Santorum Loses Michigan, Can the Insanity and Hypocrisy End?By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

March 4, 2012

NEWS ANALYSIS

Santorum Loses Michigan, Can the Insanity and Hypocrisy End?

By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

Wilmer_Leon

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - The results are in; the people have spoken, yet again. According to CNN, Romney defeated Santorum in Michigan 41 percent to 38 percent and in Arizona 48 percent to 26 percent. This could be the beginning of the end for yet another trumped up challenger for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Even with the Santorum campaign sending robo-calls urging Democrats to vote for him in the Michigan open primary, Santorum’s message (whatever it was) failed to carry the day. Santorum, like those fallen phonies before him, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, et al, was crushed under the combination of the weight of his extreme conservatism and his obvious inability to articulate substantive solutions based upon the real issues impacting the real lives of real Americans.

While Americans are facing the every-day challenges of unemployment, home foreclosure, and record rates of poverty and hunger, Santorum and too many of his conservative brethren have shifted the debate to social and religious issues. What should matter to all Americans is an unemployment rate of 8.3 percent (16 percent for African-Americans). Approximately four million families loosing their homes to foreclosure from 2007 to early 2012. Even though "the majority of people affected by foreclosures have been White families … borrowers of color are more than twice as likely to lose their home as White households. More than one in four African-Americans (27.4 percent) lived in poverty in 2010, compared to one in seven (15.1 percent) Americans and 20.2 percent of U.S. households with children were food insecure while 32.9 percent of African-American households with children suffered from food insecurity.

Instead of focusing on inclusive “bread and butter” issues to benefit all Americans Santorum, Gingrich and others focus on divisiveness and wedge issues. Santorum is trying to undermine Thomas Jefferson’s founding tradition of the "wall of separation between church and state…" Santorum said this past Sunday that former President Kennedy’s famous 1960 speech on the relationship between religion and government made him want to “throw up.” He also called President Obama a "snob" for having the unmitigated gall to promote higher education for all Americans and called US institutions of higher education “indoctrination mills.” These extreme remarks forced Republican governors such as New Jersey’s Chris Christy to challenge him. "I think that's probably over the line," said Christy, adding that if Santorum was against the proposition of ensuring children are college educated or career ready, "I don't think that makes any sense."

As President Obama tries to quell another international outrage created by American insults to other cultures and religions Newt Gingrich calls the President’s apology to the people of Afghanistan “surrender.” He stated, "I find it very offensive as commander in chief that he is apologizing to the Afghans when in fact he should be demanding an apology from [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai…" He went on to say "…If you think the U.S. is inevitably weak and guilty and we should run around the world apologizing and appeasing, then Barack Obama is your candidate." Gingrich is ignoring the simple fact that the American military is guilty of burning these holy books and President Obama apologized as his predecessor George W. Bush did in 2008 when Bush apologized to Iraq's prime minister following the American military’s desecration of a Quran by American military personnel. You don’t win friends, influence people, and make America safe by desecrating people’s religious materials and urinating on the bodies of dead soldiers.

As Republican’s rail against the Obama administrations health care reform initiatives as “government mandated health care,” “government overreach,” and “intrusion into our private affairs” Virginia Republicans passed a bill to force women to undergo an ultrasound procedure before having an abortion even when as in most cases it is not a medical necessity. After seeing the outrage from thousands of women who gathered at the Virginia State House, Gov. Robert McDonnell (R-VA) (possible Republican VP candidate) withdrew his support for the measure and requested the General Assembly ease legislation mandating ultrasounds before an abortion.

For as much as Republicans claim to despise “activist judges” and Gingrich say’s “…as president, he would abolish whole courts to be rid of judges whose decisions he feels are out of step with the country” their attack on Planned Parenthood, contraception, and abortion contradicts over 47 years of established Supreme Court precedent. In Griswold v. Connecticut, (1965) by a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy by striking down a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." Since Griswold, the Supreme Court has cited the right to privacy in several rulings, most notably in Roe v. Wade, (1973), where the Court ruled that a woman's choice to have an abortion was protected as a private decision between her and her doctor. Why do small government, individual right loving conservatives want to empower the government to intrude into the sanctity of an individuals bedroom and the relationship with their doctor and/or God?

American’s are witnessing a concerted effort by social and so called Christian conservatives to put their limited interpretation of religious doctrine over doctors and subject other Americans to their narrow interpretations of religion and life. For those who are against abortion the answer is simple, don’t have one. For those who are against same-sex-marriage the answer is simple; don’t marry someone who is the same sex as you are.

