The Myth of “Underfunded” Minority Schools
Kevin “Coach” Collins, FloydReports.com
At the dawn of the Obama era, in anticipation of an increase in their “take” from government, black civic and religious leaders in Chicago started to chant the familiar phrase “inner city schools are underfunded.” Given the willingness of Americans to attribute uneven results to uneven fundamentals and the knee-jerk support for this premise it gets from the media “underfunding is the cause of underperformance” is automatically accepted as true by most people. Nationally schools with a predominately black student body receive 105% of the “white school” baseline while Asians get 107% of what White receive and Hispanics recieve about the same as white students. By region the story changes dramatically. In the Northeast blacks get 16% more funding than Whites, Asians receive 12% more funding and Hispanics top all groups with 17% more funding than whites. In the Southern region, blacks students….
Video: Hawaiian State Senator, Maybe Obama’s Hiding His Father’s Name
WND.com
The lone Republican in the Hawaii State Senate told a radio interviewer today he believes “the real issue” stopping Barack Obama from releasing his long-form birth certificate is something the president has to hide, perhaps even the name of his actual birth father.
Hawaii State Sen. Sam Slom further told the host of “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on WABC 770 AM in New York City that so long as Obama refuses to be transparent about his past, questions about the president’s birth remain “a legitimate issue.”
“My particular point of view – and why I haven’t identified myself as a ‘birther,’ per se – is that [Obama] probably was born [in Hawaii] and that the real issue is not the birth certificate, but what’s on the birth certificate,” Slom told Klein.
Asked what that could be, Slom said, “It could have to do with what his name is on the birth certificate, who is actually listed as his father, the citizenship of the father.”
He continued, “My belief is that there is a birth certificate, he was born here, but that there is information that for reasons known only to him he doesn’t want released. If it were just the birth certificate, that would be one thing, but it’s his school records, it’s employment records. … Why would anybody, let alone the president of the United States, spend millions of dollars in legal fees to keep that hidden?”
“As long as that goes on,” he concluded, “I think it’s a legitimate issue.”
As WND has reported, besides Obama’s actual birth documentation, the president has refused to release his Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.
Eric Holder’s Admission? DoJ “Does Not Enforce the Law on the Basis of Race”
Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com
Attorney General Eric Holder had something of a meltdown on Capitol Hill today when a Republican Congressman pressed him on his preferential treatment of the New Black Panther Party. Rep. John Culberson, R-TX, read a statement from a Democrat calling the Black Panthers’ actions the worst case of voter intimidation he had ever seen. In response, Holder huffed that, while the Panther’s nightstick-wielding threats were “inappropriate,” the assessment was demeaning to “my people.”
Perhaps more important than his admission that he does not see the American people as “his people” is a line he uttered shortly afterwards.
After Culberson cited “overwhelming evidence that your Department of Justice refuses to protect the rights of anybody other than African-Americans to vote,” Holder stated, “This Department of Justice does not enforce the law on the basis of race.”
Holder intended this as a denial, but it seems more like a Freudian admission.
After all, it is precisely what Holder’s Justice Department stands accused of, not enforcing the law on the basis of race.
Not only conservatives but Democrats such as Bartle Bull and apolitical observers….
Black History Month: A Race Hustler’s Dream
Suzanne Eovaldi, CoachIsRight.com
“White America still owes us,” is the misguided mantra foisted on blacks for decades. That is upsetting to Lloyd Marcus, an unhyphenated American of African descent, who decries what February, Black History Month, has become in our nation. He says it has become the special time of the year when race hustlers pitch many new guilt trip entitlement programs to us and our politicians because, Marcus says, the hustlers are still stuck in the 1950′s angst of systematic abuse. But the conditions of yesterday no longer exist today, he says. “Throughout American history, white folks, mostly Christians, suffered, sacrificed, and died to help set blacks free and move them forward,” he says.
Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, and the Congressional Black Caucus are all part of race profiteering that sees February as the most wonderful month of the year. Some guiltmongers hit up businesses and nonprofit groups along with our educational and media complexes to squeeze out as much profit as possible, along with personal aggrandizement. “Our liberal anti-American public school system, the liberal media, and black race profiteering so-called leaders make no effort to encourage black youths to be proud Americans. They even discourage it,” Marcus says.
