St. Louis CofCC Blog

Daily Mail:

White working-class boys are being consigned to the educational scrapheap because politically-correct ministers and officials are ignoring their poor performance, members of the ATL claimed yesterday.

They said boys from low-income homes do significantly worse in exams than any other group of pupils but their plight is being “overlooked” by Labour and the liberal establishment.

Initiatives to tackle under-achievement often centre on improving the performance of ethnic minorities, said London-based member John Puckrin.

Fears of playing into the hands of the National Front and BNP are fuelling a widespread reluctance to speak up for the plight of the white working-classes, he claimed.

(snip)

“Liberal-minded people and the media ceased to highlight the particular problems of this group for fear of lending weight to the arguments of the National Front and BNP. This is a self-defeating position to my mind.”

So, they would rather have the children of the white working class fail in school than see Nick Griffin win an election.  Actually, I doubt that the children of the white working class are at the bottom of the scholastic heap, and that the British educational system is Enroning around with statistics in order to boost the apparent achievement of non-white pupils.

He’s keeping his part-black part-white preacher.

Somehow, I knew this speech would go something like, “Oh, I know he said lots of troubling things, but what about slavery, lynchings, segregation, Jim Crow, cross burnings? Hope hope hope hope hope hope.” And it was just about that, save that Obama threw in conservative talk radio and Ronald Reagan just for bad measure.

One distinguishing characteristic of the speech is that it endorsed the Lincoln-MLK philosophy that the Founding Documents were drawn with the intention, and were a promissory note on, and a down payment on, the concept of absolute human equality, especially racial.

Some right-wingers are praising this paragraph:

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

This paragraph does not a right-winger make. Obama recognizes white racial frustration, and certainly does not bash it. But reading between the lines, he thinks that the white working class was/is being suckered by the disposed “Southern Strategy” of the Republican Party, and by other nefarious elements. His solution is the Jesse Jackson strategy, where somehow every economically frustrated person of every race will unite under the banner of liberal populism. If any such movement were possible, there have been dozens of chances for it to materialize and thrive in my lifetime. That it has not means that it’s not possible, though neither this blogmeister or anyone else, much less The Late Great Dr. Samuel T. Francis, has delved into an intellectual analysis to explain why not, though I would suspect that it would have something to do with the permanence of race.

To prove I’m right, here is the paragraph after the next in sequence:

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

Quite frankly, Mr. Obama, I don’t go into certain areas of my own city after dark not for the fear of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Golden Parachutes or K Street.

I will post the entire speech here for posterity.

(more…)

World Net Daily:

Obama pastor’s theology: Destroy ‘the white enemy’

Barack Obama’s suddenly radioactive pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has defended himself against charges of anti-Americanism and racism by referring to his foundational philosophy, the “black liberation theology” of scholars such as James Cone, who regard Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people” who will only accept a god who assists their aim of destroying the “white enemy.”

“If God is not for us and against white people,” writes Cone, “then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community.”

Up until today, and this revelation, I was willing to consider the possibility that Rev. Wright was not an outright hatemonger, but just a typical purveyor of black fatuous paranoia.  This is the Rubicon.

The conventional wisdom is that their decision this summer on DC vs Heller will profoundly affect the Second Amendment debate for a long time.  I don’t agree with that wisdom fully, for this reason:  Washington D.C. is a Federal territory.  If SCOTUS rules against DC and uses the Second in the reasoning, this might not apply to handgun-ban cities that are within states, like New York and Chicago.  Don’t forget:  States’ Rights.  Then again, there is the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th.  Therefore, SCOTUS ruling the right way might not have profound legal ramifications outside of Ten Miles Square.

However, if they rule for DC, this means that SCOTUS has effectively erased the 2nd from the Constitution.  If a total handgun ban cannot be nullified by “shall not be infringed,” then “shall not be infringed” might as well not be there.

This leads me to another question.  Washington D.C. is a Federal territory.  The handgun ban could have been undone sometime during the six years that President Bush was President and the Republicans ran Congress, with a simple act of the latter signed by the former.  I think the reason why it never happened is because doing so would violate D.C.’s precious “home rule,” (read:  black government), and the Republican racial lassitude.