Saturday, July 31, 2010

Is Obama a Fascist?

Ok -- so what is a fascist? According to The Urban Dictionary a fascist is "someone who believes in a totalitarian state rule by a supreme leader (dictator) who controls everything possible and treats people harshly -- to gain the leader's own success...."

John Griffin
Sound familiar? In a piece by John Griffin, published at American Thinker, Mr. Griffin says the following: "At its core, fascism is really just a system where government, through agreements with the private sector, controls virtually all property and income indirectly and Obama has embraced this template."

Mr. Griffin goes on to say: "Fascism is correctly associated with tyranny since nations that employ the tenets of fascism almost always transition from a republican or parliamentary form of government to some sort of personality cult usually centered on an economic "savior." Fascism requires extensive state control, and if this control is not centralized in a singular personality, the results will be muddied and plagued with excessive overlap. All of Obama's actions have highly fascist overtones."

It is gratifying, to say the least, to find someone who agrees with my viewpoint of Obama and his regime. It is truly frightening to see America being fundamentally changed from a constitutional republic into a fascist dictatorship under Obama. But, that is what we have here in America right now.

What? You say it can't happen in America? Well, I hate to disagree with your assessment, but dear reader, it already has happened. The task of freedom loving Americans now -- IS TO CHANGE IT BACK! That goal is becoming ever more difficult, with every passing day, as the line between the private sector and the public sector is being systematically and intentionally blurred by the Obama Regime. You may not wish to admit it, even to yourself, but, as Mr. Griffin says in his article at American Thinker, "individual liberty can often be conditioned on complicity with state aims, as manifested in the private sector sphere." He is spot on!

Look, we Americans are being "conditioned" by the Obama Regime to jump through any hoop Obama should hold up in front of us.

Many weeks ago we warned of an avalanche of taxes on the horizon for America. That avalanche is about to come rumbling down to crush the last remnant of resistance to the Obama fascist agenda.

Obama and the democrats have bankrupted America. We are broke. There is no more money available within the government budget to stave of the insolvency of America.

Charles Krauthammer
So what must happen? Huge tax increases. As Charles Krauthammer has warned us: "There just isn't enough to cut elsewhere to prevent national insolvency. That will require massive tax increases, most likely a European-style value-added tax.

Americans who have already been mentally "conditioned" will simply lie down and allow the Obama taxes, such as the VAT tax, to wash over them. Those of us who are not "conditioned" will fight it every step of the way. Even the Vat tax is the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. It cannot cover the shortfall of funds America faces in the future.

Only a strong fascist leader could "condition" Americans to accept what is coming next -- the looting of the individual American.

Kyle Anne Shiver
In an article at the American thinker written by Kyle Anne Shiver and entitled: "Barack Obama, the quintessential liberal fascist" Shiver says: "Neither did Barack Obama invent the political "ideology of change," nor design its carefully crafted propaganda. While media folks talked of the tingles up their legs and the brilliant rhetoric of Barack Obama, they were heralding the speaker only, not the creator of the movement and its slogans. That would have been Saul Alinsky, the man who took fascism and cunningly made it appear to casual observers every bit as American as apple pie.

Barack Obama is merely the movement's closer, the quintessential liberal fascist with a teleprompter." As much as I dislike admitting it, we HAVE become conditioned "not to see the forest for the trees." We inhabit Obama's fascist America, yet we don't seem able to see it for what it is. Today we Americans seem to lack what the military refers to as "situational awareness." Just as on the battlefield where lack of situational awareness can easily lead to the demise of the individual, it can also lead the people of a country into placidly standing by as their nation is hi-jacked and "fundamentally changed," from a nation where the government serves the people -- to a nation where the people serve the government.

That has already happened. The question now is -- can we change it back to its rightful condition. We have a chance this November to begin that renewal. Let's not allow the chance to save America pass us by. It MAY be our last chance.

Friday, July 30, 2010

GOP seizes on immigration memo

Republicans are seizing on an internal memo they say is further evidence the Obama administration wants to bypass a gridlocked Congress and use its executive powers to grant “back-door amnesty” to thousands of illegal immigrants.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reiterated Friday that it is not seeking to grant permanent residency to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S.

Written by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials to the agency’s director, the memo discusses ways the administration – facing the reality that immigration reform is all but dead this year – could grant illegal immigrants permanent status, including indefinitely delaying deportation or issuing green cards.

“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” states the memo, which was addressed to Director Alejandro N. Mayorkas. “In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations.”

The 11-page memo provides fresh ammunition to Republican lawmakers who have been questioning the administration for the past month about rumors of a plan to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country.

The document provides an additional basis for our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a back-door amnesty plan,” Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said in a statement.

“The problem remains that if you reward illegality, you get more of it. Our first order of business must be to secure the border and enforce the laws on the books, not look for back-channel ways to reward law-breakers. ”

USCIS declined to comment on the specifics of the document but said internal draft memos, deliberation and an exchange of ideas should not be mistaken for official department policy.

“As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system,” the agency said in a statement.

“Internal memoranda help us do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission.”

Comprehensive immigration reform, coupled with border security, remains the best solution to the country’s broken immigration system, USCIS said.

“To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population,” the agency said.

What's Next for Arizona?

Judge Susan Bolton’s 36-page opinion in the Arizona immigration case is about to become one of the most closely scrutinized legal opinions ever written by a trial-court judge. Truth be told, I don’t think it will hold up well.
Judge Susan Bolton

For supporters of the Arizona law, though, let me start with the good news in the opinion. Arizona’s prohibition on local officials interfering with the enforcement of federal immigration law was upheld, as was the ability of ordinary citizens to bring suit for violations of that prohibition. Sanctuary cities are out.

In addition, the new state law crime for impeding traffic while stopping to pick up day laborers, the state law crime for knowingly transporting or harboring illegal aliens, and the state law crime for knowingly employing illegal aliens, were all upheld. Those go into effect on Thursday, July 29, as originally scheduled. As Judge Bolton noted in footnote 19, state laws addressing illegal immigration that merely criminalize specific conduct already prohibited by federal law are not unconstitutional.

That last point is important, and legally correct. But it is hard to square with the earlier part of Judge Bolton’s opinion, where she enjoins enforcement of other parts of the Arizona law because, in her view, the federal government was likely to prevail in its argument that the Arizona law was pre-empted by federal law. For three of the four provisions blocked by Judge Bolton, the state law merely criminalized specific conduct already prohibited by federal law. There is nothing unconstitutional about that.
ICE Detention Center

Take the provision that has garnered most of the national attention, Section 2, which requires local law enforcement to check the immigration status of arrestees if there is reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally. Federal law – Title 8, Section 1373(c) — already requires the Department of Homeland Security to respond to immigration status requests from state and local law enforcement “for any purpose authorized by law.”