Over the New Year’s holiday, I watched the Lockdown marathon, which featured the juvenile court system in Lake County, Indiana. That happens to be my old beat as a news correspondent, in northwest Indiana. While I covered South Lake County and not major crime news in that area, many scenes became familiar. Young black males, all under age 18, came before the judge. One young man asked to be allowed to go home so he could be with his girlfriend and their second child. Even more disturbing was the fact that I only saw one older black male appear with his wife as they sat in court listening to their son’s offenses. Where have all of the Black males gone? We need to rethink what these entitlement programs that pay nubile young women for having babies if there is no man in the house are doing to black families in this country. Remember, Senator Patrick Moynihan warned us about this many years ago.
Marcus says that Black History Month….
Ronald Reagan, Our First Black President?
Michael Reagan, FloydReports.com
Who was the first black president?
Two decades before the election of Barack Obama, novelist Toni Morrison dubbed Bill Clinton “our first black president.” She even said that Clinton was “blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime.”
Well, I could make an even stronger case for my father, Ronald Reagan, as “our first black president”—but I won’t make that claim. I don’t want to diminish the justifiable pride African-Americans take in having a president who is genetically and culturally black. Our first black president is Barack Obama.
But the past two years have made one thing clear: Ronald Reagan was a far better friend to black Americans than Barack Obama has been. Just compare the Reagan and Obama records. Under Obama, black unemployment rose from 12.6 percent in January 2009 to 16.0 percent today. This means that black unemployment has increased by more than one-fourth since Obama took office.
And the Reagan record? African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has studied the effects of Reaganomics on black America. He found that, after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987—an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million.
Before he was elected, in speech after speech, my father said that his economic plan would….
A President for “His People,” Not “We the People”
Larry Klayman, WorldNetDaily
In the year 2008, 232 years after our Founding Fathers declared their independence from the British crown, thanks to the incompetency and arrogance of the George W. Bush administration and its Republican Party, which left the nation and the world in economic and international ruins, Barack Hussein Obama, a politician far to the left of mainstream America, was elected president of the United States. Because of their minority numerical status, it was not black people who elected Obama, but whites who were fed up with the Bush years. While I did not vote for Obama – and disagreed strongly with his political ideology – I was nevertheless proud that America could elect a black president and overcome centuries of racial prejudice. In fact, I joked with friends that the Germans, French, and other Western Europeans were also initially elated with the choice, since “they were just happy that they did not now have a black head of state.” Europe could have never elected a black man, given its much deeper ingrained prejudice against the race. So with Obama’s ascendency to the throne, we American whites felt good about ourselves, if nothing else.
But in the last two years, this pride has turned to deep-seated resentment and horror – as we have witnessed Obama seemingly favoring his own race and true religious allegiance over whites, Christians and Jews. On the eve of the congressional elections of 2010, when most experts predict that Obama’s Democrats will lose control of at least the U.S. House of Representatives, it has become increasingly clear to not only tea partiers, but also most of the white Judeo-Christian electorate, that President Obama is not a ruler for all of the people, but rather “his people.”
And, how did we arrive at this sad and frightening conclusion?
First, there were the trillion-dollar bailouts, much of which were earmarked for black minority contractors. These bailouts were not only economically stupid, but the money was dolled out in a discriminatory way.
Explosive Testimony Against “Travesty of Justice” Department
Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports
A second career civil rights lawyer ripped a hole in the Obama administration’s lies about the Black Panther voter intimidation case this morning. Christopher Coates, who headed the Voting Rights division of the Justice Department, said the administration’s decision to throw out the case was “a travesty of justice” that reflected the “anger” of the president’s appointees and their “deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the” law “for the protection of white voters.” This second witness contradicts the testimony of administration officials and calls into question whether the president has ordered the Department of Justice to deny equal justice to a whole segment of American citizens, an impeachable offense.
Coates’ testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights this morning contradicted the administration’s version of events in at least three regards. (Read Coates’ full testimony here.) On election day 2008, three members of the New Black Panther Party were accused of intimidating white voters in Philadelphia. Justice Department officials have sworn, under oath, that the case was dismissed based on the facts, that political leadership was not involved, and that the department is committed to colorblind enforcement of the law. Thomas Perez, the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, testified on May 14 that the decision was simply “a case of career people disagreeing with career people,” and no “political leadership involved in the decision not to pursue this particular case.” Coates put the lie to them.