Hopefully, with Santorum loosing Michigan and Arizona some of this insanity and hypocrisy can end and rational Americans can get to the business of debating real issues and finding real solutions that will move all of America forward. Keep religion where it belongs, in church and out of our politics.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program “Inside the Issues with Wilmer Leon,” on Sirius/XM channel 128 and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

More Children Living in High-Poverty Communities Than 10 Years Ago by Maria Morales

Feb. 26, 2012

More Children Living in High-Poverty Communities Than 10 Years Ago
By Maria Morales
Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Afro American Newspaper

(TriceEdneyWire.com) — Nearly 8 million of America’s children live in high-poverty areas, about 1.6 million more since 2000, according to a new report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The Baltimore-based organization does research and funding to programs nationally that focus on disadvantaged children and families.

About 7.9 million, or 11 percent, of the nation’s children are growing up in areas where at least 30 percent of residents live below the federal poverty level of $22,000 per year for a family of four, according to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), which covers 2006 through 2010.

African American, American Indian and Latino children are six to nine times more likely to live in high-poverty communities than their white counterparts.

Washington, D.C. ranks 10th out of the top 10 U.S. cities, with 32 percent of its children living in impoverished neighborhoods, a decrease since 2000. Baltimore falls toward the middle of the top 50 cities, listed at 22nd place, with 25 percent of its children living in poor neighborhoods.

The state of Maryland has one of the lowest numbers of poor children in the country, with just three percent of its children reportedly living in high-poverty areas.

According to the ACS, almost all states saw the number of children in high-poverty neighborhoods climb.

In 2000, 6.3 million kids, or 9 percent, were living in areas of concentrated poverty.

Such communities often lack access to resources that are critical to healthy growth and development, including quality education, medical care and safe outdoor spaces, said Laura Speer, associate director for policy reform and data at the Casey Foundation.

“Kids in these high-poverty areas are at risk for health and developmental challenges in almost every aspect of their lives, to their chances for economic success as adults,” Speer said. “Transforming disadvantaged communities into better places to raise children is vital to ensuring the next generation and their families realize their potential.”

Not all children living in these high-poverty neighborhoods are poor themselves, Speer clarified. “Nearly half of the kids living in these neighborhoods are in families above the poverty line, although they may be just above the line.”

But the outcomes for children in those communities are relatively the same, despite income, Speer said. The study found children of all income levels that lived in poor communities had higher stress levels, more social and emotional problems, struggle in school or drop out, especially children of color. “Kids living in a poor neighborhood are more affected,” she said. “It really is double jeopardy.”

Speer said that children in low-income families that live in higher income neighborhoods have a greater chance of success. “When a low-income child goes to school in a higher income area, they do better for the most part,” she said.

The survey also showed that three out of four children in these neighborhoods have at least one parent in the home who works. “Most people think incorrectly that these are families where no one is working,” Speer said. “But what we found is that the adults in the home may be working and need a better job, or are actively looking.

These communities need to create economic opportunities that parents and children can take advantage of, from schools to jobs.”

Mandela Out of Hospital After Minor Surgery

Feb. 26, 2012

Mandela Out of Hospital After Minor Surgery

nelsonmandela

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Former South Africa President Nelson Mandela, 93, has been released from the hospital after undergoing a minor surgery. Reports say he is in good health.

The Associated Press reports the 93-year-old Nobel peace laureate was released Sunday after undergoing a laparoscopy, a procedure by which "surgeons make an incision in the belly to insert a thin, lighted tube to look at abdominal organs."

South Africa President Jacob Zuma said "doctors have assured us that there is nothing to worry about", according to AP reports.

The world-revered Mandela spent 27 years in prison for protesting against aparthied, the racist and White supremacist-based government that formerly ruled South Africa. He became South Africa's first Black president in 1994 and served for five years. According to AP, he last appeared in public in July 2010.

Affirmative Action: Conservative Supreme Court Offers Little Hope for Survival

Feb. 26, 2012

Affirmative Action: Conservative Supreme Court Offers Little Hope for Survival

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from the Richmond Free Press

supreme_court

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Affirmative action once again appears to be on the chopping block.

The U.S. Supreme Court this week triggered nerve-jangling concern about the future of the decades-old policy. The nation’s highest court did so by agreeing to consider afresh whether race can be used in university admissions — just nine years after approving the use of affirmative action in a landmark decision in which now-retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor played a key role.

The justices decided Feb. 21 to revisit the potentially divisive issue. They accepted a case challenging the admission policy the University of Texas employs to ensure racial and ethnic diversity in its undergraduate classes.