Buried in a footnote in the opinion, Judge Bolton concedes that state and local law enforcement already have the discretion to verify immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion. But in her view, the state’s mandate to its own law enforcement officers to do what they already had discretion to do would somehow create such a burden on Homeland Security that the Arizona law must be preempted in order to protect the Federal Government’s apparently scrawny resources.
I’ve got a recommendation for Homeland Security — call Blockbuster and see how they verify identity before renting a movie. They do it millions of times a day without too much difficulty. And I’ve got a recommendation for local law enforcement in Arizona as well — exercise your discretion to check on immigration status whenever you have a reasonable suspicion; the mandate may be blocked for now, but your discretion is not!

Judge Bolton also blocked enforcement of the new state law requirement that aliens carry immigration papers proving they are in this country legally. But again, this merely parallels a requirement of existing federal law, specifically, Section 1304(e) of Title 8, which requires an alien to carry a certificate of alien registration. In fact, the Arizona law expressly incorporates the federal law in its provision, and the penalty for violation is identical to that provided by federal law--$100 fine and up to 30 days in jail.

Judge Bolton also makes several technical but important errors in her legal analysis. She broadly interpreted one provision of the law, over a narrower interpretation given by Arizona officials to its own law, and then held that, as broadly interpreted, the law was probably invalid. Not the way it is supposed to work. Courts normally will give a statute a narrow interpretation if to do so saves it from being unconstitutional.
Judge Bolton also went out of her way to speculate how the law “might” be implemented in unconstitutional ways, but on a facial challenge, as this was, the requirement is whether the law would be unconstitutional in all or most of its applications, not whether it might be unconstitutional in a hypothetical application.

Add caption
Arizona will undoubtedly appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and if the state gets an honest legal assessment from that court, the injunction should be lifted in short order. If not, well, there is always the Supreme Court, and the Ninth Circuit is the most frequently reversed Circuit Court of Appeals in the nation. One way or the other, Arizona’s ability to protect its citizens from the onslaught of illegal immigration, by simply directing its law enforcement officers to enforce federal law, is going to be upheld.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Why Judge Susan Bolton blocked key parts of Arizona's SB 1070

US District Judge Susan Bolton agreed to block the section of the law that required local and state law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of those they suspected were illegal immigrants.
Judge Susan Bolton

That was the provision that critics said would lead to racial profiling.

Judge Bolton’s decision is an important victory for the Obama administration in the face of a rising tide of concern among several states that the federal government is not effectively enforcing immigration law or effectively protecting US borders.

Five states have introduced legislation similar to Arizona’s law, and 20 others are reportedly considering it.

The ruling adds fuel to an already heated national debate over US immigration policy and sets the stage for more rounds of litigation in a case that could eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court.
Illegal Immigrant Protest

In her ruling, Bolton also blocked a portion of the law that required state officials to check the immigration status of anyone in custody in Arizona before they were released from jail.

The judge said the state measure was preempted by federal law because such checks would swamp federal immigration officials who are pursuing different priorities.

“The number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established,” Bolton wrote.

The judge said the same problem would arise under the provision requiring police officers to check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants. “Federal resources will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination(s),” she said.

The judge said the provision would also create an impermissible burden on immigrants who are lawfully present in Arizona.

Bolton concluded that there was a likelihood of irreparable harm to the interests of the federal government if certain provisions of SB 1070 took effect.

“The court by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime, including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money,” Bolton wrote.

“Even though Arizona’s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws,” she said.

Opponents of SB 1070 said the law would lead to illegal racial profiling by state and local law enforcement officials. Supporters countered that the state law was necessary to make up for lax and ineffective border enforcement by the federal government.

The Arizona law was deliberately written with tough and aggressive measures designed to encourage the estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona to go home.

SB 1070 sought to make violations of federal immigration law into violations of Arizona law, thus empowering state officials to arrest illegal immigrants under certain circumstances.

In agreeing to issue a preliminary injunction, Bolton embraced arguments by Justice Department lawyers and the Obama administration that SB 1070 is preempted because it interfered with the executive branch’s control over immigration policy.
U.S. Justice Department

The Obama administration has said its priority is to focus on those illegal immigrants who engage in crime or are otherwise dangerous. Government lawyers said Arizona was attempting to enforce its own immigration policy.

The judge agreed. She said the state statute created a significant enough conflict with the administration’s policies to require judicial intervention.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer
 Arizona officials had argued that the federal-state disputes that exist are over the intensity of enforcement, not the letter and substance of federal law. They said the Arizona law was written to mirror the provisions of federal immigration law and should thus be appeal proof.

But Bolton, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, said the government would likely suffer irreparable harm should various provisions of the law take effect.

Also blocked by the judge was a section of the law that made it a state crime for any foreign resident of Arizona to fail to carry federally-issued immigration documents at all times. Federal law requires that such documents be carried at all times, but federal officials do not enforce it.

The state law sought to enforce it. In enjoining this part of the law, Judge Bolton said that establishing state penalties for violating a federal requirement altered the penalties established by Congress and thus stood as “an obstacle to the uniform, federal registration scheme.”

Bolton’s injunction also blocks the portion of the law that made it a state crime for an illegal foreign resident in Arizona to solicit, apply for, or perform work.

Border Patrol Search Illegal Immigrant

Much of the rest of the law remains intact and those provisions are expected to take effect Thursday.

The judge’s ruling means that Arizona officials will begin enforcing the remaining parts of the law, even while litigation about the entire law – and the enjoined sections – continues in the courts.

Among that part of the law that will now take full effect is a provision allowing Arizona residents to sue any state office or agency for failing to fully enforce immigration laws.

Also still in the law are provisions creating a new state crime of human smuggling, stopping a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers, and knowingly employing illegal foreign residents.

SB 1070 was passed after years of dissatisfaction among many Arizonans with federal efforts to police the lawless border region with Mexico. Across the border, drug cartels have been waging a bloody tug-of-war with the Mexican government. Drug and human smugglers have become increasingly active in Arizona’s rural border areas.

The issue is complicated by politics and the approaching mid-term congressional elections. Democratic strategists are hoping the continuing controversy drives a wedge between Hispanic voters and the Republican Party.

