Thursday, May 23, 2013
Obama Got Black at Morehouse But Didn’t Speak the Truth
Wow, after five years of his loyal constituents supporting him and receiving nothing in return, it was nice to see President Obama address this year’s all black male Morehouse College graduates. Obama even found his black vernacular as he always does before a black crowd, saying “I know some of you are just graduating, thank you Lordy.” As if all black people walk, talk, and think alike. Sickening and offensive.
Nevertheless, the last time Obama spoke to an historically black college or university was in 2007 at Howard University when he was trailing Hillary Clinton in the black vote for the Democrat presidential nomination. Can we say pandering?
Equally surprising during his Morehouse commencement address, Obama referred to himself “as a black man like you” something he rarely, if ever has done. Obama didn’t refer to himself as a black man during his re-election campaign either. In fact, quite the opposite, as America’s first black president he’s largely made it a point of distancing himself from black America but ironically need black Americans vote each time to win.
In his first term Obama had no appetite for the problems facing black Americans even though over 95% of blacks voted for him in 2008 and 93% in 2012. The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), Obama’s black voter water carriers, barely got one meeting with the president during his first term. According to the editor of the blog Crew of 42 and managing editor of Politic365, Obama has met with the CBC only three times since 2009.
In 2012, CBC Chairman Emmanuel Cleaver told the media that if Hillary had been president or any white person with the black jobless rate at 14%, “we’d be marching around the White House.” Instead, the CBC gave Obama a break because he’s black. And with this lousy record, Cleaver and CBC members told blacks to vote for Obama a second time and they did.
Obama is “black” when convenient. The president throws blacks a few bones during elections to keep them in his pocket, ignoring them the rest of the time and delivering them nothing for their loyalty. His Morehouse speech was a nice diversion for the mainstream media from the growing scandals (IRS, AP and Benghazi) in his administration.
But the speech amounted to dishonest, propagandistic rhetoric that glossed over the problems plaguing the black race, which have been hurt by liberal policies for the past 40 years. The historically black college located in Atlanta has a proud legacy of educating young black men like Martin Luther King Jr., many of whom went on to become leaders and successful men in life.
Obama told the young men they were “graduating into a job market that’s improving.” That’s hardly true, of course, because the black jobless rate has remained twice as high as the national average since Obama took office. “If you think you can get over in this economy, just because you have a Morehouse degree, you are in for a rude awakening,” continued Obama. This was closer to the truth.
As he has done on many other occasions, Obama vilified success. Even though he is a very rich man who sends his kids to private school, Obama told the Morehouse men don’t aspire and worry about “making money” or paying off your student loans, “ask yourself if the only option is to defend the rich and powerful.”
Obama mentioned many blacks live in “troubled neighborhoods across the country—many of them heavily African-American” with bad schools “where violence is pervasive.” Rather than asking the Morehouse graduates to “set an example,” numerous times throughout his speech Obama should have set an example himself and talked about how Black America is failing itself. He should have pointed out to these young men that the catastrophic problem facing blacks is our rejection of marriage.
Obama should have warned graduates 73% of black babies are born out of wedlock compared to 40% of whites and this is the direct cause of higher incarceration rates, lower high school graduation rates and the economic decline of blacks. He also should have mentioned the staggering statistic that 44,038 black children have been killed by guns since 1979, which is about 13 times more than blacks lynched over 86 years from 1882 to 1968, according to a Children's Defense Fund report.
Moreover, Obama also should have told the young black men, looking up to him as an example of success, that the only way blacks can truly help each other is by helping themselves first. Instead we heard Obama invoke the same, old broken record blacks must be the caretakers of other blacks. “If you know someone who isn’t on point, go back and bring that brother along.”
Why are blacks the only race constantly telling blacks they have an obligation to help each other along? No, blacks have an obligation to first help themselves along like any other race. Giving back should be something we all do but the Democrats’ message to black America always seems to be someone will be there to help you along, peers or the government.
I’m glad Obama connected with his blackness at Morehouse but he wasn’t honest in his speech. If Obama had been, it would have been an admission to the young black males at Morehouse that liberal policies have and are utterly failing black America.
Apology over children taken from UKIP foster pair 'too little, too late’
The council that told a couple it was removing their foster children because they were members of the UK Independence Party has been accused of attempting to cover up its “ridiculous” mistake after it issued a partial apology.
