CORE National Chair Roy Innis has launched

a national protest against Waxman-Markey

Cap and Tax Bill: Stop The War on the Poor!!

House Climate Bill Called “immoral” by

Major Civil Rights Leader

Written by Press Release
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 19:52
The Waxman-Markey climate bill is “an immoral assault on poor Americans” because it is designed to purposely raise the cost of energy in order to force the working poor to reduce their standard of living, according to one of the nation’s leading civil rights champions.

Roy Innis, Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality — one ofAmerica’s oldest civil rights organizations — made the allegation in a letter to all members of Congress on Wednesday. CORE has been heavily engaged in the national energy policy debate since the publication of Innis’ 2007 book, “Energy Keepers, Energy Killers.” The book was a Washington Post non-fiction best seller.

“In my 40-plus years as the Chairman of CORE, I have seen few federal bills that would do more harm to America’s working class and low-income citizens and families than the Waxman-Markey climate tax bill,” Innis wrote to Members of Congress.

“The Waxman-Markey bill is designed specifically to make the use of fossil fuels more costly,” Innis said. “That will have a disproportionate and negative impact on those who now benefit most from the affordable and reliable power that fossil fuels provide: poor and working-class families.”

“In fact, an underlying goal of this legislation is the morally repugnant concept that constricting sources of domestic energy and raising energy costs is a good thing because it will force conservation by consumers,” Innis said. “That elitist view assumes that poor, working class families have the ability to bear that ‘social cost.'”

“The plain truth is this: the poor and working families we represent cannot bear that luxury,” Innis told Congress.

“Americans don’t want ‘energy welfare’ payments from the government to help ease the sting of these government-driven cost increases,” Innis wrote. “They want continued affordable and reliable energy, which this bill will constrict.”

Innis concluded: “This is an explicitly anti-consumer package that will have huge impacts – both direct and indirect – on the struggling families we represent.”

CORE said it plans to launch a national public education campaign against the Waxman-Markey legislation. CORE has more than 100,000 members nationwide.

The following You-Tube links capture Ralph

Conner at the Second Amendment Freedom

Rally Celebrating the Supreme Court Heller


Ralph Connor (2 parts)


  1. Gun Rights Examiner: ‘No Guns for Negroes

    No Guns for Negroes‘ by local Gun Rights Examiner expert, David Codrea.
    http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m3d7-NoGuns-for-Negroes – 112k – CachedSimilar pages

  2. Transsylvania Phoenix: No Guns For Negroes

    No Guns For Negroes. Another exceptional pro-Second Amendment movie brought to you by JFPO. Best 20 minutes I’ve spent watching a video in a very long time.
    transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/05/noguns-for-negroes.html – 20 hours ago – Similar pages

  3. JPFO- No Guns for Negroes-download or view

    No Guns for Negroes ” exposes the racist history of American gun control laws. Every person who supports gun control laws must be shown this film or gun
    http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ngn-download-view.htm – 15k – CachedSimilar pages

  4. No Guns for Negroes” | No Compromise when you’re Right!

    May 28, 2009 more about No Guns for Negroes, posted with vodpod.
    nocompromisemedia.com/2009/05/28/noguns-for-negroes/ – Similar pages

  5. Free Republic Censors Codrea: “No Guns For Negros” « John Jacob

    Entitled No Guns for Negroes, it features a long-time 2A activist in the Black community, who also represents one of the most highly
    johnjacobh.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/free-republic-censors-codrea-noguns-for-negros/ – 35k – CachedSimilar pages

  6. No Guns for Negroes | End the War on Freedom

    No Guns for Negroes. Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Thu, 2009-05-28 05:58. JPFO has a new film, which shows the rascist roots of gun control.
    billstclair.com/blog/no_guns_for_negroes.html – 30k – CachedSimilar pages

  7. Xavier Thoughts: No Guns For Negroes

    He strongly supports the 2nd Amendment, opposes gun control of any sort, and carries a weapon 24 hours a day. Xavier is known on various internet gun forums
    xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/05/noguns-for-negroes.html – 3 hours ago – Similar pages

  8. No Guns for Negroes‘ Video by !!! M.G. Mell from Hell !!! Μολὼν

    May 29, 2009 Share the gift of knowledge. Copy the embedded code and add it to your profile or post as a bulletin. thank you. Gun Rights, 2A, Second
    vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=58121612 – 14 hours ago – Similar pages

  9. No Guns For Negroes

    No Guns For Negroes. This is a very temporary holding page for the duration of the production completion of a film of this title – due for release it is
    nogunsfornegroes.net/ – 4k – CachedSimilar pages

  10. No Guns for Negroes Part Two – Video – YouTube

    No Guns for Negroes Part Two. No Guns for Negroes exposes the racist history behind American gun control laws. Articles(1); Related videos(1); Comments(0)
    http://www.wikio.com/video/1191732 – 2 hours ago – Similar pages

CORE-Chicago is proud to be featured in an upcoming dvd movie about the right to bear arms and the black community. “No Guns For Negroes” traces the racist roots of gun control to explain why minorities should choose to exercise their rights to bear arms within their own communities, just like non-black communities in this country founded on the Crispus Attucks right to bear arms:

Racial Politics is Killing 2A

No Guns for Negroes
JPFO has been working diligently on a pioneering film to expose the racist roots of “gun control” pushed by the Obama team.
Entitled No Guns for Negroes, it features a long-time 2A activist in the Black community, who also represents one of the most highly respected national Black civil rights organizations, he is on the staff of a prominent Libertarian think tank, and former mayor of a Chicago suburb.
With precision and eloquence the featured speaker reveals…
✓ How “gun control” uniquely punishes honest, law-abiding Blacks.
✓ The hidden facts that many Civil Rights heroes actively exercised their 2A self-defense rights in the 1960’s and 1970’s to insure the survival and success of the Civil Rights movement. This made Martin Luther King’s pacifism safe to use.
✓ The tragic consequences for your 2A rights when the PC gang cleverly hides the real causes of ghetto “Narco Economy” violence — especially involving children — behind calls for draconian “gun control” laws. Laws that would only turn localized crime waves into a national, blood-soaked plague, as all Americans were left defenseless against swelling legions of armed, murdering thugs.
✓ A devastating analysis of why Black community leaders: politicians, police, attorneys, media figures – even ministers – are constantly pimping for White liberals to keep Blacks and all other Americans down on the “Gun Control Plantation.”
Nothing like this has ever been made…
Never so urgently needed
Only JPFO has the Guts to Stand Tall and Deliver
The film’s impact will be spectacular. Not only in the Black community of some 38 million who have never heard these truths — but after seeing the film will be justifiably enraged at their Black “leaders”. So also will citizens of all races and creeds who have yet not realized the profoundly dangerous racist roots of “gun control.”
Not until Blacks and other “minorities” stand shoulder-to-shoulder with whites in defense of 2A will the sinister evils of “gun control” be smashed. Until then, Black-on-Black “Narco Economy” violence will continue to be the rocket fuel for policies destined to end in virtual gun confiscation.

JPFO may sound partisan or strident but they have captured the angst of America’s gun-owners who are fearful of the plans of Eric Holder as the new Attorney General working with a new president who does not aggressively support the second amendment. President Obama is likely to side with Mayor Daley of Chicago who supports illegal hand-gun bans and gun confiscation measures designed to separate citizens from their guns:
Last year I wrote that: The assault on the second amendment is a standard talking point in Democratic policy initiatives. Although some disingenuous “gun-toting blue dogs” were pushed over the top in the November Bush-Bashing, by and large the vanguard of the Dems (read urban blacks capable of being whipped into a self-righteous frenzy by their preacher-political-pastors) is embracing a repeal of the 2nd amendment as a remedy for violence in the black community.
Reverends naturally become routine and very usual suspects to promote this mania since they purportedly have a commitment to “life and or nonviolence” ala Dr. MLK Jr etc.

Look for black dems  to support a resolution to overturn the second amendment as an act of humanity. This will not address the violence or the fatalities of black and Hispanic youth and innocent bystanders anymore than legally-armed citizen gun buy-backs will affect the number of shootings in the inner cities of America.
What the Mayor and preachers should be addressing is the anti-social hip-hop-laden drug culture celebrated by urban minorities which directly related to glamorization of gangster lifestyles and the narco-economy which flourishes in these communities due to the failed WAR on drugs. This failure of U.S. drug policy and the need to decriminalize drugs which have turned two generations into farm teams for gangsters and ex-offenders…This is the struggle for liberty of black and Hispanic males in urban society. Too bad the only way preachers are involved is in counseling inmates once they become a recidivist part of the ever-expanding criminal justice system. While these prelates are out subverting the Constitution, drug-dealers are joining gangs to stay armed in order to conduct their trade and commerce block by block in the inner-cities as church and political leaders try to convince law-abiding citizens that grabbing THEIR guns is the only way to save black youth.

An Essay By Ralph W. Conner, Chairman CORE-Chicago

Castles In The Sand: The Melting Away of American Liberties

The right to bear arms preceded the Second Amendment of the fledgling United States. In the reign of Henry the Second in 1181, the Assize of Arms became a part of English Common Law.
Another canon of English Common Law adopted as an American legal concept is the castle doctrine or Defense of Habitation Law which provides a legal context for justifiable homicide in defense of one’s personal residence and family.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, reports in the article “Gun Politics in the United Kingdom” that since 1946 in England self-defense is not considered a valid reason to own a gun. But the rights of the citizens of England in 1707 were enunciated by Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” where he extolled the right to bear arms as “a public allowance of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

With the Second Amendment, former colonized subjects recognized that a colonial oppressor could only be repelled with freedom flowing from the barrel of a gun. The Boston Massacre in March 1770 was a massacre primarily because the stalwart victims were unarmed. Citizens were bestowed a new birth of freedom in America due to a national commitment to honor individual liberties like the right to self-defense, even from oppressive government.

This month the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case which could further erode the constitutional right to bear arms. Nationally urban mayors are joining a growing chorus demanding tighter “gun control” legislation to stymie the proliferation of gun violence in the inner-cities. Religious leaders and families of victims are positioned on podiums with elected officials to lament the incidence of gun violence in Chicago, in Oakland, in Newark, and so on. There is a call to ban ownership of guns and the retailing of firearms to make them inaccessible to gang members or drug dealers mired in a hip-hop culture which promotes a drug-gangster lifestyle. It makes such great photo-ops for law and order politicians or bleeding-hearts, that now the “our leaders” have mobilized the “grief” machines in the name of the “children” and begun to bus kids to state legislatures to demand that politicians disarm their parents and the gang-bangers in the neighborhoods.

Following an English example got us into the Second Amendment. Should we advocate mirroring current U.K. gun control to protect the general public from the dangers of gun ownership by individuals? Want a gun in the U.K.? :
•    The U.K. government in 1997 passed the Firearms Amendment #2 Act of 1997 which effectively completely banned private handgun ownership. Under special conditions individuals may be issued a PPW ( Personal Protection Weapon) license.
•    the current licensing procedure involves: valid photo ID, two character references from persons who have known you for at least two years( and who may themselves be investigated or interviewed as part of application process), approval by your family doctor, inspection of the storage area proposed for securing the firearm.

•    A face-to-face interview is required on the premises with a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO).
•    A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by the Special Branch of the firearms licensing department.
•     Any person who has spent more than three years in prison is automatically banned for life from obtaining a gun license.
•    Penalties for possession of a prohibited firearm without a certificate is a mandatory five year prison sentence and an uncapped fine.
•    With the Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2006, England has now criminalized the use, sale, ownership, and manufacture of both “air-guns” and imitation firearms.

The Castle Doctrine is vanquished with the Second Amendment when government removes personal responsibility and self-defense from the freedom equation which is the basis of our covenant protecting individual liberty in America. Eroding those values is much easier than tackling the failed War on Drugs and the narco-economy which are the cultural cause of much of  the shooting and gang violence in the urban metropolis. This failed policy has only exponentially expanded the number of Americans incarcerated for non-violent crimes. As usual, political elites in America are always quick to emulate some continental political-correctness to show their acculturation and finesse. All at the cost of jettisoning liberties taken for granted 300 years ago.

A Report On The Reasons For Gun Violence:

The Recent Surge in Homicides involving Young Black Males and Guns:
Time to Reinvest in Prevention and Crime Control
James Alan Fox, Ph.D.
The Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice,
and Professor of Law, Policy & Society
Marc L. Swatt, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice
Northeastern University
Boston, Massachusetts
Direct all inquiries to James Alan Fox at j.fox@neu.edu or 617-416-4400
December 2008
Support for this research was provided by the Law and Justice Statistics Program
of the American Statistical Association and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The
views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
position of the United States Department of Justice.
Summary of Findings
While overall homicide levels in the United States have fluctuated minimally in
recent years, those involving young victims and perpetrators—particularly young
black males—have surged.
From 2002 to 2007, the number of homicides involving black male juveniles as
victims rose by 31% and as perpetrators by 43%. In terms of gun killings
involving this same population subgroup, the increases were even more
pronounced: 54% for young black male victims and 47% for young black male
The increase in homicide among black youth, coupled with a smaller increase or
even decrease among their white counterparts, was consistently true for every
region of the country and nearly all population groupings of cities. The pattern
also held individually for a majority of states and major cities.
After some decline during the 1990s, the percentage of homicides that involve a
gun has increased since 2000, both among young white offenders and black
offenders of all age ranges. The percentage of gun homicides for young black
offenders has reached nearly 85%. These trends are concomitant with various
legislative initiatives at the federal level that have lessened the extent of
surveillance on illegal gun markets.
Time-of-day patterns of violent crime victimization for youngsters, ages 6-17,
reveal clear differences between school days and out-of-school periods. On
school days, the risk spikes during the after-school hours—the primetime for
juvenile crime—while the late evening hours are most problematic on non-school
days, particularly summertime weekends.
Future demographics suggest that the concern for at-risk youth should increase
over the next decade. The number of black and Hispanic children should
continue to expand, contrasting with the rather limited increase expected among
Caucasian children. There is a significant need for reinvestment in children and
families—in essence an at-risk youth bailout during these difficult economic
Federal support for policing and youth violence prevention has declined sharply
in recent years, perhaps precipitated by complacency brought about by the
significant 1990s decline in crime. The resurgence in homicide, especially among
minority youth, signals the importance of restoring federal funds for crime
prevention and crime control.
At least on the surface, the news from the crime front has seemed
encouraging. The FBI, in its recent release of crime figures for the nation,
reported that violent crime in 2007 was down across the board compared to
2006, including a 1.3% decline in murder. Although welcomed and widely
applauded, the news contrasts sharply with the experience of countless
Americans living (and some dying) in violence-infested neighborhoods—those for
whom the frightening sound of gunfire is a far too frequent occurrence.
It is not that the FBI figures tell an inaccurate story about crime trends in
America. Rather, they obscure the divergent tale of two communities—one
prosperous and safe, the other poor and crime-ridden. The truth behind the fears
and concerns of the nation’s underclasses about crime and violence lies deep
beneath the surface of the FBI statistical report.
Recent Homicide Trends
Over the past few years for the nation as a whole, rates of violence, and
homicide in particular, have been relatively stable, with rather modest fluctuations
since the beginning of the decade. Exploring deeper, this is generally the case as
well for whites, black females, and adult black males over the age of 25. But the
picture for young black males, especially teenagers, is radically different.
Figures 1-2 display the percentage change over the past five years in the
estimated number of homicide victims and offenders (see technical notes on p. 8)
among selected groups (males, male juveniles, black male juveniles, and black
male juveniles involving a gun). As shown, between 2002 and 2007, the number
of homicides involving black male juveniles as victims grew by 31% and as
perpetrators by 43%. In terms of gun killings involving this same population
subgroup, the increases were even more pronounced: 54% for young black male
victims and 47% for young black male perpetrators.
Greater detail pertaining to the number of victims and offenders by age,
sex and race—separately and in combination—is provided in Tables 1-3 for each
year since 2000. In order to lessen the effects of the volatility from year-to-year in
measuring trend, the percentage change rates included in these and other tables
compare pooled counts for 2006 and 2007 against a baseline of pooled counts
for 2000 and 2001. By this gauge, the number of males committing homicide has
increased, particularly for young black males (14-17 and 18-24) and especially
involving a gun.
Moving below the national level, the increase in homicides by black
youthful offenders is consistent for all nine geographic regions and nearly all
population subgroups, as shown in Tables 4-5, suggesting that the problem is not
limited to only certain parts of the country. Moreover, these increases contrast
with smaller increases and even decreases among white youth.
Finally, Tables 6-7 provide similar percentage change calculations,
separately for white and black youthful offenders, for states as well as cities with
populations over 500,000 and more than 25 overall homicides annually. Given
the smaller base figures at the local level, the change rates are more volatile.
Overall, however, a majority of states and a majority of cities have experienced
increases in homicides committed by young black offenders compared with
smaller increases or even decreases among their white counterparts.
Long Term Homicide Trends
While recent increases in homicides involving young offenders, particularly
black males, are of significant concern, when compared to the longer term trends
of the past few decades, a different perspective emerges. Tables 8-9 and Figures
3-4 contain the rates of victimization and offending per 100,000 population for
males by age and race from 1976 to 2007. The recent surge in homicide among
young black males clearly falls far short of the extraordinarily high levels
witnessed during the crack-related street gang wars of the late 1980s and early
1990s. In fact, the recent increases may say more about the success of crime
prevention and crime control efforts of the past decade than about contemporary
failures. In essence, the recent apparent spike in violence indicates that the
nation is victim of its earlier success. Were it not for the 1990s downturn, recent
figures would hardly stand out as cause for alarm.
Actually, there are naturally-occurring cycles to crime rates. Although not
as firm and deterministic as Newton’s law of gravity, when it comes to the crime
rate, what goes up, generally comes down, and what goes down generally
rebounds. While no level of victimization can be termed “acceptable,” compared
to the early 1990s when a deadly mix of gangs, guns and emerging crack
markets fueled an unprecedented surge in violence, the current state is not out of
control. Reinvestment in the programs and strategies that worked successfully in
the past, along with restored funding levels for policing and prevention, can
reverse the current spate of street and gang violence.
The Role of Firearms
The role of firearms in the recent increase in youth killings, shown in
Figure 5 (and Table 10) is particularly significant and noteworthy. The percentage
of homicides involving a gun has risen to nearly 85% among young black
offenders, matching the high-point reached during the early 1990s. The
percentage of gun homicides for young white offenders has also grown in recent
years, though not quite equaling the level seen during the early 1990s. While the
role of guns in homicides committed by older white offenders has continued its
steady decline of the past few decades, gun use among black offenders over age
25 has rebounded in recent years.
The especially prominent upturn since 2000 in gun homicide coincides
with legislative restrictions upon ATF regarding the dissemination of gun tracing
information and other pro-gun legislation that passed through Congress early in
this decade. Congress has passed amendments in recent years making it more
difficult to identify illegal market sources of crime guns through ATF data.
It is noteworthy that increases since 2000 in gun killings by young
offenders have occurred as levels of non-gun homicide remained relatively flat or
even decreased. This divergence suggests the need to rethink our nation’s
approach to reducing availability of firearms to young offenders—those who are
more apt to pull the trigger, even over trivial matters, without fully considering the
consequences for themselves, much less for others.
Primetime for Juvenile Crime
Regardless of trend, be it upward, downward or stable, the concern for the
safety of children is genuine and critical. With parents spending less time
supervising their children—some out of choice, others out of necessity for the
sake of managing expenses, and a few out of sheer indifference or negligence—
an increasing number of youngsters are unsupervised during out-of-school
hours. Poor supervision, combined with idleness and boredom, is a recipe for
trouble. Far too many youngsters, therefore, are especially at-risk during the
afterschool hours for a range of problems, such as violence, as well as drinking,
drug use, and teen pregnancy.
Figures 6-7 display the time-of-day patterns of violent victimization for
2006 among juveniles, ages 6 through 17, separately for the months between
September and June when school is in session and the two summer months of
school vacation. Clearly, the incidence of victimization peaks in the after school
hours—the primetime for juvenile crime—when many parents are working and
kids are often unsupervised, and then begins to tail off in the evening hours when
parents typically are home to monitor their children. Weekend days during the
school year reflect a very different pattern in which the evening hours are more
problematic. The summer months reveal patterns that are close to that for
weekend days of the school year. However, the pronounced peak in the late
evening hours of weekend days in the summertime warrants special attention in
terms of providing constructive programs and alternative forms of supervision.
Attraction of Gangs
Notwithstanding the tale of official crime statistics, it hardly takes a rocket
scientist—or a research criminologist—to recognize that there are increasing
numbers of wayward and poorly-supervised youngsters with guns in their hands
and gangs in their plans. Regrettably, as the nation celebrated the successful
fight against violent crime back in the 1990s, we grew complacent and eased up
on our crime-fighting efforts. Unfortunately, the crime problem and the gang
problem do not disappear, and rebounded once we shifted priorities elsewhere.
Unless we restore the sense of urgency, some day we may look back and call
these the “good old days.”
Even while targeting gangs for intensive enforcement, we need also
understand their special appeal. Gangs offer youngsters many desirable
advantages—status, excitement, power, praise, profit, protection, mentoring, and
opportunity for advancement—healthy goals fulfilled in unhealthy ways. Today’s
youngsters who are drawn to gang membership are too young to have witnessed
the gang wars of the early 1990s when joining a gang could mean an early
Our challenge, therefore, is to identify and promote healthier means for
youngsters to achieve the same need-fulfillment, constructive ways to feel good
about themselves and their prospects for the future, while at the same time
having fun. This, of course, is where programs like the Boys and Girls Clubs and
other youth enrichment initiatives play a significant role, and a role that, given
ongoing trends, needs to be expanded.
While many Americans rail on about underage, underprepared, and
undermotivated parents “who just need to do a better job of raising and
supervising their children,” we recognize that these families cannot do it on their