Republicans, on the other hand, are hoping more Americans are concerned about crime and border security than complaints about tough enforcement efforts. But some Republicans are worried about this strategy in the long term given the growing political clout of the Hispanic community in the US.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Outlaw Anchor Babies

            The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states, in part: "...  
                                                  Section 1.   
  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

          Passed in 1868, the purpose of that law was to ensure that all free blacks, whether former slaves or not, were entitled to U.S. citizenship, as were their children.

Good intentions gone awry.

          Boy, has that been used and abused. Had the lawmakers known what would lie ahead in the 20th and 21st centuries, with babies by the millions being birthed by illegals on American soil in order to gain entry through the back door, the wording would have been much different.

What do we do about it? Little.

         In a period of ten years, four million illegal alien mothers who happen to give birth within our borders will be providing automatic American citizenship to their child, skirting immigration laws via an unintended loophole. In the majority of those cases, the taxpayer will be assuming the responsibilities of feeding, clothing, educating and providing for health care. I hesitate to mention the cost of criminal activity, victimization, court costs and prisons costs; because we all know that a significant percentage of those will unfortunately go that route.

           The system for making children into American citizens is widely known throughout the world. Just get here pregnant, and then have the baby. Voila. They not only do it from Mexico, but all other nations, including from mid-east countries where Islam - peaceful and non-peaceful - is being imported in huge numbers. They are among the millions who are destined to significantly alter the demographic landscape of America in future decades.

           Yes. I know all Muslims are not bad people. But, unfortunately, too many are associated with the Jihad movement, which makes this a national security threat to the U.S.

          It is so well known and accepted, that one Turkish-owned hotel in New York City, the Marmara Manhattan, has been marketed with "birth tourism packages" to expectant mothers abroad. Talk about brazen. Legal or illegal immigrants are welcomed in order to super-populate this country with outside cultures (and religions) via the 14th amendment loophole which makes children automatic citizens. And in doing so, special immigration status is bestowed upon the parents who would otherwise be illegal because...after all...a baby must be with its mother and/or father.

         The nation's school systems alone, which are over burdened and funds poor, face the economic burden of providing education to millions of children born "legally" of "Illegal" parents in America. Those cost burdens, which includes adapting to languages other than English, deplete from quality educational opportunities for the children of legal American families who work here and pay taxes.

         In 2004, a study was conducted in three states regarding their annual costs of educating anchor baby children. Estimates ranged $87 million in Pennsylvania, to over one billion dollars in Texas. Then, there's California.

At present, there are approximately 4.7 million children of illegal immigrants in our public schools systems.

         It's almost impossible to estimate the health, feeding and housing costs associated with a half million anchor babies born each year, or the future costs of criminal activity which - considering the absence of family stability - a significant percentage of them will engage in.

        This is just another facet of the runaway immigration dilemma that is costing the taxpayer billions. Yet, the only answer our politicians can come up with is Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which is nothing more than a euphemism for "Amnesty." Such reform would not save one dime of the cost problems.

         What can be done about anchor babies and hotels like the Marmara Manhattan? Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana has proposed HR5002, which is a bill proposed to put the kabash, requiring one parent of a child born here to be an American citizen or legal alien. The bill is still in committee. (Don't hold your breath) Here is a summary:


No Sanctuary for Illegals Act - Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to: (1) increase border patrol recruitment incentives by offering a ($40,000 maximum) repayment of higher education loans; and (2) develop border patrol retention incentives through the establishment of a retention program. Authorizes the Secretary to deploy newly developed technologies to secure U.S. international land and maritime borders. Directs the Secretary to: (1) prioritize border fence construction; and (2) report to Congress regarding such construction's progress. Requires that if an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is arrested for any offense by a state or local law enforcement agency the head of such agency shall immediately notify United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of the arrest and the alien's identity. Requires that such an arrested alien be detained by ICE and presented before an immigration judge for expedited U.S. removal without release from detention and without further hearing or review. Provides for criminal penalties and expedited removal for such a removed alien who subsequently returns unlawfully to the United States. Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to make inadmissible an alien who has been unlawfully present in the United States for any period of time and who enters or seeks to enter the United States unlawfully. (Current law requires the period of unlawful presence to be more than one year.)

Amends INA to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces. Prohibits a federal government officer or employee from providing federal funds to any state or political subdivision that is determined to be interfering with efforts to enforce federal immigration laws. Terminates such prohibition when the state or political subdivision enters into an agreement with the Secretary to cease such interference.

There are two ways to invade a country. From outside and from within. Japan did it from outside. So did Radical Islam...for which we are still at war. The more difficult war, is fighting the invasion from within, because it's subtle and ill-defined, yet just as powerful and effective. The insiders need only to be more patient.

          Besides Europe and Canada, I don't see many other countries who are at risk of losing their culture before the end of this century. But we sure are.

          We cannot accommodate all the poor and oppressed in the entire world. If we do, there will be no America the Beautiful in future generations. And, the children of our grandkids will never know how great this nation once was.

But...who cares? Right?

For a stark view of the immigration issue by the numbers, check this out: This is a real time counter of immigrant activity in the U.S.

More cost factors by the Center for Immigration Studies:

And More Links:

Monday, July 26, 2010

Despite Sherrod Spotlight, Black Farmers Denied

Black Farmers
    Black farmers, due $1.2 billion for a legacy of discrimination by the Agriculture Department, suffered a new and disheartening setback last week, despite the national spotlight provided by the quickly disavowed firing of a black department worker.

    The Senate refused again to pay the bill.

    Opponents say it's a question of where the money would come from, and that's a major issue with an election nearing and voters up in arms about federal spending.

    Late Thursday, the Senate stripped $1.2 billion for the claims from an emergency spending bill, along with $3.4 billion in long-overdue funding for a settlement with American Indians who say they were swindled out of royalties by the federal government.

Shirley Sherrod
     Even the attention the Shirley Sherrod case brought to the issue of discrimination at the Agriculture Department couldn't bring lawmakers together on a deal. Instead, Republicans and Democrats alike proclaimed their support for the funding — appeasing important constituencies — while blaming the other side for not getting anything done.

    The result: Thousands of black farmers and Indian landowners will keep waiting for checks that most lawmakers agree should have been written years ago.
    "If you say you support us, then, damn it, do it!" said John Boyd, a Virginia farmer and the lead organizer for the black farmers' lawsuits.

    Sherrod's resignation under pressure from the Agriculture Department over her comments about race, and the subsequent White House apology, brought fresh attention to the black farmers' claims. In explaining why he acted so hastily in asking her to resign, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he and the department were keenly sensitive to the issue of discrimination and race given the agency's dismal track record on civil rights.

    It's a record that Vilsack routinely describes as "sordid." For decades, minority farmers have complained of being shut out by local Agriculture offices, well after the days of blatant segregation. African-Americans, for example, complained that loan committees across the rural South were dominated by white "good ol' boys" networks that gave the vast majority of loans and disaster aid to whites while offering scraps to blacks.

    Sherrod herself was a claimant in a case against the department. She had been part of a cooperative that won a $13 million settlement just last year.

Protest at the Agriculture Department

    The department also has faced persistent complaints of racism and discrimination in its own hiring, and government audits going back two decades have found that complaints often sit for years without attention. The Government Accountability Office — an independent federal watchdog — reported in 2008, for example, that the Agriculture Department was still issuing misleading reports about discrimination and still didn't have a firm handle on how many complaints were outstanding or how they were resolved.

    The auditors said their findings raised questions about whether the department took the issue seriously. Vilsack and his boss — President Barack Obama — say they do, and they have acted far more aggressively than the Bush administration to resolve minority settlements.
    The blockade has come in Congress. Leaders in both parties say they support the funding but things break down when they try to hash out how to pay. The money for both the black farmers and the Indian landowners was stripped from the Senate war-funding bill Thursday after the House had passed it earlier this month. Senate Republicans objected to a variety of other Democratic priorities as well, insisting they be paid for rather than adding to the federal deficit.

Senator Harry Reid
    Democrats have offered a variety of proposals, including one package that included tax increases on oil companies and multinational companies. Republicans have objected, calling instead for spending cuts elsewhere. "This is an interesting game we're playing around here," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday when asked about the black farmers' money, arguing that Republicans are simply stalling the funding.
Senator Mitch McConnell
    A spokesman for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) disagreed that Republicans are stalling and noted that several Democrats also voted against consideration of the whole package of add-ons, including the black farmers' money. The final bill was passed by unanimous consent. "There was no game, only a unanimous, bipartisan vote," said McConnell spokesman Don Stewart.

    The black farmers' settlement is the second round of damages stemming from a class-action lawsuit the government originally settled in 1999. The new money is intended for people who were denied earlier payments because they missed deadlines for filing. Individual payments will depend on how many claims are successfully filed.

    The Agriculture Department also faces further lawsuits from Hispanic and Indian farmers. In the Indian landowners' case, the plaintiffs claim they were swindled out of royalties overseen by the Interior Department since 1887 for things like oil, gas, grazing and timber. The settlement, 14 years in the making, must be approved by Congress.

    Boyd said the farmers he works with don't care about the machinations of Congress. All they see is a dysfunctional body that can't get a broadly supported goal accomplished. The farmers don't have the lobbyists and fat campaign contributions that get lawmakers' attention, he said.
Chicken Farm

Willie Adams, a 60-year-old farmer who's been raising chickens all his life in Greensboro, Ga., said he's had to let his farm sit idle in recent months because he doesn't have money to invest and can't get loans. "I don't like it one bit," he said of the latest delay. "Basically they just don't want to pay the farmers."

A Civil Rights Trailblazer

Franklin McCain
Franklin McCain is one of the original four who took part in the Woolworth sit-ins.

He was born in Union County, and reared in Washington, D.C. During his junior year in High School, his family moved to Greensboro and he attended Dudley High School. However, his family moved back to DC and he graduated from Eastern High School in Washington.

He received a B.S. degree in chemistry and biology from North Carolina A&T State University in 1964.

David Richmond
While he was an A&T student, he roomed with David Richmond --another of the original sit-in participants -- and around the corner from Ezell Blair Jr. and Joseph McNeil on the second floor of Scott Hall. McCain grew up deeply influenced by Jesus Christ and his grandmother.

The Greensboro Four
Franklin talked to us many times about how his grandparents and parents would tell him "The Big Lie." "The Big Lie" went something like this… if he behaved in a respectful and modest way, and kept up his grades, that all opportunities would be open to him. As he grew older, he realized that the color of his skin, kept a lot of opportunities from him, even one as simple as sitting down with other folks at a lunch counter. The way the world was structured made him very angry and he knew that if he didn't do something about it, he would not be able to live with himself.After he graduated from A&T in 1963, he stayed in Greensboro, and went to Grad School. In 1964 he married the former Bettie Davis. They have three sons. In 1965 he joined the Celanese Corporation in Charlotte as a chemist and is now retired. As a resident of Charlotte, Franklin has been on many boards and has worked to bring about some changes in the educational, civic, spiritual and political life of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Shirley Sherrod Scandal: How The White House Is Backing Away From The Decision To Fire Her

      So, yesterday, Shirley Sherrod, the USDA's rural development director for the state of Georgia, was sacked because she dared to appear in a video truncated to make her appear to be some racist land-reform zealot. The video was subsequently blasted around the world by Andrew Breitbart, who wanted to mislead people just as fast as he could.
Andrew Breitbart

Later, it was reported that Sherrod was about the furthest thing from a racist -- which means she wasn't fired for cause, she was fired because everyone panicked in the face of a media scandal that turned out to be non-existent and which unraveled the moment people began the work of diligent verification.

Since then, my cynical heart has been tickled to watch the Obama administration frantically back away from the stupid decision to fire Sherrod. I've been led to believe that this was all Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's call.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Sherrod's resignation in a statement, saying the department has "zero tolerance" for discrimination. Sherrod told CNN that Cheryl Cook, deputy undersecretary for Rural Development, called her three times on Monday to eventually demand her resignation on behalf of the White House.

And, via Ben Smith, here's how the White House sees it:

A White House official told me just now that the White House backs Vilsack's decision -- but that it was Vilsack's alone. The official said the White House -- contrary to the Sherrod's charge -- did not pressure the Department to fire her.

I can easily understand why the Obama administration wants nothing to do with this decision, seeing as how it would look for all the world that the White House serves at the pleasure of Breitbart's agitated humors, but this is just silly: it cannot be Vilsack's decision "alone" if it has the backing of the White House.

Here's some Real Talk: if we can accept that the dudes aboard the Deepwater Horizon oil rig who made a bunch of bad decisions that led to the destruction of the Gulf coast are part of the "Tony Hayward administration," then Tom Vilsack is definitely a part of the "Obama administration." And responsibility accretes along similar lines. Full stop.


