taken that same position on unborn human life – that an unborn human is disposable property to do with as one wishes.
African Americans were the victims of this disposable property ideology a century and a half ago, and still are today. Consider: although 12 percent of the current population is African American, almost 35 percent of all abortions are performed on African Americans. In fact, over the last decade, for every 100 African American live births, there were 53 abortions of African American babies. Democrats have encouraged this; and although black Americans are solidly pro-life with almost two-thirds opposing abortion on demand, a number of recent votes in Congress reveals that Democrats hold exactly the opposite view, with some 80 percent of congressional Democrats being almost rabidly pro-abortion and consistently voting against protections for innocent unborn human life.
Given the countless atrocities against blacks at the hands of the Democratic Party, please explain to me again why ANY African American today is a member?