own. We must assist families, not assail them, when they become overwhelmed
with the day-to-day struggles of raising children, particularly during an economic
downturn. The alternative forms of supervision and mentoring are extraordinarily
Future Possibilities
The fact that the problem of youth violence, especially among minorities,
has emerged and persisted for several years suggests that it is hardly an
aberration or statistical blip. Moreover, it could worsen in the years ahead as the
population of at-risk youth (blacks and Hispanics) grows as a result of both
demographic patterns and immigration. Figure 8 shows projected trends in the
numbers of young children—infants and toddlers under age 5—over the next
decade, using the 2008 counts as a baseline. While the number of white children
should change minimally, the pattern is remarkably different among race and
ethnic minorities. The number of black children is projected to grow in the years
ahead. Growth in the number of Hispanic children, partially tied to immigration
patterns, is especially pronounced. Given the social and economic strains that
unevenly impact minority communities, growth in the population of at-risk youth
signals the clear potential for increased problems of homicide, violence and other
social ills associated with an expanding population of underclass youngsters.
Whether these demographic trends translate into increasing crime problems
ahead largely depends on our willingness to be proactive. The urgency is clear:
we must reinvest in children—not just for the purpose of crime prevention, but for
the wide range of benefits associated with promoting their healthy and successful
Untimely Budget Cuts
Lulled into complacency by the sharp decline in crime during the 1990s,
our nation’s priorities appear to have moved away from fighting street crime. A
triple whammy at the federal level—related to cops, guns and kids—has
hampered proven strategies for crime control.
Federal appropriations in support of law enforcement have been slashed
since the early part of the decade, as reflected in Figure 9 in relation to funds for
the Community Oriented Police Services (COPS) initiative as well as the Byrne
Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) program. In addition, federal support for juvenile
justice and prevention programs (Juv Just) has been reduced by half, now a
shadow of the former investment.
Drastic funding cuts have led to a significant reduction in police resources
among large cities, those with populations of more than 250,000. Specifically, as
shown in Figure 10, the number of police officers per 1,000 population for large
cities has dropped 8.5% since the year 2000, with most of the decline occurring
in the first few years of the decade. By contrast, the level of police protection in
cities with populations under 250,000 has remained virtually constant.
Of course, much of the decline can be traced to the changing priorities
following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America. Much of the federal
support for law enforcement shifted from hometown security in patrolling high
crime neighborhoods to homeland security in protecting the nation’s
transportation, government and financial centers. Regardless of the level of
terrorist threat, however, many more Americans are murdered each year by
gunfire than were killed on 9/11. While the focus on combating terrorism is
undeniably important, we cannot lose sight of the carnage taking place on our
city streets.
In these difficult economic times, the banking and automobile industries
have looked to the federal government for assistance. Where is the voice to
appeal on behalf of the needs of at-risk youth, as various support programs for
children and families are being slashed? We need an at-risk youth bailout.
Principles of Prevention
Unfortunately, not all Americans are convinced about the value of
prevention—especially early childhood and youth enrichment efforts. As a result,
prevention initiatives are too often funded and implemented on a shoe-string, and
a rather short shoe-string with a brief window of opportunity to show results. This
is a recipe for failure and provides additional fodder for skeptics.
Smart crime fighting involves a balanced blend of enforcement (from
community policing to identifying illegal gun markets), treatment modalities (from
drug rehab on demand to community corrections and post-incarceration services)
as well as general and targeted crime prevention (from family support to summer
jobs for high-risk youth). Regrettably, the prevention approach has at times been
disparaged as “worthless” and as “soft of crime.” Yet, this cynical perspective
reflects gross misunderstanding of the process and goals of prevention, and a
selective examination of outcomes. Simply put: Prevention programs can work;
good prevention programs that are well-implement do work.
Besides the matter of funding adequacy, five fundamental principles of
crime and violence prevention are critical for effective investment:
1. No program is successful all the time or for all individuals. Regardless of the
initiative, there will be failures—those who commit crimes or recidivate
despite best efforts to prevent it. Rather than focusing on the failures, the goal
should be a reasonable reduction in offending rates. In light of the enormous
social and administrative costs associated with each criminal act, even
modest gains are worthwhile.
2. Prevention should have an emphasis on the prefix “pre.” While it is unwise
and inappropriate to “give up” on even a seemingly hardened offender, the
greatest opportunity for positive impact comes with a focus on children—
those who are young and impressionable and will be impressed with what a
teacher, preacher or some other authority figure has to say. It is well-known
that early prevention—during grade school if not earlier—can carry the
greatest and lasting impact, before a youngster is seduced by gangs, drugs
and crime.
3. Patience is more than a virtue, it is a requirement. Prevention is not a shortterm
strategy. Rather, it involves a continued effort, undaunted by setbacks.
Unfortunately, many prevention programs are given short window periods in
which to show progress, and are often terminated before the final results are
4. Prevention should take a multi-faceted approach. Understandably, there is
much temptation to target gang activity as perhaps the most visible and
immediate threat to public safety. While the focus on anti-gang initiatives is
laudable and should be strengthened, there are many other points of
intervention for successful crime reduction programming. For example,
several proven and promising strategies are directed at at-risk families with
young children. Rather than criticizing struggling underage mothers for their
lack of parenting effectiveness, many programs support them in raising
children who are less likely to become juvenile offenders. In addition, many
school-based initiatives effectively and efficiently enhance the well-being of
large number of children. Behavioral skills training at the elementary school
level (such as the modules developed by Boston’s Lesson One Foundation),
anti-bulling curricula for middle school students (such as the Olweus bullying
prevention program) that recognize the link between bullying and later
offending, peer-mediation and mentoring program in high school, after-school
activities targeted at the “prime time for juvenile crime” (such as the Boys and
Girls Clubs) all have payoffs far greater than the investment.
5. Prevention is significantly cost-effective. Virtually all assessments of crime
prevention confirm the adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
prison time. It is, however, a political reality that sound investments in crime
prevention can take years to reap the benefits. For example, the Perry preschool
program experiment implemented in Ypsilanti, Michigan translated into
a 17-to-1 rate of return on investment, yet it wasn’t until years later when the
preschoolers matured that their significantly lower involvement in crime,
alcohol and drug abuse was observed. It takes a bold leader to earmark funds
today for tomorrow’s success that his/her successor will derive.
The current surge in youth violence was anticipated years ago. Even while
rates of crime were falling in the 1990s, criminologists warned about the potential
for another wave of youth and gang violence ahead, a not-so-perfect storm
combining an upward trend in the at-risk youth population with a downward trend
in spending on social and educational programs to support youth.
Furthermore, we should not be surprised if the concomitant increase in the
number of at-risk youth, especially black and Hispanic children with less than
adequate supervision, combined with recent budget cuts for youth programs and
crime control initiatives, translates into further increases in gang and gun
violence. We’re already seeing the early signs.
The good news–or at least the encouraging word–is that the crime
problem is not out of control, at least by contrast to the early 1990s when the
nation’s murder rate was almost twice what it is today. It is not surprising that a
small bounce back would occur after the glory years of the late 1990s. But let this
small upturn serve as a thunderous wake-up call that crime prevention needs to
be a priority once again.
At this juncture, we must, of course, look toward immediate solutions for
controlling gang activity and easy access to illegal firearms—approaches that
depend heavily on police personnel, intelligence, and deployment. At the same
time, however, we must maintain a long-range view toward the future as the
population of young children—especially race and ethnic minorities—grows. The
choice is ours: pay for the programs now or pray for the victims later.
Data Sources and Technical Notes
Several data sources were used in completion of this report. Most
prominently, the data on homicide victimization and offending come from a
multiply-imputed cumulative file of the Supplementary Homicide Reports for the
years 1976-2007, created by the authors. Compiled as part of the FBI’s Uniform
Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, the Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR)
include incident-level data on the month and year of the offense; on the reporting
agency and its residential population, county, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
codes, geographic division, and population group; on the age, sex, and race of all
victims and offenders; and on the victim–offender relationship, weapon use, and
circumstances of the crime. The SHR records are incomplete on a small
percentage (2.5%) of victims, yet a substantial percentage (32.5%) of
perpetrators largely as a result of unsolved offenses. However, a process of
multiple-imputation was employed to fill in the gaps (based on available
information about the incomplete reports) so that characteristics of victims and
offenders can be reliably and accurately estimated. In addition, approximately
eight percent of homicides are not covered in the SHR data files. To adjust for
under-reporting, adjustment weights were applied based on comparisons to
mortality data from coroners’ reports and to the aggregated homicide counts
reported by the FBI in the Crime in the United States series. Aided by this
imputation and weighting process, all counts and rates, particularly for offender
data, are estimates, although reliable ones.
Calculations of the time-of-day distribution for violent crime victimization
for school-age youngsters (ages 6 through 17) were based on National Incident-
Based Reporting Data (NIBRS) for 2006 archived at the University of Michigan.
Although NIBRS coverage is not nationally representative, there is little reason to
believe that the time patterns are adversely affected by gaps in NIBRS coverage.
In fact, state-by-state analyses of these time patterns reveals general
consistency across various parts of the country, providing support for the
assumed representativeness of the sample data with regard to time-of-day
Homicide rate calculations and demographic projections relied on U.S.
Census Bureau annual estimates of resident population by age, sex and race.
Available race-bridged estimates were used to enable a smooth transition
between the multiple-race classifications of the 2000 Census counts and the
singular-race designations of earlier Census counts.
Finally, data on police personnel were drawn from figures published
annually by the FBI in Crime in the United States. Information on federal
appropriations for justice-related programs was drawn from figures compiled and
reported by the National Criminal Justice Association, a Washington, D.C.-based
justice policy organization.

Roy Innis Cal Beisner Barun Mitra Ralph Conner

Roy Innis believes affordable energy is a civil rights issue.

Innis brings some legitimacy to that claim. For the past 40 years, he’s been the national chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality, or CORE, one of the oldest civil rights organizations in the country. For decades he’s fought for social and political reform for black people in America, including the historic battles of the 1960s.

Innis, 74, now believes cheap energy is the “third leg” of those civil rights goals from decades ago, or “economic civil rights.” He’s advocating for a national energy policy geared toward increasing domestic supplies of traditional fossil fuels with the goal of lowering the price of gasoline, electricity and heat.

Higher energy costs disproportionately harm low-income and minority households, Innis says, which is why he believes that without cheap energy those households can’t take advantage of constitutionally protected social and political reforms enacted decades ago.

“This is civil rights that applies not only to black people, not only to Hispanic people, but it applies to the majority of Americans,” Innis said at the annual luncheon of the Resource Development Council of Alaska on June 4, where he was the keynote speaker. “This is the civil rights for everybody.”

It’s an uncommon stance. The financial debates around increased drilling usually concern the bottom lines of corporations or the stock packages of executives. “Green collar” economy groups and environmental investment firms predict an economy based on low cost sustainable energy and “green collar jobs,” which Innis supports, but doesn’t believe is currently realistic.

The “moral high ground”

Innis first presented his idea in a new book called “Energy Keepers-Energy Killers: The New Civil Rights Battle,” published this year by Merril Press in Bellevue, Wash.

In less than 100 pages, Innis lays out a history of America where the “moral high ground” used to propel the civil rights movement in the 1960s transitioned into early efforts in the 1970s and 1980s to expose air and water pollution.

Now he believes the environmental movement has become radicalized and has lost touch with average Americans by opposing traditional fossil fuel development in Alaska and across the country, which he says leads to affordable energy and jobs.

“Not all of them are bad people, but they’re wrong,” Innis said about environmentalists to applause at the Resource Development Council luncheon.

Innis does not believe humans are responsible for climate change. While he likes the prospects of renewable energy, he doesn’t believe the technologies are sophisticated enough to replace fossil fuels “any time soon” without unintended consequences.

He wants to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf of Alaska, California and Florida. He wants to increase the production of coal, in addition to oil and natural gas.

Innis says these beliefs represent the new “moral high ground.”

Unlikely ally

This argument has led Innis to become an unlikely ally of the development community.

In March, he spoke at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York, an event sponsored by the conservative think tank The Heartland Institute and designed to challenge popular thoughts and science on warming trends and human involvement in global climate change.

Innis gained local attention from his speech when he threatened to sue the Bush Administration if it listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Department of the Interior made that listing in May and Innis said CORE is now deciding whether to file its own suit or support an existing suit.

Innis recently brought his message north, speaking on local talk radio programs and to a packed crowd at the annual luncheon of the Resource Development Council.

The alliance between the resource development community and an activist for black causes isn’t so strange, according to John Shively, past president of the Resource Development Council.

During the early 1960s, Shively and Innis both worked for CORE and even went to jail together during a protest in Washington, D.C.

“Although Roy and I since that time have traveled vastly different paths, we have come, basically, to the same conclusion about what tying up resources does not only to states like Alaska, but particularly, of course, to people,” Shively said.

New grass roots efforts

Innis believes a new grass roots effort, like those of the 1960s, is necessary to push an agenda of increased domestic supply and lower cost energy.

“When I speak of the new civil rights movement I’m talking about a rekindling of the premise of the civil rights movement,” Innis said.

He plans to take his message across the country, particularly the West, hoping to start grassroots efforts aimed at increasing domestic production of fossil fuels. He asked the audience at the Resource Development Council to “pull together and form alliances to demand economic civil rights for the majority of us.”

In his book he describes an “Energy Keepers Network,” a coalition of pro-development groups working for lower costs through increased supplies. He says he’s already started community groups in Colorado and Utah and is talking to groups here in Alaska.

Some challenge drilling-price connections

Increasing domestic supplies of energy is the forefront of debates over the rising cost of gasoline, fuel oil and natural gas.

Prices go down when supplies outpace demand. That’s about as basic as economics gets. But the global nature of oil complicates the matter, because every barrel of oil produced in America can be offset by a barrel not produced abroad.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration recently presented that scenario as one reason why opening ANWR might help domestic energy security and tip the balance of trade in favor of the U.S., but probably wouldn’t lower prices.

That’s why some challenge domestic production for reasons other than environmental.

Speaking before the House Committee on Foreign Relations on May 22, Anne Korin, co-director of the energy think tank The Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, said the high demand for energy in America means the country will never produce all of its supply, and therefore increasing domestic supplies doesn’t address the “strategic value” of fossil fuels and oil in particular.

Those traditional fossil fuels accounted for more than 85 percent of the energy consumption in the United States through the first two months of the year, the most recent figures available from the EIA.

—Eric Lidji

Newly-minted U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Suggested That Americans Need To Recognize The Contributions of Black Americans All Year Long. So CORE-Chicago Has Launched: Celebrate Black History All Year Long 2009:

Black history is extremely important because it is American history. Given this, it is in some ways sad that there is a need for a black history month. Though we are all enlarged by our study and knowledge of the roles played by blacks in American history, and though there is a crying need for all of us to know and acknowledge the contributions of black America, a black history month is a testament to the problem that has afflicted blacks throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular. As a former American history major I am struck by the fact that such a major part of our national story has been divorced from the whole. In law, culture, science, athletics, industry and other fields, knowledge of the roles played by blacks is critical to an understanding of the American experiment. For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history. There is clearly a need at present for a device that focuses the attention of the country on the study of the history of its black citizens. But we must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before so that the study of black history, and a recognition of the contributions of black Americans, become commonplace. Until that time, Black History Month must remain an important, vital concept. But we have to recognize that until black history is included in the standard curriculum in our schools and becomes a regular part of all our lives, it will be viewed as a novelty, relatively unimportant and not as weighty as so called “real” American history.

Complete Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice African American History Month Program

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Every year, in February, we attempt to recognize and to appreciate black history. It is a worthwhile endeavor for the contributions of African Americans to this great nation are numerous and significant. Even as we fight a war against terrorism, deal with the reality of electing an African American as our President for the first time and deal with the other significant issues of the day, the need to confront our racial past, and our racial present, and to understand the history of African people in this country, endures. One cannot truly understand America without understanding the historical experience of black people in this nation. Simply put, to get to the heart of this country one must examine its racial soul.

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.

Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation’s history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us. But we must do more- and we in this room bear a special responsibility. Through its work and through its example this Department of Justice, as long as I am here, must – and will – lead the nation to the “new birth of freedom” so long ago promised by our greatest President. This is our duty and our solemn obligation.

We commemorated five years ago, the 50th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. And though the world in which we now live is fundamentally different than that which existed then, this nation has still not come to grips with its racial past nor has it been willing to contemplate, in a truly meaningful way, the diverse future it is fated to have. To our detriment, this is typical of the way in which this nation deals with issues of race. And so I would suggest that we use February of every year to not only commemorate black history but also to foster a period of dialogue among the races. This is admittedly an artificial device to generate discussion that should come more naturally, but our history is such that we must find ways to force ourselves to confront that which we have become expert at avoiding.

As a nation we have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace. We work with one another, lunch together and, when the event is at the workplace during work hours or shortly thereafter, we socialize with one another fairly well, irrespective of race. And yet even this interaction operates within certain limitations. We know, by “American instinct” and by learned behavior, that certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks, at best embarrassment, and, at worst, the questioning of one’s character. And outside the workplace the situation is even more bleak in that there is almost no significant interaction between us. On Saturdays and Sundays America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some fifty years ago. This is truly sad. Given all that we as a nation went through during the civil rights struggle it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated.

As a nation we should use Black History month as a means to deal with this continuing problem. By creating what will admittedly be, at first, artificial opportunities to engage one another we can hasten the day when the dream of individual, character based, acceptance can actually be realized. To respect one another we must have a basic understanding of one another. And so we should use events such as this to not only learn more about the facts of black history but also to learn more about each other. This will be, at first, a process that is both awkward and painful but the rewards are potentially great. The alternative is to allow to continue the polite, restrained mixing that now passes as meaningful interaction but that accomplishes little. Imagine if you will situations where people- regardless of their skin color- could confront racial issues freely and without fear. The potential of this country, that is becoming increasingly diverse, would be greatly enhanced. I fear however, that we are taking steps that, rather than advancing us as a nation are actually dividing us even further. We still speak too much of “them” and not “us”. There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self interest. Our history has demonstrated that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with, and would like to not have to deal with, racial matters and that is why those, black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced. We are then free to retreat to our race protected cocoons where much is comfortable and where progress is not really made. If we allow this attitude to persist in the face of the most significant demographic changes that this nation has ever confronted- and remember, there will be no majority race in America in about fifty years- the coming diversity that could be such a powerful, positive force will, instead, become a reason for stagnation and polarization. We cannot allow this to happen and one way to prevent such an unwelcome outcome is to engage one another more routinely- and to do so now.

As I indicated before, the artificial device that is Black History month is a perfect vehicle for the beginnings of such a dialogue. And so I urge all of you to use the opportunity of this month to talk with your friends and co-workers on the other side of the divide about racial matters. In this way we can hasten the day when we truly become one America.

It is also clear that if we are to better understand one another the study of black history is essential because the history of black America and the history of this nation are inextricably tied to each other. It is for this reason that the study of black history is important to everyone- black or white. For example, the history of the United States in the nineteenth century revolves around a resolution of the question of how America was going to deal with its black inhabitants. The great debates of that era and the war that was ultimately fought are all centered around the issue of, initially, slavery and then the reconstruction of the vanquished region. A dominant domestic issue throughout the twentieth century was, again, America’s treatment of its black citizens. The civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s changed America in truly fundamental ways. Americans of all colors were forced to examine basic beliefs and long held views. Even so, most people, who are not conversant with history, still do not really comprehend the way in which that movement transformed America. In racial terms the country that existed before the civil rights struggle is almost unrecognizable to us today. Separate public facilities, separate entrances, poll taxes, legal discrimination, forced labor, in essence an American apartheid, all were part of an America that the movement destroyed. To attend her state’s taxpayer supported college in 1963 my late sister in law had to be escorted to class by United States Marshals and past the state’s governor, George Wallace. That frightening reality seems almost unthinkable to us now. The civil rights movement made America, if not perfect, better.

In addition, the other major social movements of the latter half of the twentieth century- feminism, the nation’s treatment of other minority groups, even the anti-war effort- were all tied in some way to the spirit that was set free by the quest for African American equality. Those other movements may have occurred in the absence of the civil rights struggle but the fight for black equality came first and helped to shape the way in which other groups of people came to think of themselves and to raise their desire for equal treatment. Further, many of the tactics that were used by these other groups were developed in the civil rights movement.

And today the link between the black experience and this country is still evident. While the problems that continue to afflict the black community may be more severe, they are an indication of where the rest of the nation may be if corrective measures are not taken. Our inner cities are still too conversant with crime but the level of fear generated by that crime, now found in once quiet, and now electronically padlocked suburbs is alarming and further demonstrates that our past, present and future are linked. It is not safe for this nation to assume that the unaddressed social problems in the poorest parts of our country can be isolated and will not ultimately affect the larger society.

Black history is extremely important because it is American history. Given this, it is in some ways sad that there is a need for a black history month. Though we are all enlarged by our study and knowledge of the roles played by blacks in American history, and though there is a crying need for all of us to know and acknowledge the contributions of black America, a black history month is a testament to the problem that has afflicted blacks throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular. As a former American history major I am struck by the fact that such a major part of our national story has been divorced from the whole. In law, culture, science, athletics, industry and other fields, knowledge of the roles played by blacks is critical to an understanding of the American experiment. For too long we have been too willing to segregate the study of black history. There is clearly a need at present for a device that focuses the attention of the country on the study of the history of its black citizens. But we must endeavor to integrate black history into our culture and into our curriculums in ways in which it has never occurred before so that the study of black history, and a recognition of the contributions of black Americans, become commonplace. Until that time, Black History Month must remain an important, vital concept. But we have to recognize that until black history is included in the standard curriculum in our schools and becomes a regular part of all our lives, it will be viewed as a novelty, relatively unimportant and not as weighty as so called “real” American history.

I, like many in my generation, have been fortunate in my life and have had a great number of wonderful opportunities. Some may consider me to be a part of black history. But we do a great disservice to the concept of black history recognition if we fail to understand that any success that I have had, cannot be viewed in isolation. I stood, and stand, on the shoulders of many other black Americans. Admittedly, the identities of some of these people, through the passage of time, have become lost to us- the men, and women, who labored long in fields, who were later legally and systemically discriminated against, who were lynched by the hundreds in the century just past and those others who have been too long denied the fruits of our great American culture. The names of too many of these people, these heroes and heroines, are lost to us. But the names of others of these people should strike a resonant chord in the historical ear of all in our nation: Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, Walter White, Langston Hughes, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Joe Louis, Jackie Robinson, Charles Drew, Paul Robeson, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Vivian Malone, Rosa Parks, Marion Anderson, Emmit Till. These are just some of the people who should be generally recognized and are just some of the people to whom all of us, black and white, owe such a debt of gratitude. It is on their broad shoulders that I stand as I hope that others will some day stand on my more narrow ones.

Black history is a subject worthy of study by all our nation’s people. Blacks have played a unique, productive role in the development of America. Perhaps the greatest strength of the United States is the diversity of its people and to truly understand this country one must have knowledge of its constituent parts. But an unstudied, not discussed and ultimately misunderstood diversity can become a divisive force. An appreciation of the unique black past, acquired through the study of black history, will help lead to understanding and true compassion in the present, where it is still so sorely needed, and to a future where all of our people are truly valued.

Thank you.

from Christina Laun and Ralph W. Conner

Starting in 1926 and expanded in 1976 to cover the whole month of February, time has been set aside to celebrate the lives and achievements of great African-Americans. Whether you want to educate children about important figures in the past or just learn a little more about a person whose life has inspired you, there are a number of great resources available to you on the Web. We’ve collected a few of them here to help you learn, celebrate and remember the contributions of African-Americans to our nation.(Christina Laun)

How Should Americans Celebrate Black History Month in February 2009?

I have selected 20 of the 100 websites compiled by Christina Laun
(http://www.bachelorsdegreeonline.com/blog/2009/100-great-sites-to-celebrate-black-history-month/ ) to highlight the 2009 Black History Month Celebration.

There are many aspects of Black History witnessed in 2008 which make this Obama Era an historical milestone for decades to come. The excitement and black pride attendant to the election of the first African-American USA president is a source of wonderment internationally. But let us not lose sight of the many challenges confronting the African-American community as we enter the end of the decade and prepare for the statistics in the 2010 U.S. Census.

Black (African-American) History Month:
February 2009

To commemorate and celebrate the contributions to our nation made by people of African descent, American historian Carter G. Woodson established Black History Week. The first celebration occurred on Feb. 12, 1926. For many years, the second week of February was set aside for this celebration to coincide with the birthdays of abolitionist/editor Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. In 1976, as part of the nation’s bicentennial, the week was expanded into Black History Month.

This year, President Barack H. Obama will proclaim February as National African-American History Month.

Black Population:

40.7 million
As of July 1, 2007, the estimated population of black residents in the United States, including those of more than one race. They made up 13.5 percent of the total U.S. population. This figure represents an increase of more than half a million residents from one year earlier.
Source: Population estimates <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/011910.html&gt;

65.7 million
The projected black population of the United States (including those of more than one race) for July 1, 2050. On that date, according to the projection, blacks would constitute 15 percent of the nation’s total population.
Source: Population projections <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/012496.html&gt;

Number of states with an estimated black population on July 1, 2007, of at least 1 million. New York, with 3.5 million, led the way. The 17 other states on the list were Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.
Source: Population estimates <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/011910.html&gt;

Percentage of Mississippi’s population that is black, highest of any state. Blacks also make up more than a quarter of the population in Louisiana (32 percent), Georgia (31 percent), Maryland (30 percent), South Carolina (29 percent) and Alabama (27 percent). They comprise 56 percent of the population in the District of Columbia.
Source: Population estimates <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/011910.html&gt;

The increase in Georgia’s black population between July 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007, which led all states. Texas (62,000), Florida (48,000) and North Carolina (45,000) also recorded large increases.
Source: Population estimates <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/011910.html&gt;

Number of states or equivalents in which blacks are the largest minority group. These include Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. (Note: Minorities are part of a group other than single-race non-Hispanic white.)
Source: Population estimates <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/011910.html&gt;

1.4 million
The number of blacks in Cook County, Ill., as of July 1, 2007, which led the nation’s counties in the number of people of this racial category. Orleans Parish, La., had the largest numerical increase in the black population between July 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007 (20,800). Neighboring St. Bernard Parish had the largest percent increase over the period (97 percent).
Source: Population estimates <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/012463.html&gt;

Among counties with total populations of at least 10,000, Claiborne County, Miss., had the largest percent of population that was black (84.5 percent). Claiborne led 82 majority-black counties or equivalents, all but one of which (St. Louis city, Mo.) was in the South.
Source: Population estimates <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/012463.html&gt;

Continue Reading »

Martin Luther King Day

The January 19, 2009 CORE Annual Birthday celebration of the Life of Martin Luther King Jr. will be a formal dinner event in New York likely to draw over one thousand attendees. Over forty years have passed since Dr. King showed Americans of all races that “everybody can be great, because everybody can serve!”

Dr. King was fond of reciting poet Douglas Mallock:

If you can’t be a pine on the top of the hill
be a shrub in the valley- but be
The best little shrub by the side of the hill,
Be a bush, if you can’t be a tree.

If you can’t be a highway just be a trail.

If you can’t be the Sun be a star;
It isn’t by size that you win or fail-
be the best of whatever you are !

In one of his last speeches at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Defined the level of service for all Americans who wanted to be great:

Dr. King intoned:

“Oh, I see, you want to be first. You want to be great. You want to be important. You want to be significant. Well, you ought to be. If you’re going to be my disciple, you must be.” But he reordered priorities. And he said, “Yes, don’t give up this instinct. It’s a good instinct if you use it right. (Yes) It’s a good instinct if you don’t distort it and pervert it. Don’t give it up. Keep feeling the need for being important. Keep feeling the need for being first. But I want you to be first in love. (Amen) I want you to be first in moral excellence. I want you to be first in generosity. That is what I want you to do.”

And he transformed the situation by giving a new definition of greatness. And you know how he said it? He said, “Now brethren, I can’t give you greatness. And really, I can’t make you first.” This is what Jesus said to James and John. “You must earn it. True greatness comes not by favoritism, but by fitness. And the right hand and the left are not mine to give, they belong to those who are prepared.” (Amen)

And so Jesus gave us a new norm of greatness. If you want to be important—wonderful. If you want to be recognized—wonderful. If you want to be great—wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Amen) That’s a new definition of greatness.

And this morning, the thing that I like about it: by giving that definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great, (Everybody) because everybody can serve. (Amen) You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. (All right) You don’t have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don’t have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don’t have to know Einstein’s theory of relativity to serve. You don’t have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. (Amen) You only need a heart full of grace, (Yes, sir, Amen) a soul generated by love. (Yes) And you can be that servant.

I know a man—and I just want to talk about him a minute, and maybe you will discover who I’m talking about as I go down the way (Yeah) because he was a great one. And he just went about serving. He was born in an obscure village, (Yes, sir) the child of a poor peasant woman. And then he grew up in still another obscure village, where he worked as a carpenter until he was thirty years old. (Amen) Then for three years, he just got on his feet, and he was an itinerant preacher. And he went about doing some things. He didn’t have much. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. (Yes) He never owned a house. He never went to college. He never visited a big city. He never went two hundred miles from where he was born. He did none of the usual things that the world would associate with greatness. He had no credentials but himself.

He was only thirty-three when the tide of public opinion turned against him. They called him a rabble-rouser. They called him a troublemaker. They said he was an agitator. (Glory to God) He practiced civil disobedience; he broke injunctions. And so he was turned over to his enemies and went through the mockery of a trial. And the irony of it all is that his friends turned him over to them. (Amen) One of his closest friends denied him. Another of his friends turned him over to his enemies. And while he was dying, the people who killed him gambled for his clothing, the only possession that he had in the world. (Lord help him) When he was dead he was buried in a borrowed tomb, through the pity of a friend.

Nineteen centuries have come and gone and today he stands as the most influential figure that ever entered human history. All of the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, and all the kings that ever reigned put together (Yes) have not affected the life of man on this earth (Amen) as much as that one solitary life. His name may be a familiar one. (Jesus) But today I can hear them talking about him. Every now and then somebody says, “He’s King of Kings.” (Yes) And again I can hear somebody saying, “He’s Lord of Lords.” Somewhere else I can hear somebody saying, “In Christ there is no East nor West.” (Yes) And then they go on and talk about, “In Him there’s no North and South, but one great Fellowship of Love throughout the whole wide world.” He didn’t have anything. (Amen) He just went around serving and doing good.

This morning, you can be on his right hand and his left hand if you serve. (Amen) It’s the only way in.(finis)


In the same sermon known as “The Drum Major Instinct” , Dr. King offered the content for his own eulogy for consideration:

Dr. King preached:

Every now and then I guess we all think realistically (Yes, sir) about that day when we will be victimized with what is life’s final common denominator—that something that we call death. We all think about it. And every now and then I think about my own death and I think about my own funeral. And I don’t think of it in a morbid sense. And every now and then I ask myself, “What is it that I would want said?” And I leave the word to you this morning.

If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don’t want a long funeral. And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long. (Yes) And every now and then I wonder what I want them to say. Tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize—that isn’t important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards—that’s not important. Tell them not to mention where I went to school. (Yes)

I’d like somebody to mention that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. (Yes)

I’d like for somebody to say that day that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody.

I want you to say that day that I tried to be right on the war question. (Amen)

I want you to be able to say that day that I did try to feed the hungry. (Yes)

And I want you to be able to say that day that I did try in my life to clothe those who were naked. (Yes)

I want you to say on that day that I did try in my life to visit those who were in prison. (Lord)

I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity. (Yes)

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. (Amen) Say that I was a drum major for peace. (Yes) I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. (Yes) I won’t have any money to leave behind. I won’t have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind. (Amen) And that’s all I want to say.

If I can help somebody as I pass along,

If I can cheer somebody with a word or song,

If I can show somebody he’s traveling wrong,

Then my living will not be in vain.

If I can do my duty as a Christian ought,

If I can bring salvation to a world once wrought,

If I can spread the message as the master taught,

Then my living will not be in vain.

Yes, Jesus, I want to be on your right or your left side, (Yes) not for any selfish reason. I want to be on your right or your left side, not in terms of some political kingdom or ambition. But I just want to be there in love and in justice and in truth and in commitment to others, so that we can make of this old world a new world. (Finis)

As Christians, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, or agnostics the voice of Dr. King is summoning us over four decades of selfless service and sacrifice to BECOME the servant of the downtrodden on this January 19, 2009.

CORE-Chicago Joins Communities Nationwide in calling for all individuals to give something back withing their own communities. Sacrifice time, in-kind volunteer services, and money to make enhance the quality of the lives of the less fortunate for ONE DAY in 2009:

Make it a Day On… Not a Day Off!

During the 1950s and ’60s, civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized the power of service to strengthen communities and achieve common goals.

Initiated by Congress in 1994, King Day of Service builds on that legacy by transforming the federal holiday honoring Dr. King into a national day of community service grounded in his teachings of nonviolence and social justice. The aim is to make the holiday a day ON, where people of all ages and backgrounds come together to improve lives, bridge social barriers, and move our nation closer to the “Beloved Community” that Dr. King envisioned. With thousands of projects planned across the country, the 2009 King Day of Service on January 19 promises to be the biggest and best ever!

Energy Fraud!

The perpetrators belong in jail – not in Congress

We’re being set up for an elaborate sting that will leave families, businesses and entire industries struggling to survive.

In the months since my book, Energy Keepers – Energy Killers: The new civil rights battle, was published, millions of Americans have become aware that we have vast untapped energy resources in this country. Three-fourths of US voters now support expanded onshore and offshore drilling. A bipartisan coalition in Congress wants to increase domestic petroleum, coal and nuclear power, while also fostering conservation and wind, solar and other energy opportunities.

They have been blocked at every turn by liberal Democrats, many of whom are working with radical environmentalists to eliminate proven hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies that provide 93% of our energy, and replace them with systems that currently generate less than 1% of the energy that safeguards our jobs, homes, security and prosperity.

However, political realities and voter outrage over soaring gasoline, food and heating costs forced House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to devise an elaborate hoax. It had the trappings of a pro-energy bill – but was as authentic as the betting house and announcer in The Sting.

Continue Reading »