Wednesday, July 21, 2010

The Truth: Watch the Full Shirley Sherrod

I implore you to watch both videos in their entirety, because the truth is in there starting at 20.18. I've also included the video from Mr. and Mrs. Spooner, the white farmers in question, and the story you will learn is that Mrs. Sherrod did indeed save these people’s farm. I think it was a cruel attempt at RACE BAITING and I will take this time to first apologize to Mrs. Sherrod and apologize to you the reader because I myself was led to believe the sound bite and I ran with it yesterday afternoon. I later learned of the deception and I launched an immediate up-date, this blog is to serve as a re-enforcement of that up-date and to better inform you, the reader of the truth. Thank you: oicw65

The NAACP also has long championed and embraced transformation by people who have moved beyond racial bias. Most notably, we have done so for late Alabama Governor George Wallace and late US Senator Robert Byrd each a man who had associated with and supported white supremacists and their cause before embracing civil rights for all.

With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA Official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias.

Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans.

The fact is Ms. Sherrod did help the white farmers mentioned in her speech. They personally credit her with helping to save their family farm.

Moreover, this incident and the lesson it prompted occurred more that 20 years before she went to work for USDA.

Finally, she was sharing this account as part of a story of transformation and redemption. In the full video, Ms.Sherrod says she realized that the dislocation of farmers is about "haves and have nots." "It's not just about black people, it's about poor people," says Sherrod in the speech. "We have to get to the point where race exists but it doesn't matter."

This is a teachable moment, for activists and for journalists.

Most Americans agree that racism has no place in American Society. We also believe that civil and human rights have to be measured by a single yardstick.

The NAACP has demonstrated its commitment to live by that standard.

The Tea Party Federation took a step in that direction when it expelled the Tea Party Express over the weekend. Unfortunately, we have yet to hear from other leaders in the Tea Party movement like Dick Armey and Sarah Palin, who have been virtually silent on the "internal bigotry" issue.

Next time we are confronted by a racial controversy broken by Fox News or their allies in the Tea Party like Mr. Breitbart, we will consider the source and be more deliberate in responding. The tape of Ms. Sherrod's speech at an NAACP banquet was deliberately edited to create a false impression of racial bias, and to create a controversy where none existed. This just shows the lengths to which extremist elements will go to discredit legitimate opposition.

According to the USDA, Sherrod's statements prompted her dismissal. While we understand why Secretary Vilsack believes this false controversy will impede her ability to function in the role, we urge him to reconsider.

Finally, we hope this incident will heighten Congress's urgency in dealing with the well documented findings of discrimination toward black, Latino, Asian American and Native American farmers, as well as female farmers of all races.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Farmer's wife says fired USDA official helped save their land

Late Breaking News On Dismissed Sherley Sherrod USDA

Despite being defended by the white farmer she allegedly discriminated against, former U.S. Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod will not get her job back

Sherrod "kept us out of bankruptcy," said Eloise Spooner, 82. She and her husband Roger Sooner, who own a farm in Iron City, located in southwest Georgia, approached Sherrod in 1986 -- when she worked with the Georgia field office for the Federation of Southern Cooperative/Land Assistance Fund -- seeking assistance.

Sherrod was asked to resign Monday night by USDA Deputy Under Secretary Cheryl Cook after videotaped comments she made in March at a local NAACP banquet surfaced on the web.

"The comments, taken out of context or not, hinder her ability to be an effective rural development director for Georgia," said a U.S. Agriculture spokesperson who wished not to be identified. "Because of that videotape, it would be very hard for her to to be an effective messenger."

The NAACP, which released a statement Monday critical of Sherrod, backtracked Tuesday, saying they were "snookered" by Andrew Breitbart, whose Website released the edited video. Breitbart did not respond to a request seeking comment.

"Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans," NAACP President Ben Jealous said in a statement. "The tape of Ms. Sherrod’s speech at an NAACP banquet was deliberately edited to create a false impression of racial bias, and to create a controversy where none existed. This just shows the lengths to which extremist elements will go to discredit legitimate opposition."

Jealous asked the USDA to reconsider Sherrod's dismissal but, in a statement, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack stood by his decision.

"First, for the past 18 months, we have been working to turn the page on the sordid civil rights record at USDA and this controversy could make it more difficult to move forward on correcting injustices," Vilsack said. "Second, state rural development directors make many decisions and are often called to use their discretion. The controversy surrounding her comments would create situations where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her to bring jobs to Georgia."

In the video, Sherrod, an African-American, told the crowd she didn't do everything she could to help a white farmer whom she said was condescending when he came to her for aid.

"What he didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was, I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him," Sherrod said on the video, recorded March 27 in Douglas in southeast Georgia.

But Spooner, who considers Sherrod a "friend for life," said the federal official worked tirelessly to help the Iron City couple hold onto their land as they faced bankruptcy back in 1986.

"Her husband told her, ‘You're spending more time with the Spooners than you are with me,' " Spooner told the AJC. "She took probably two or three trips with us to Albany just to help us out."

Spooner spoke to her friend by phone Tuesday morning.

"She's very sad about it," Spooner said. "She told me she was so glad we talked. I just can't believe this is happening to her."

Sherrod, in her first interview after the clip surfaced, told the AJC the video was selectively edited. She said the video posted online Monday by and reported on by and this newspaper misrepresented the message she was trying to convey.

"For Fox to take a spin on this like they have done, and know it’s not the truth … it’s very upsetting," said Sherrod, 62, who insisted her statements in the video were not racist. "I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough."

She said the incident helped her get beyond issues of race.

"And I went on to work with many more white farmers," she said. "The story helped me realize that race is not the issue, it's about the people who have and the people who don't."

Sherrod accused the USDA of cowering to right-wing media.

"They were just looking at what the Tea Party and what Fox said, and thought it was too [politically] dangerous for them," Sherrod said of her former employer.

The release of Sherrod's statements came a week after the NAACP issued a resolution calling some elements of the National Tea Party racist for comments allegedly made against President Barack Obama and African-American congressmen during the health care debate.

Asked whether he thought the release of the video was a timed response to the NAACP resolution, Jealous told the AJC: "This video was put out by Mr. Breitbart and it was heavily promoted by Fox News."

Sherrod was appointed to her position by Obama's administration in July 2009 to manage more than 40 housing, business and community infrastructure and facility programs, and more than $114 billion in federal loans.

The NAACP late Monday evening released the full 43-minute, 15-second video footage of Sherrod's speech. A production company, DCTV3 in Douglas, recorded the event at the local NAACP chapter's request and forwarded it to the national level to upload on the national Web site.

