Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Napoleon Obamaparte: Spread the Wealth Around, Single Mothers: No Wedding No Womb, Why Gangs Should Be Prosecuted Under U.S. Anti-Terrorism Laws, Should ‘Government Motors’ Be Making Campaign Contributions? 11 Predictions About 2010 That the Simpsons Got Right

The Economics of Napoleon Obamaparte: Spread the Wealth Around - Big Government



Vanessa Jean Louis: No Wedding No Womb - Hip Hop Republican

As an inner city school counselor, my passion for strong families was birthed as a result of witnessing firsthand the emotional trauma that ensues as a result of students who are born without married mothers and fathers. Many of us in the blogosphere (from different political persuasions) are writing in tandem about this issue as a result of the deafening silence from the media, academics, and so called “Black leaders” who refuse to acknowledge the pernicious psycho-social effects on children who are a product of unwed motherhood.

Historically, the poverty rate of Blacks in the early 20th century can be directly linked to unemployment, low wages, and discrimination. In 1960 almost 80 percent of Black children were born in wed-lock. Today almost 70 percent are born out of wed-lock and that number is as high as 90 percent in the inner cities. However, today, poverty is primarily a result of family structure. David Ellwood, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, notes the vast majority of children who are raised entirely in two-parent homes will never be poor during childhood. Conversely, the vast majority of children who spend time in a single parent homes will experience poverty as well as an increased chance of experiencing other social pathologies, namely, low self-esteem, involvement in the penal system, higher likelihood of not finishing high school, and a higher chance of repeating the same cycle.
******

Any of my lawyer friends want to comment on this?

Why Gangs Should Be Prosecuted Under U.S. Anti-Terrorism Laws - Hip Hop Republican

By SHAMARA RILEY

I pen an op-ed over at theGrio.com, arguing that the growing use of RICO statutes against gangs doesn’t go far enough. Given FBI statistics that 80% of U.S. crime is linked to gangs, I write: “Gangs certainly commit violence and intimidation against civilians to achieve a desired outcome, especially against individuals perceived to be undermining the gang’s goals. Coupled with psychological warfare inherent in the ‘no snitching’ ethic, gang-related actions are also physical warfare designed to coerce community members into not cooperating with law enforcement.”

I continue my commentary: “Gang-related actions thus don’t just affect their immediate target. By creating a perpetually fearful atmosphere, they also serve as a warning to entire communities. When gangs shoot police officers, judges, and other government officials, they seek to influence government policy. Their actions dramatically lower the quality of life in many communities — and it is black communities who are disproportionately affected by gang activity — as few businesses wish to create jobs in a high-crime environment. If safe streets are a key goal for black America and the U.S. at large, there must be a coordinated, more forceful attack against the organized entity that is responsible: gangs. It’s high time that we treat the terrorism at home with the same vigor as we do Al Qaeda abroad.”

*******

Should ‘Government Motors’ Be Making Campaign Contributions? - National Review Online

General Motors has given more than $90,000 to political campaigns this year, according to data released by the Federal Assistance Commission last week. These are the company’s first political contributions since the 2008 election and, unsurprisingly, most of these contributions were to Midwestern congressmen and senators from states in which GM has a large presence. The contributions were evenly divided between the two parties, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which provides the details.

But GM declared bankruptcy less than a year and a half ago, and was bailed out by $65 million in taxpayer dollars; the U.S. Treasury currently owns 61 percent of the company. Should GM be making campaign contributions, given taxpayers’ sizable involvement as shareholders?

Robert Reich, secretary of labor under President Clinton, says no. In a blog post for the Christian Science Monitor last weekend, Reich illustrates how questionable GM’s political contributions are:

Last time I looked, you and I and every other U.S. taxpayers owned a majority of GM… [W]e taxpayers are paying some people (GM executives) to tell us how we should vote for another group of people (House and Senate candidates) who will decide how our taxes will be used in the future.

*******

11 Predictions About 2010 That the Simpsons Got Right- 11 Points

No comments: