Showing posts with label Jackson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jackson. Show all posts

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Dreams From My Single-Parent Family

In September of 2009, a cell-phone video that depicted Chicago public school students beating a fellow teen to death circulated throughout the Internet and the mainstream media.

Curiously, none of the media outlets that covered the story bothered to recollect that President Barack Obama had once served as a community organizer and then a state senator in these very same South Side neighborhoods.

Throughout his years working for "change", Obama paid scant heed to the primary cause of violence and dependency in the area: the eradication of the black two-parent family by decades of Democrat policies.

Community organizing had gotten its start in Chicago under the direction of an activist named Saul Alinsky. Alinsky believed that poverty was the result of political inequities. He envisioned a power-grab by the "have-nots" of society, who would form massive, grassroots coalitions that would defeat the rich and redistribute their possessions.

But the Alinsky movement suffered two calamitous setbacks in the years leading up to the Obama era. First, the "War on Poverty" had established a governmental community organizing bureaucracy called the Community Action Agency. Rife with corruption, the agency's money was misappropriated and used to fund gang warfare, rape and murder.

In addition, the Alinsky playbook was doubly irrelevant because blacks occupied most of the positions of power in Chicago. The city had elected its first black mayor, Harold Washington; it had power-brokers like Emil Jones, Jr. in the State Senate; and Jesse Jackson would launch his 1984 presidential campaign in the south side.

Despite the sea-change in political influence, Chicago had exploded in a maelstrom of black-on-black violence. In 1984, the year Obama came to Chicago, one of the top high school basketball players in the country -- an immensely talented and likable center named Ben Wilson -- was murdered by gang members.

The outcry was as predictable as it was ineffectual. None of the power-brokers pointed out that all of Wilson's killers came from single-parent families. None concerned themselves with the mind-blowing statistic: 75% of all black Chicago kids were born out of wedlock. In fact, it became a cultural norm for young black men to father children and flee responsibility. The result was rampant crime. In fact, statistical studies show that, whether you are white, black or brown, you have the exact same chance of going to prison if you come from a single-parent family.

In Obama's book Dreams from My Father, his narrative "is almost devoid of men. With the exception of the local ministers and the occasional semi-crazed black nationalist, Obama inhabits a female world. His organizing targets are almost all single mothers. He never wonders where and who the fathers of their children are. When Obama sees a group of boys vandalizing a building, he asks rhetorically: 'Who will take care of them: the alderman, the social workers? The gangs?' The most appropriate candidate—'their fathers'—never occurs to him."

Rather than confront the central issue, Obama as community organizer initially struggled to find his role. He was relieved to find that a Mayor's Education and Training (MET) office had no branch in Roseland, and he promptly filed an application to open one. The office had as much of an effect on the area as his asbestos removal efforts, which is to say: none. In fact, youth violence continued to increase and by his third year, 57 children had been killed in the city.

In 1994, a series of brutal child murders galvanized public attention: an 11-year old gang member was executed to keep him from implicating others in an accidental shooting death. A month later, a five-year old boy who had refused to steal candy for two under-12 gang members was dropped from a 14-story building. Not one of the participants came from a two-parent family.

A year after these notorious murders, the would-be candidate for state senator granted an interview to The Chicago Reader. Rather than point out the lack of family structure endemic to the rampant violence, Obama instead attacked "the Christian Right and the Republican Congress for 'hijack[ing] the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.' Yeah, sure, family values are fine, he says, but what about 'collective action . . . collective institutions and organizations'? Let’s take 'these same values that are encouraged within our families,' he urges, 'and apply them to a larger society.'"

The ignorance or naivete inherent in these statements expose a bizarre worldview. Never in the history of western civilization has some collectivist framework served as a realistic substitute for the traditional family structure. In Obama's Chicago, fathers are AWOL; and some nebulous obligation for "collective action" has no chance of succeeding without a sense of personal responsibility. In fact, Obama downplays the notion of a familial duty and points to an overall societal failure, saying "...we have a society that talks about the irresponsibility of teens getting pregnant... [but] not the irresponsibility of a society that fails to educate them to aspire for more."

The ideology of Alinsky then -- as now -- appears to have polluted Obama's sense of right and wrong. Where history, facts, logic and reason point to the need to encourage, nurture and reward the traditional family unit, Obama instead vilifies family values and those who promote them.

For decades, Obama and the Democrats have embraced an utterly defective and destructive strategy: Crushing school choice. Incentivizing single-parent families. Encouraging a lifelong culture of dependency.

The children of Obama's South Side deserve better. They deserve more than a dream of a father.


Based upon: Heather Mac Donald, Chicago’s Real Crime Story, City Journal.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Good news: EPA creates bureaucratic nightmare to prevent farmers from using... pesticides

And what could possibly go wrong with a de facto ban on pesticides? Farm Futures explains:

The U.S. Senate and the Senate Agriculture Committee failed to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing a regulation which will require a Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit when applying pesticides.

...any person discharging pesticides and leaving a residue, waste or surplusage through a point source and into a water of the United States will be required to obtain a NPDES permit before application. This case still poses a legal risk for tillage agriculture...

• mosquito and other flying insect pest control;
• weed and algae pest control on the water and the water's edge;
• animal pest control...;
• forest canopy pest control where pesticides will necessarily have to be applied over and deposited into water.

The general permit issued by EPA will start being enforced at the end of February, 2012... As producers, you need to be extremely vigilant as to what your state environmental agency may be doing with regard to requiring NPDES permits for spraying of pesticides.

In other words, if a farm has any water on its property, it could be required to submit a "pesticide discharge management plan". This fun package of regulatory overreach includes:

• a Pesticide Discharge Management Team;
• Problem Identification;
• Pest Management Options Evaluation;
• Response Procedures;
• Spill Response Procedures;
• Adverse Incident Procedures;
• and Documentation to Support Compliance with Other Federal Laws.

As the understated Farm Futures observes, "it is unlikely most agricultural operations could support this bureaucratic framework."

[The framework] does not provide any protection or preemption if a producer is sued by a citizen who claims the spraying of a crop leads to the discharge of the pesticide or herbicide into the air and is discharged or deposited into a water of the state.

...Before spring planting begins, you should have your local farm organization check with the state environmental agency to determine its position on pesticide application and any potential legal liability that might develop as a result of spraying practices... It still poses a risk to farmers and applicators.

I guess we really didn't need reliable food production after all.

And what's the real motivation behind this regulatory nightmare? To make farming so difficult, so onerous, so bureaucratic, that small farms will simply give up and sell out to huge corporations; you know, the kind that have an incestuous relationship with Congress. With the state. It's Crony Capitalism 101, folks (refer to tenets #1 and #7 in Compare and Contrast: Karl Marx' 10 Point Program of Communism and the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Agenda).


Thursday, December 22, 2011

Jesse Jackson's advice for black fathers: teach your children the value of reading. Just kidding, he wants them to teach kids how to fight.

Mush-mouthed race hustlers hardest hit:

There’s no guarantee the being a black father will stop this because they’re killing black fathers too. One of the tragedies of this [garbled] is that you don’t have to be guilty to be crucified – killing the innocent. Therefore we must overwhelm them with numbers. That becomes our strength to fight back.

When I was younger I would say I wanted my children to get educated so that they wouldn’t have to go through what I’ve gone through. I’ve changed that position now. I want them to get a good education so they can have more tools with which to fight. The fight will not stop. I want them to have more tools. I want black fathers to have more tools with which to fight.

So when it’s time for Operation Black Vote to have massive registration, responsible black fathers vote to make a difference. They demonstrate. They march. They fight back.

So I say ‘fathers, teach your children how to fight for jobs and justice and healthcare using the weapons of your mind, your vote, and your marching feet.’

It will be a good day when professional race-baiters like Jackson and Sharpton are finally given all the respect they deserve. Which is to say, none.


Related: The Democrats' "War on Poverty"