"We broadcast it on cable," Wilkerson said. "Somebody probably picked it up and recorded it, then put it on YouTube. That's probably why the video looks so shabby."

Sherrod said it wouldn't have made any sense for her to espouse racist comments before the NAACP audience.

"There were some white people there. The mayor [of Douglas] was there," Sherrod recalled. "Why would I do something racist if they were there?"

Mayor Jackie Wilson told the AJC she introduced speakers at the banquet but left before Sherrod's speech.

Wilson said she did not hear of any controversy in the weeks following the banquet, adding she was shocked to learn of Sherrod's resignation.

"She's not someone I know extremely well, but I respected her and thought she was doing a good job. And she seemed to be a fair person," said Wilson, who was city manager before becoming mayor 2 1/2 years ago. "I just hate that this kind of thing happened in Douglas."

Jealous insisted Sherrod be reinstated, despite Vilsack's contention her word were intolerable, even when taken out of context.

"We believe there is another, better option for the country," Jealous told the AJC. "That is to prove her belief that she can do the job."

Eloise Spooner told the AJC she intends to stand up for her friend.

"She helped us and we're going to help them," she said.

--Staff writer Larry Hartstein contributed to this report.

Source of up-date Huffington Post

Who makes the best racist statements?

Who do you think is more racist? the Klan or the NAACP?

This first video comes to us from the recent NAACP fund raiser banquet where we can clearly hear Shirley Sherrod explane how she made a decision based solely on the race of the individual: A white farmer. This kind of treatment is exactly the kind of treatment that the civil rights movement was all about, and now the shoe is on the foot of the NAACP,,,and they're dropping the ball BIG TIME.

Amazingly, the black people in the audience at the NAACP banquet did not audibly object to the anti-white racist remarks of the Shirley Sherrod. If a white speaker had made similar anti-black racist remarks at any tea party rally, they would have been lamb baseded and sued by everyone black within 300 miles of the event.

The NAACP is clearly a racist organization, the tea parties, being made up of so many dissatisfied people are sure to have some people that will exhibit some racial tentions among them.

Okay; you've just seen the Sherley Sherrod doing her thing to which I feel is DEAD WRONG.
Now Here's one from the Klan you must listen carefully otherwise you'll miss it.

Did you see and hear it? I loaded this video for the purpose of educating black people of their reason for voting for the Democratic party, it's because of fear. And yet, to this day, We still vote down the line democrate, with most of the offices that blacks hold are with the democratic party, The Party of RACISUM. NAACP, now the puppets of the democrat party.

And here's one more, just in case you're a Klansmen and need to feel some sort of botherhood or kinship, you can join these men or you can join the NAACP.

Monday, July 19, 2010

What are recent developments on the subject of race relations?