Rotherham borough council sought to draw a line under the controversy today by issuing a statement in which it admitted giving misleading media interviews but said it was in the children’s “best interests” to remove them.
Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, said the authority’s apology for its handling of the case “didn’t go far enough”.
“I’m afraid this is a bully-boy council trying to cover up for a ridiculous error and, as ever, it is ordinary decent people who are made to pay the price,” he said.
The council was widely criticised from all sides of the political spectrum after its social workers removed three siblings of ethnic minority descent from the experienced foster parents last November, saying that the parents’ membership of Ukip meant they supported “racist” immigration policies.
In interviews at the time, Joyce Thacker, the council’s director of children’s services, said the quality of the couple’s care was “not an issue”.
She added: “These children are from EU migrant backgrounds and Ukip has made very clear statements on ending multiculturalism. I have to think about how sensitive I am being to those children.”
The Telegraph, which first reported the story, understands that the husband and wife have not received any apology from Rotherham council and have not had any other foster placements since the siblings were taken away.
The wife said last year that she felt “bereft” to lose the children, adding: “We felt like we were criminals.”
In its statement, the council said it gave the impression in media interviews that the decision to remove the siblings was made solely because the couple were Ukip members.
It insisted that a “detailed” internal review had concluded that it was in the best interests of the children to take them from their foster parents.
The council said legal reasons relating to the welfare of the children prevented it from releasing further details, but it pledged to learn “important lessons” about the way it makes decisions, communicates and shares information.
It added: “The council can confirm that membership of Ukip would not prevent any individual from being considered as a foster carer in Rotherham and could not be a reason for removing foster children from a placement.”
The foster parents declined to comment on the council’s statement, saying they were considering taking legal action against the authority over the way they had been treated and did not want to prejudice any future court hearings.
A friend of the couple said the council’s apology was “too little, too late” and questioned why social services had handled the case so aggressively.
John Gilding, the leader of the Conservative group on Rotherham borough council, said he would be asking questions about precisely what action the local authority had taken to learn lessons and suggested that the response should have led to a resignation.
“For the furore it caused, I would think somebody should have been answerable, but I don’t think that will happen,” he said.
British justice boss to crack down on criminals freed early from jail
Justice secretary Chris Grayling has plans to crack down on criminals who are freed from jail halfway through their sentence.
Mr Grayling said he wanted to get tougher on Britain’s sentencing rules that let inmates walk free from prison early, and said he hoped to provide the public with “reassurance” over the coming months.
His comments follow the release of ex-Cabinet minister Chris Huhne and his former wife Vicky Pryce, who served only two months of an eight-month sentence.
Other offenders who did not serve their full sentence include Karen Matthews, who was released from prison last year after serving half of an eight-year sentence for kidnapping her nine-year-old daughter in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, sparking a huge manhunt in the area.
Philip Davies, a backbench Tory MP who has campaigned for longer jail terms, said an “overwhelming majority” of the public wanted offenders to serve the terms they were given.
Mr Grayling responded by saying he had “sympathy” with this view and hoped to be able to provide further “reassurance” in coming months, the Daily Mail reported.
The Conservatives have previously said it felt that “many people feel that sentencing in Britain is dishonest and misleading”.
Sources have revealed that Mr Grayling has ordered a review on changing the current sentencing regime, which was introduced by Tony Blair a decade ago, and allows everyone apart from the most serious criminals to go free after serving half their sentence.
Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce, who were jailed for perverting the course of justice by swapping speeding points, benefited from further time being cut from their sentences in exchange for wearing tags.
Mr Grayling's plans will initially focus on the most serious violent and sexual offenders, where they will have to earn the right to be released, instead of being automatically freed regardless of their behaviour while in jail.
Continuing their education or carrying out work behind bars and showing a willingness to earn the skills to go straight are among possible ways inmates could earn their right to be released.
The plan, which is likely to require additional prison places, will initially be limited to the more serious offenders because of budget constraints.
But Mr Grayling wants to move to a sentencing regime which is easier to understand and will rebuild public trust, with one option being to introduce a system where the courts can specify minimum and maximum sentences.
Under the new system, prisoners will only be able to leave jail after their minimum sentence is served by having earned their release.