He revealed the case’s dismissal “was not required by the facts” but “was intended to send a direct message” that race-neutral justice “would not continue in the Obama administration.”
Affirmative Action…for Bed Bugs?
The Washington Times
The Obama administration has hit a new low in race-obsessed government. The post-racial president can’t even fight bedbugs without affirmative action.
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced to “environmental justice” advocacy groups that the agency plans to spend more than a half-million dollars battling the bedtime pests in “communities disproportionately exposed to environmental harms and risk.” That’s bureaucratese for minority communities.
If bigoted bugs were singling out blacks, Hispanics and American Indians, liberals might have a rational reason for working harder to protect them, but in New York, where bedbugs have gone big-time, they are hitting the rich as well as the poor, black and white alike. After all, we taste the same. That’s one reason the critters have been dubbed “Bloombugs” – for the famously rich Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg who has been so ineffective in fighting the plague of bloodthirsty insects.
President Obama’s plan is even worse than Mr. Bloomberg‘s flailing. This ill-considered EPA grant program is a microcosm of what has made Americans so angry with our government.
Obama, Not Arizona, Discriminates Based on Race
Kevin Mooney, The Daily Caller
Despite the anti-discriminatory stipulations included as part of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, President Obama has repeatedly joined with foreign leaders and ethnic pressure groups to condemn the statute as an affront to human rights that enables and encourages racial profiling.
However, Obama’s criticisms of the Arizona legislature are in direct conflict with the actions of his own administration, which has enshrined preferential policies into new federal laws, civil rights activists point out. By contrast, the state lawmakers who have been on the receiving end of White House rebukes have placed on the ballot for voter approval this November an unheralded anti-quota initiative that explicitly outlaws race and gender preferences, the activists point out.
In a joint White House news conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon this past May, Obama characterized Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, SB 1070, as a “misdirected expression of frustration” that would subject law abiding individuals to unfair racially motivated scrutiny.
Other administration officials, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder, have also invoked the specter of racial profiling as a way to delegitimize and discredit state efforts to enforce federal immigration law.
Meanwhile, critics note, Team Obama is advancing race conscious policies on the sly.
Government agencies and private contractors must incorporate racial and gender preferences into their employment practices under Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank finance bill, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, says. This key provision calls for the creation of at least 20 new Offices of Minority and Women inclusion.
The affected agencies include: The Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Board of Governors of the Fed, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Federal agents would be responsible for ensuring that an appropriate mix of women and minorities were operating not only in government but also within the workforces of contractors and subcontractors.
“Section 324’s provisions are broad and vague and are certain to increase inefficiency in federal agencies,” Furchtgott-Roth noted. “To comply, federal agencies are likely to find it easier to employ and contract with less-qualified women and minorities, merely in order to avoid regulatory trouble. This would in turn decrease the agencies’ efficiency, productivity and output, while increasing their costs.”
The bill also calls for employment tests to be applied against “financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services.”
Additionally, racial preferences have been incorporated into the health care bill in a section beginning on page 879 that Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (ACRI) blogger Allan Favish has analyzed and exposed.
Mr. President, If You Support the Troops, Help Them Vote
Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports
One of the president’s aims in his address last night was to clean up his image as the community-organizer-in-chief, the president who refuses to wear a flag pin on his lapel or put his hand over his heart for the national anthem. He attempted to boost his patriotism by rhetorically hitching himself to George W. Bush In his address last night, Barack Obama said:
This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hopes for Iraqis’ future. (Emphasis in original.)
The emphasis was deliberate. Obama intended to put himself on the same level as President Bush, who regularly got misty in the presence of the military and sobbed openly with those who had lost family members. Obama’s speech made it sound as though Bush’s patriotism were being questioned.
Left-wingers display unmatched outrage when they believe anyone “questions” their patriotism. (They spend the rest of their time telling us how much America sucks.) If President Obama wants to enjoy the respect of patriotic Americans, he should do it the old fashioned way: he should earn it.
Even as this is being written, thousands of military men are threatened with being disenfranchised in the midterm elections. And the Obama administration seems to be going out of its way to make sure their votes do not count.