Racial tolerance continues to be a clear trend in American society. In fact, during the past six years there has been a significant positive change in the perceptions of both African Americans and whites regarding the present state of race relations. The changed attitudes have reached the point where an African American is now the President of the United States. Many of the issues that are presently important to racial minorities are issues faced by low income Americans generally, for example access to affordable health care and quality education. The 2008 Democratic platform is remarkably silent on the issue of race - a significant departure from past platforms. The document merely reiterates the Party's opposition to all forms of discrimination. The 2008 Republican platform states that the Party opposes racial, ethnic or religious discrimination of all kinds and specifically rejects the concept of "reverse discrimination" in government or industry.
Why does race remain an important public policy issue?
Despite over three decades of a concerted effort to rectify past racial injustices, race remains a crucial aspect of American society with policy implications throughout our governmental systems.
Racial issues historically have involved African Americans. Indeed issues associated with Black Americans remain the principal focus today. But a new wave of immigration during the past 30 years has overwhelmingly consisted of Hispanics and Asians. New issues associated with these groups have similarities and differences with issues facing African Americans.
Has there been substantial progress?
An understanding of racial issues facing America has to be viewed in a historical context. African Americans arrived shackled in chains as slaves and their social status was defined by their captivity. Consider the following language from the U.S. Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott decision justifying the inferior status accorded to blacks:
"They had ... been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."
The institution of slavery was ultimately abhorrent to white Americans in the North and a civil war was fought to end this practice. But institutional reforms were short-lived. The majority of the African American population remained in the South and their social and political ostracism in that region remained virtually unchanged. Blacks did migrate to other regions of the country in the 20th century. But a pattern of separate social status and cultural characteristics existed outside of the south as well. African Americans chiefly migrated to large cities and were relegated to racially exclusive neighborhoods. They remained segregated from many mainstream institutions, including the military, until after World War 2.
It was not until the civil rights movement of the 1960's that a profound national policy was developed to address racial injustice. What has emerged is a complex and uneven pattern of addressing racial discrimination in the areas of housing, employment, political participation, and social recognition.
The progress has been substantial. In 1968, 70% of African Americans were high school drop-outs. Now, the figure is closer to 20% and there has been over a 300% improvement in the rate of African Americans who attend college. There has been a reduction in poverty and an overall economic improvement, especially at the higher economic levels. African Americans have come closer to wage parity with whites. Due to the passage of voting rights legislation, the number of black elected officials has increased dramatically.
Although racial relations between whites and blacks remain strained, there is far more common ground than in previous decades. The races associate with far more frequency in the workplace. An increasingly greater percentage of persons of each race know someone of the other race who they regard as a fairly close personal friend. There are an increasing number of mixed marriages and the social disapproval of them has declined astoundingly. The mass media, particularly in its portrayal of athletes, has contributed mightily to improved cross-racial perceptions between blacks and whites. With far more frequency, African Americans who have become successful athletes are not stereotyped racially but are admired for their skill and human qualities. It is not surprising that African Americans cherish this aspect of their progress in American society. It also explains why the trial of O.J. Simpson, one such icon, was such a bitter experience for black Americans. A "racially conscious etiquette" which forbids racially derisive speech has emerged particularly among college educated Americans in most areas of the country.
What racial issues exist at present?
The legacy of racism in American society has proved way too ingrained to be cured in a single generation. Indeed, the progress toward integration has created its own new dynamic of racial tension. These tensions have been most visibly expressed in a series of race riots including those in Los Angeles (1965, 1992) and Detroit (1967). The current new wave of immigration in the United States involves people of color, primarily Hispanic. Under current population projections, non-Hispanic whites will constitute a bare majority of the population in 2050. Poverty is endemic to both Hispanics and blacks; many have zero net worth. The rate of home ownership has not appreciably increased. A disproportionate number receive welfare benefits. Undoubtedly in part due to welfare rules which have historically awarded benefits to single parents, the majority of modern black families are single parent families; the onset of welfare reform may have begun to reverse this trend. In the past two decades, a distinct trend of economic inequality has emerged, creating an "underclass" in which Americans of colored skin predominate. These groups have also been scapegoated by politicians attempting to appeal to white voters during periods of high unemployment. A substantial percentage of African Americans still believe that significant discrimination continues.
There is a present effort led by some African Americans to receive "slavery reparations" and a Presidential apology for damages associated with slavery. Advocates for such reparations note that similar payments have been made to other ethnic groups who have suffered historical racial injustices. They further observe that a promise made during the Civil War to provide newly freed slaves with "40 acres and a mule" was never kept. Legal claims have also been filed against insurance companies associated with the slave trade. Although the idea is supported by a narrow majority of African Americans, it does not have broad based public opinion support and legislative efforts to determine its feasibility have not been successful.
What about racism in other countries?
The targeting and mistreatment of ethnic minorities is a recurrent theme in modern world history. The "ethnic cleansing" practiced by Serbians in Bosnia is a recent example. The most profound cataclysmic event was the systemic massacre of Jews by Nazi Germany. In fact, many European countries have demonstrated very high levels of intolerance especially toward immigrants of color who have entered their workforces in recent decades. Throughout much of the 20th century, Australia practiced an exclusionary immigration policy which targeted all non-Caucasians. Racism was institutionalized by apartheid in South Africa until the 1990's. In contrast, the United States experience (which includes a high-casualty civil war prosecuted by whites) appears enlightened if imperfect.
How has "affirmative action" affected race relations?
Affirmative Action has been defined by the United States Commission on Civil Rights as "any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice, adopted to correct or compensate for past or present discrimination or to prevent discrimination from recurring in the future." The phrase originated from an executive order issued by President Kennedy which was subsequently expanded by Presidents Johnson and Nixon.
Since the 70's, affirmative action has been frequently used for government contracts, university admission policies, and in hiring and promotional decisions in both the public and private sectors. Many employers have come to embrace affirmative action as a good business practice, enabling them to tap into larger and more diverse pools of talent and to facilitate a wider and diverse customer base.
Affirmative action has always been a controversial subject and has been attacked legally and legislatively. This debate centers on a number of questions: to what extent discrimination and bias persist, especially in a systemic way; to what degree affirmative action programs have been effective in providing otherwise unavailable opportunities in education, employment, and business; and to what extent affirmative action programs unfairly deprive opportunities to qualified white Americans. Many supporters of affirmative action policies agree that its practice should be considered temporary and should not be considered by affected groups as an entitlement.
Affirmative action has been particularly controversial regarding admissions policies at public universities. A recent study of admission practices at law schools in Virginia exemplify the nature of these preferences. The Supreme Court first evaluated this issue in 1978 when it invalidated quota systems used for racial admissions. In the wake of this decision, universities modified their admission standards to eliminate quotas but still consider race. In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld a standard which used race as one factor in determining admissions but rejected a system which assigned a numerical value for this purpose.
At least partially as a result of affirmative action, African Americans have achieved clear gains in the ranks of many occupations. But the overall improvement in the wage gap between blacks and whites has been stagnant since 1979. Not surprisingly, blacks and Hispanics are far more likely than whites to believe that discrimination continues and to support job-based preferences. In 1996, California voters narrowly passed an initiative to end affirmative action practices in higher education. The vote illustrated the wide division of opinion between the races on this issue. Similar legislative efforts have failed in Congress, though in 1998 a majority of Republicans supported ending affirmative action in university admission policies and in the award of contracts for highway projects.
Is the criminal justice system discriminatory?
The realities of the two groups lead to vastly different perceptions of this topic.
African Americans interact with the criminal justice system at a rate far greater than their percentage in the population. Although blacks account for less than 13% of the population, they constitute almost half of all those incarcerated. The Department of Justice has calculated that over a quarter of all adult black males are likely to be in prison at some point in their lives. They are far more likely to be victims of serious violent crime and homicide.
Studies have shown that police regularly use a person's race in detaining individuals who they suspect may be engaging in suspicious activity. This practice is widely known as "racial profiling". Critics of racial profiling often portray it as a practice under which police stop, question and search persons solely on the basis of their race. Those who justify the practice indicate that in actuality, race is typically not the only indicator of suspiciousness but it is a factor that will make a black person far more likely to be detained. They also state that it is a reaction to the reality that blacks are far more likely to be engaged in criminal activity. But racial profiling generates anger, humiliation, distrust and resentment that is deeply felt by large law-abiding sectors of black communities. A consequence is lessened respect for the guardians of law and order. Many middle class black men have come to understand such detentions as an onerous reminder of their second class citizenship.
There is also a concern that race is unfairly used in the jury selection process to exclude black jurors. Although the Supreme Court has held this practice to be unconstitutional, it still occurs in practice because "peremptory challenges" are impossible to regulate. Even the Supreme Court itself has poor black representation.
Another subject of African American concern is discrimination in punishment and sentencing. Blacks no longer outnumber whites on death row and the rate their death penalty sentencing is roughly equivalent to their high percentage of the prison population. But a discriminatory pattern exists regarding victims. Studies have indicated that homicides involving white victims are far more likely to be prosecuted as death penalty cases. Proposed legislation which would allow defendants to use such statistical information in appeals was rejected by the Senate in 1994. African Americans also claim that the far more stringent penalties which apply to sellers and users of crack cocaine are discriminatory when compared to those for users of powder cocaine. They note that crack cocaine use is particularly associated with African Americans while powder cocaine is used by the more affluent middle class whites.
Has residential segregation ended?
Not at all. Residential segregation persists today less because of intolerance but rather based on human greed. White middleclass homeowners are fearful of any factor which may adversely affect the value of their principal economic asset and the real estate industry reacts to this concern by discouraging and excluding prospective minority purchasers. A 1991 study by the National Academy methodically measured the extent of this discriminatory practice.
African Americans are the only minority group to ethnically dominate the neighborhoods that they reside in. This segregation is not economically based. Studies have shown that affluent blacks are more segregated than the poorest Asians and Hispanics.
Studies have also indicated that the major responsibility for this continued segregation is rests with the real estate industry. Discrimination was overt until the Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968. Black home seekers now face a more subtle process of exclusion. Rather than encountering "white only" signs, there are a covert series of measures. Black buyers are systematically shown, offered, and invited to inspect far fewer homes than comparably qualified white buyers. As a result, their access to suburban housing is substantially reduced. And although white attitudes about racially mixed neighborhoods have changed, there has been a systemic failure to achieve any meaningful goals in residential desegregation.
The effect of residential segregation aggravates the overall trend of income inequality which disproportionately affects African Americans. High levels of income inequality paired with high levels of racial or ethnic segregation result in geographically concentrated poverty. Studies have indicated that such residential class isolation is a primary cause of reduced employment, lowered incomes, fewer marriages and increased unwed childbearing.
How do racial issues affect Hispanics compared to African Americans?
There are significant differences between the two groups.
The Hispanic minority is primarily characterized by recent immigration. More than a third of all Hispanics are immigrants. Hispanics account for almost 50% of legal immigrants and all but a very small portion of illegal immigrants. The majority of American Hispanics are from Mexico. Hispanics are already a high percentage of the population of some western states. Many are now employed throughout the country as agricultural workers and as low wage industrial workers. At the current rate of immigration, Hispanics are projected to constitute approximately 25% of the U.S. population in 2050, a truly dramatic increase.
The poverty statistics associated with Hispanics are primarily a reflection of their recent immigration. The substantially lower wage rate reflects the high proportion of Hispanics who are immigrants in entry level and agricultural jobs. The wage comparisons substantially improve for natives, and are actually better than African Americans who are at the same educational level. The percentage of Hispanic two-parent families approximates the percentage of such families in the white population. Studies also show that young Hispanics have a very high rate of intermarriage with the white non-Hispanic population.
Due to the high numbers of recent immigrants, Hispanic educational performance is low. Educational achievement significantly improves after the first generation but statistics do not indicate that it substantially improves after that, perhaps because intermarriage causes a significant number of high-achieving Hispanic descendants to no longer be classified as Hispanic. Language may affect the slower educational progress although the overwhelming evidence indicates that a "language shift" occurs among almost all the children of immigrants during school years when English becomes the preferred language. The recent emergence of the Spanish media market has not seriously modified this trend. Nevertheless "English-only" political campaigns have become a subtle political tool to target Hispanic minorities. In 1998, California voters supported a measure to eliminate bilingual education although Hispanics and African Americans voted against it.
Despite the differences between Hispanics and African Americans, there are similarities in problems presently faced by both groups. The major issue is economic. Growing wage inequality faces both groups, making it very difficult to emerge from the cycle of poverty or to accumulate assets and their net worth is minimal. They remain employed in sectors of the economy where wage gains have been stagnant. The dark skin of most members of each group makes the ethnic status distinguishable in society which can add to a sense of isolation and pattern of discrimination.
What racial issues affect Asians?
Asians presently constitute approximately 5% of the U.S. population and are projected to constitute almost 10% by 2050. They account for a quarter of the U.S. foreign born population. Over 40% of Hawaiians and over 10% of Californians are Asians. Unlike Hispanics, the Asian immigrant group is not dominated by one single country of origin. As a group their educational attainment is remarkable, outperforming the population as a whole, although achievement varies significantly between the various subgroups. This educational attainment has helped Asians achieve income levels that are greater than the full population average. But Asians are underrepresented in managerial-executive positions, particularly at high levels. They are even more seriously underrepresented as political officials.
What racial and ethnic issues involve American Indians?
American Indians have a unique status in American society, both historically and at present. Fortunately modern Americans are being taught about the plunder of American land from its original inhabitants which included both genocide and ostracism. Until recently, this shameful chapter of American history was buried under the glorification of America's early settlers as they continued to march westward. This history, which contrasts significantly with the Spanish settlement and assimilation to the south, perhaps reflects the strident and stubborn racism otherwise manifested by most white Americans until only recently. It has also provided American Indians an unusual and complicated legal status which influences some of the modern issues facing this group.
There are approximately 2½ million American Indians and Alaskan natives, constituting just slightly less than 1 per cent of the population. Another half percent of the population claims to have a significant amount of Indian heritage. There has been a substantial increase in the population during the last two decades and it is projected to continue which is attributable to more people reporting Indian heritage. There are 317 registered Indian tribes. Five of these tribes account for about half of the population. The largest concentration of Native American populations are in South Dakota, Alaska, Oklahoma and New Mexico. The Indian population has become increasingly urban. With the urbanization trend is a very high intermarriage rate and loss of separate Indian identity. Even in rural areas and reservations, modern media sources have reduced the influence of tribal culture. Only about 14% of American Indians continue to speak their native language and most of them are proficient in English as well. Overall, the Indian population lags behind the population in general in education, income, unemployment, and poverty status. As in the Hispanic population, these negative indicators are misleading to an extent because many descendants of high achieving American Indians are the result of mixed marriages and no longer claim Indian status.
In order to settle armed conflicts in the 19th Century, the Federal Government negotiated compacts with Indian tribes. The result was the development of a reservation system. There are about 275 reservations which remain under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs and there are a small number of state-administered reservations on the east coast. Most reservations are in the western states and their aggregate size is about 56 million acres of land - about 2% of the United States, a land area larger than the ten states of West Virginia, Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island. Despite their size, only two (the Navajo reservation in Arizona and the Cherokee reservation in Oklahoma) have populations which exceed 100,000 and both of these populations are less than 150,000. Only about 20% of American Indians now live on reservations and a substantial number of non-Indians reside on these lands as well. The Indian tribes have a limited degree of sovereign status on the reservations and are the primary source of law enforcement and government services. The social service, health and education systems on the reservations have been a federal responsibility. Critics charge that the federal government has been alternatively paternalistic and neglectful in the administration of these programs.
In addition to the reservations, a complicated federally administered land trust system was also established which continues to the subject of litigation as native Americans contend that they have lost land and that their holdings have not been accurately inventoried.
A notable recent development has been the emergence of casino gambling on Indian reservations. Gambling began to become prevalent in the 1980's because reservation activities were considered beyond the reach of state law. The regulatory status of Indian gaming became clarified with the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act which requires the establishment of compacts between states and Indian tribes for the distribution of gaming revenues by casinos operating the more popular forms of gambling such as slot machines and blackjack. Today, gambling exists on about 65% of Indian reservations and reservations have a substantial market share in the gaming industry. The industry has created over 500,000 jobs, many of which employ Indians. There has been a significant economic improvement for Indians residing on casino reservations during the most recent decade.