Mr Grayling revealed his stance in questions at Westminster yesterday when Mr Davies asked him: “Chris Huhne and his former wife were released from prison recently after serving just two months of an eight-month sentence.
“In surveys that I have conducted, an overwhelming majority of my constituents believe that prisoners should serve their sentences in full. Aside from locking them up for longer, will the Secretary of State say how long he thinks people should serve in prison before they are released?”
Mr Grayling replied: “On this matter, I have a lot of sympathy with what [Mr Davies] says. I am looking closely at this area. I hope to be able to provide further reassurances to him in due course.”
Steve White, deputy chairman of the Police Federation, said prison sentences should do 'what they say on the tin'.
He said: “It is hugely confusing for the public who read that Chris Huhne is sentenced to eight months and then see him walk out weeks later. The same applies to someone convicted of murder and sentenced to life, something most people think is unequivocal.
“If it does not mean that the courts should say so. They should be open and honest. The idea that you get up to 50 per cent off for good behaviour, which in effect is lack of bad behaviour, is nonsense.”
Men can’t be expected to turn a blind eye to beauty
The last time I was back in Britain and stuck in the bowels of the Central Line on a Tube train limping painfully towards Oxford Circus, I found myself observing a group of teenage girls in prohibitively short skirts. “Look at him,” shrilled the loudest, prettiest member of the pack, pointing out a silver-haired gent peering over the top of his Metro. “He keeps staring at my legs.” The man turned a violent shade of puce and raised his newspaper still higher, in an attempt to block out all the body parts he shouldn’t be looking at.
I felt for him. The girl had very nice legs. The girl knew she had very nice legs, and had chosen to showcase them in a belt of fabric that would draw admiring glances from every male member of that carriage – and a few females besides. Yet she found it demeaning – or “disgusting”, to quote her friend’s empathetic murmur – to be reduced to an object of beauty. Women, she believed, in her indignant, third-wave feminist little head, are more than the sum total of their gloriously appealing body parts. So she happened to be beautiful. So what?
So what, indeed. But women seem to have got themselves into a tangle over beauty. If the media is any reflection (and it is), anyone would think that the majority of women now spend an inordinate percentage of their time worrying about their looks – and the rest of it actively trying to enhance them. Historians will tell you that this has always been the case, only modern women have tools at their disposal that even the corseted and bewigged Madame de Pompadour would have blanched at.
We can dye our skins, suck the fat from our bottoms and thighs, stretch and plump out our faces. We can subject our bodies to intensive fitness regimes, embark on scientifically tested diets and then flaunt parts of ourselves that have for centuries remained hidden in a provocative array of new fabrics and styles. But should any man (or woman) notice or – God forbid – point out the results of our efforts, we immediately rise up in revolt.
Take Laura Fernee, a 33-year-old science graduate from Notting Hill who poutingly decried her own beauty in yesterday’s papers as the reason she was unable to hold down a job. “I’m not lazy and I’m no bimbo,” she mourned. “The truth is my good looks have caused massive problems for me when it comes to employment.” Female colleagues were jealous and male colleagues “were only interested in me for how I looked. I wanted them to recognise my achievements and my professionalism, but all they saw was my face and body.”
Fernee is not alone in her self-made beauty inferno. Just the other day, a scrupulously turned-out, highly attractive friend remarked that a casual comment her boss had made about her dress had left her feeling “patronised”. Last month, President Obama was forced to publicly apologise for calling the California attorney general “good-looking”. Never mind that he had formerly praised Kamala Harris for being “brilliant” and “dedicated” – it was the “good-looking” that stuck in feminists’ throats.
I feel for modern men, just as I felt for the man on the Tube that day. They’re supposed to remain blind to the legions of women strutting through life and the workplace in thigh-highs and low-cut tops. And, of course, it’s our prerogative to do that. But in this digital age, the days of un-self-aware beauties (the most arresting kind of all) are sadly behind us. If you’re lucky enough to have that extra asset (which is all beauty is), use it cautiously – not as a weapon with which to beat the opposite sex. Better still, ignore it.
If Fernee is so disabled by her looks, she’ll be relieved to discover that nothing makes a woman ugly quite so fast as talking about her own beauty.
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, 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. Email me (John Ray) here.