At issue: Whether the use of affirmative action violates the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection for White students competing with Black and other minority students for places in the freshman class at the state’s flagship university.

The agreement to hear the case to many legal experts is like a loud clanging bell tolling the court’s readiness to sweep affirmative action from the nation’s campuses — a move the court’s most conservative justice, Clarence Thomas, has long supported. Justice Thomas is the lone black member among the nine justices.

The fact the court is taking this case “is troubling news for those who support efforts to diversify institutions of higher education,” said Theodore M. “Ted” Shaw, a Columbia Law School professor and former director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Shaw believes that Justice Thomas and the rest of the conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has

taken the case so it can reverse the 2003 decision and outlaw policies dating back to the 1960s that increase educational access opportunities for African-Americans, Hispanics and other disadvantaged minorities. He noted that the Roberts Court in 2007 “struck down voluntary school desegregation efforts.”

In that ruling, he said that the court “evinced hostility to race-conscious diversity efforts.”

The Texas case began when lead plaintiff Abigail Fisher and another white teenager were denied admission to the University of Texas and filed a constitutional challenge to race-based admissions nearly four years ago. Both are set to graduate from other schools this year.

Texas’ defense of its policies have been upheld in lower federal courts that have found the university created a program based on the high court’s groundbreaking decision that upheld a diversity plan of the University of Michigan Law School. In that 5-4 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court established for the first time that a university’s compelling interest in creating classroom diversity justified the use of affirmative action.

Then-Justice O’Connor cast the decisive fifth vote. She wrote in her decision that schools currently are entitled to maintain such race-based policies to promote diversity, but expected the policies to be phased out as unnecessary within 25 years. She retired in 2006 and was replaced by a more conservative justice, Samuel Alito, who has disdained race-based policies as a court member.

Only eight justices will hear the case now expected to be election campaign. Justice Elena Kagan already has indicated she will not participate, likely because she worked on the Texas case as solicitor general in the Obama administration before joining the court in 2010.

With Justice O’Connor gone and Justice Kagan out, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s potential swing vote becomes essential in an eight-member court, Shaw said.

If Justice Kennedy joins three members of the liberal block, that would create an evenly divided court and affirm the lower court’s ruling upholding the Texas race-based plan, he said. If Justice Kennedy joins four justices in the conservative bloc to form a majority against the Texas plan, he said, then affirmative action is in deep trouble.

Some think that the court could limit its ruling to the University of Texas if the court is simply troubled by the university’s broad use of race to attempt to achieve diversity in every classroom at the university.

At the University of Texas, the majority of freshmen are admitted by means of a state law that requires race-neutral admission for the top 10 percent of every Texas high school class. The university uses affirmative action to fill any remaining slots. Shaw, though, is gloomily certain that this the new case is the one that the court’s “affirmative action opponents have been looking for to overturn Grutter.”

Others are cheering that thought. “The court is right to take the case,” said Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity and a longtime critic of race-based admissions programs.

“As our nation becomes more and more multiracial and multiethnic” Clegg said, “it becomes more and more untenable for our public institutions to label, sort, and discriminate on the basis of skin color and national origin.”

That’s also the view of Joshua Thompson of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which also wants the court to stamp out affirmative action. “A policy of race-based preferences and discrimination in admissions is not just unfair, it is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.”

African Diaspora in the UK Installs Plaque for Malcolm X

Feb. 26, 2012

African Diaspora in the UK Installs Plaque for Malcolm X

Special to the Trice Edney News Wire from GIN

malcolmxheadline1965

(TriceEdneyWire.com) – Years after a visit by El Hajj Malik El Shabazz (formerly Malcolm X) to Smethwick, Birmingham, England, the community has erected a plaque in his honor on the date of his assassination in New York's Audubon Ballroom.

Malcolm X visited Smethwick, after addressing the first meeting of the Council of African Organizations in London.

“The American civil rights activist … made the walk after being invited to view some of the residential houses being denied to African Caribbean and Asian property seekers in the Smethwick,” according to the Nu Jak media release.

“At the time the council had a policy of segregated housing,” the release said. ”The visit by Malcolm X to Marshall Road brought international media attention to the issue, and within a few months a new administration had been sworn in and the policy was overturned.

“Almost half a century later, visitors and site-seers from all over the world still visit Marshall Street to follow in the footsteps of his historic walk.”

To commemorate this, on Feb. 21, 2012, 47 years to the day of his passing, a coalition of local groups honored Malcolm X with a blue heritage plaque on Marshall Road in Smethwick.