Saturday, October 09, 2010

Under "Post-racial" Obama, Race Relations Rot

Are we united yet? Far from it:
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 36% of voters now say relations between blacks and whites are getting better. That's down from 62% in July of last year at the height of the controversy involving a black Harvard professor and a white policeman.

As readers will recall, in that case our "post-racial" president, who was elected largely for his skin color and who made his hatred of Caucasians public knowledge in an autobiography, acted stupidly by siding with a race-baiting moonbat against the police.
African-Americans are much more pessimistic than whites. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of whites think black-white race relations are getting better, but just 13% of blacks agree.

Interestingly, 59% of African-American voters continue to believe the country is moving in the right direction, a view shared by just 27% of whites.

You could almost get the impression that the Manchurian Moonbat is not expected to get along with Whitey, but to tear down his world.

Every time a liberal whips out the race card, the situation gets worse:
Confidence in the nation's course among African-Americans soared after Barack Obama's election. But then several prominent Democrats, perhaps most notably former President Jimmy Carter, suggested that opposition to the president's health care plan was motivated in part by racism. Only 12% of all voters agreed in September of last year, but among blacks, 27% felt that way and 48% were undecided.

The only way to end racial tension is to integrate and assimilate — which stands in direct contradiction to the liberal strategy of balkanization through "multiculturalism." The more power liberals hold, the worse race relations will inevitably get. What did anyone really expect?


Pregnant Muslim ordered to remove her veil in British court because magistrates can't see her face

A pregnant Muslim woman was ordered by magistrates to remove her veil while she gave evidence against her violent ex-partner yesterday. Georgina Richards, 36, initially refused for religious reasons but reluctantly agreed when magistrates said they might not accept her evidence if they could not see her 'facial expressions'.

The case at Leicester Magistrates Court was held up for over an hour while magistrates agreed to hear her evidence from behind a screen.

Chairman of the bench Lawrence Faulkner told her: 'We need to see a person’s facial expressions to assess the evidence they are giving. 'If you refuse to remove your veil, we may not be able to accept your evidence.'

Miss Richards, who is heavily pregnant, gave evidence against her ex-partner Ismail Mangera, 30, from behind a screen in the courtroom.

Mr Mangera was found guilty of punching Miss Richards in the face and scrawling abuse on her front door.

But after the hearing, Miss Richards hit out at the magistrates for forcing her to remove her veil. She said: 'I was a bit unhappy that he told me to take my veil off. 'They put screens up next to me but I didn’t really want to do it. 'But I thought the case would be dropped if I didn’t take it off. 'It just made me feel uncomfortable. They wanted to see the expression on my face but I don’t think it really matters, I think I could have done it with my veil on.' 'Now I just feel relieved that I’ve said what I’ve got to say.'

Miss Richards told the court her religion states she should not remove her veil in front of men in public.

Magistrates heard that Mr Mangera attacked Miss Richards, mother to three of the couple’s children and eight months pregnant with their fourth, between April 1 and April 30.

The magistrates warned Mangera he was facing jail. Sentencing was deferred until October 20 to allow a probation report to be produced.


The rise of Britain's 'Shameless generation' after drop in court cases under Labour government

The horrifying scale of benefit fraud by the ‘Shameless’ generation can be revealed by the Daily Mail today. During Labour’s final two years in power, prosecutions for false claims slumped and overpayments soared. The figures come during a week in which the Tories pledged to clamp down on abuse of the welfare system by introducing a £500-a-week payments cap.

Jeremy Hunt, the party’s Culture Secretary, added to the controversy by suggesting the workshy should stop having children if they could not afford them.

Now Freedom of Information requests have found that prosecutions of benefit cheats have fallen by 11 per cent in the past year, while cases of overpayments have gone up by 13 per cent. The statistics make a mockery of the anti-fraud slogan at the Department for Work and Pensions: ‘It’s not if we catch you; it’s when.’

Cases of overpayment soared to 499,204 in 2009/10 compared with 439,966 the year before. But only a tiny number of the fraudsters are taken to court. In 2009/10, just 7,765 cases led to prosecutions compared with 8,701 in 2008/9. The amount of money recovered has risen over the past year from £280million to £294.4million but by far less than the estimated amount of overpayment.

Last night, Emma Boon of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: ‘These figures show the dire state of our welfare system. Taxpayers’ money has been leaking out of the cracks at HMRC, with overpayments rising at an alarming rate. ‘Their problems have to be addressed immediately to stop our money that’s meant to help the poor simply being wasted.’

Philip Hollobone, Tory MP for Kettering, said: ‘These figures are a sad indictment of Britain’s benefits system as a result of the mismanagement of the Labour government.’

Welfare reform dominated the past week’s Conservative conference, with Chancellor George Osborne coming under attack for cuts to child benefit which penalised stay-at-home mums. He has proposed a £26,000 a year cap on welfare payments – in line with the average take home wage.

Lord Steel, Liberal leader from 1976 to 1988, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme he sympathised with plans to tackle welfare dependency. ‘All MPs have had people come into their surgeries who say their next door neighbours are living off the state,’ he said. ‘When I was an MP there were people who used to deliberately get themselves pregnant in order to jump the housing queue – and that is reprehensible both from the point of view of the parents and the children.’


Muslims can riot over disrespect for their religion but Christians will be arrested for protesting disrespect for their religion

A Montana woman has been charged with criminal mischief after allegedly taking a crowbar to a controversial art museum display in Colorado that critics say portrays Jesus Christ receiving oral sex from another man.

Kathleen Folden, 56, of Kalispell, Mont., was arrested Wednesday and accused of damaging the the 12-panel lithograph, "The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals."

The piece, on display since Sept. 11 at the tax-funded Loveland Museum Gallery in Loveland, Colo., includes several images of Jesus, including one in which he appears to be receiving oral sex from a man as the word "orgasm" appears beside Jesus’ head.

It has triggered protests and even calls to police by critics asking for an investigation into whether it violates a Colorado law that protects children from obscenity, the Loveland Reporter Herald reported. The city attorney determined it did not.

Witnesses told the Reporter-Herald that Folden entered the Loveland Museum Gallery, used a crowbar to break glass over the art and ripped the print.

Mark Michaels, an area art dealer, told Denver's KUSA-TV that he tried to stop her adding that the woman screamed: "How can you desecrate my Lord?"

Police spokesman Andy Hiller said the work by Stanford University professor Enrique Chagoya has a tear in the panel with the depiction of Christ. The piece is part of an 82-print exhibit by 10 artists who have worked with Colorado printer Bud Shark.

Chagoya says he's sad that his book and the First Amendment were attacked.

"Should we as artists, or any free-thinking people, have to be subjected to fear of violent attacks for expressing our sincere concerns? I made a collage with a comic book and an illustration of a religious icon to express the corruption of something precious and spiritual," Chagoya told "There is no nudity, or genitals, or explicit sexual contact shown in the image. There is a dressed woman, a religious icon's head, a man showing his tongue, and a skull of a Pope in the upper right corner of the controversial page. I did not make a picture of Christ. I used symbols as one would use words in a sentence to critique corruption of the sacred by religious institutions."

Those institutions, he says, need to be criticized when they get corrupted and people have every right to dislike his criticism, just as he has a right to express it.

"Violence is the opposite of what Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha taught. I am amazed that some of the followers don't adhere to the teachings. Agree to disagree and love thy neighbor," he said.

Police said the incident was the first disturbance since protesters began gathering this week outside the city-owned museum about 50 miles north of Denver. About 100 people packed the Loveland City Council meeting Tuesday night to support and oppose removing Chagoya's work.

The council decided to leave the art in place.

Chagoya says he hopes people realize that "only totalitarian societies are ruled by extreme rules."

"Do we want to live as if under Stalin or Hitler who censored not only the arts but all levels of thinking?," he said. "This is America, but I don't take my rights for granted. I know they can easily be taken away by hate and extremism. Lets exchange ideas not insults, or labels. We all want this world to be a better place to live in, not a place where we live in fear of angry disagreements that will take us nowhere."



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here or Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: