The death of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old honor student at King College Prep High School on Chicago’s South Side is finally receiving the national attention that it deserves. An honor student and majorette in her school’s marching band, Hadiya had recently participated in President Obama’s inaugural parade in the nation’s capital.

After leaving school on January 29, 2013, Hadiya was shot and killed in a park after she and friends sought shelter under a canopy when it began raining. She was killed about a mile from Obama’s Chicago home. Hadiya’s father, Nathaniel Pendleton, summed up his loss this way: “They took the light of my life…She was destined for great things and you stripped that from her.”

First Lady Michelle Obama, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett attended Hadiya’s funeral on Saturday. Her mother, Cleopatra Cowley-Pendleton, was a guest of the Obamas at Tuesday’s State of the Union address. The president is scheduled to visit Chicago on Friday where he will deliver a major address on gun violence that is certain to contain a mention of Hadiya. It’s fitting that Obama return to his adopted hometown to make his case against deadly violence.

According to statistics analyzed by the Chicago Reporter, more young people are killed in Chicago than any other city in the nation. More than 530 people under age 21 have been killed since 2008— most of them in black and brown neighborhoods— while hundreds of others have been injured. According to the newspaper, nearly 80 percent of youth homicides occur in 22 black or Latino neighborhoods on the city’s South, Southwest and West sides, even though those communities represent only one-third of Chicago’s population.

Young people are not only the victims of gun violence— they are usually the ones who pull the trigger

“From 2008 through 2012, nearly half of Chicago’s 2,389 homicide victims were killed before their 25th birthday. In 2011, the most recent year for which the data were available, more than 56 percent of individuals who committed murder were also under 25. One-third of Chicago residents are under 25, according to 2011 Census estimates,” the Chicago Reporter states. “And despite various police strategies and community efforts, things are getting worse. Last year, 243 people under 25 were killed in Chicago. That’s an 11 percent increase over 2011 and a 26 percent jump from 2010.”

Chicago homicides are not limited to the youth.

The Reporter also noted, “In 2012, not only did Chicago lead the nation in homicides, it witnessed nearly 100 more murders than New York City, even though the Big Apple has three times as many residents. And Chicago witnessed 215 more murders than Los Angeles—  home to more than a million more people.”

Because of highly publicized mass murders— including shooting deaths at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn.; a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; Fort Hood, Texas and Virginia Tech— much of the gun debate has centered on reducing or eliminating access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

While those are laudable goals, some police chiefs have pointed out that handguns kill far more people than assault weapons.

In its latest report titled, “Black Homicide Victimization in the United States: An Analysis of 2010 Homicide Data,” the Violence Policy Center reported: “For homicides in which the weapon used could be identified, 83 percent of black victims (5,073 out of 6,149) were shot and killed with guns. Of these, 72 percent (3,658 victims) were killed with handguns. There were 617 victims killed with knives or other cutting instruments, 219 victims killed by bodily force, and 162 victims killed by a blunt object.”

Overall, blacks are more than six times more likely to be homicide victims than whites.

Citing FBI crime reports, the Violence Policy Center observed, “…In 2010 there were 6,469 black homicide victims in the United States. The homicide rate among black victims in the United States was 16.32 per 100,000. For that year, the overall national homicide rate was 4.42 per 100,000. For whites, the national homicide rate was 2.66 per 100,000.”

In addition to the need to address handgun violence, President Obama, Congress and law enforcement officials should acknowledge that violence is a serious problem and more often than not, the victim knew or had a relationship with the person who killed them.

“For homicides in which the victim to offender relationship could be identified, 70 percent of black victims (2,146 out of 3,058) were murdered by someone they knew. Nine hundred twelve victims were killed by strangers,” the Violence Policy Center report stated.

If this country is serious about curbing murders, it must focus on tragic deaths, such as the murder of Hadiya Pendleton and 20 young kids in Newtown, Conn. But it must also deal with handguns and the murder of people who have or have had a relationship with their killer. Otherwise, all the tough talk on reducing violence is empty rhetoric.

George E. Curry, former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine, is editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service (NNPA.)  Curry can be reached through his website: www.georgecurry.com.

One hundred and fifty years ago, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a flawed document that freed enslaved people in Confederate areas that he did not control. At the same time, it was a progressive document because it initiated discussion about the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteen “FREEDOM” Amendments.

One hundred years later, in 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. riveted the nation with his “I Have A Dream” speech during the August 28 March on Washington. Many will remember that he said, “I have a dream that one day people will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Somehow people forget that in the same speech he said, “We have come to the nation’s capital to cash a check that has been marked insufficient funds.” If people said “cash the check” as often as they said “I have a dream,” we’d move more quickly forward in closing the economic gaps that African Americans experience.

We’ve been doing this 50-year thing for the past couple years, and we’ll be doing it for another few. The “Greensboro Four” North Carolina A&T State University Students (with the help of Bennett College students, often ignored) sat in at Woolworth counters on February 1, 1960, more than 50 years ago.

The March on Washington happened 50 years ago. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, and beyond that the 1960s will resonate for the next few years with commemorations and anniversaries.

These celebrations are important historical moments, but who remembers? The median age of the population in the United States is about 37 years old. Many of these folks remember the civil rights moment through twice and thrice told tales. Those who are under the median age see the civil rights movement as something like a fable, something they have heard about but doesn’t really matter to them. Many of these young people see themselves as “post-racial.” They hang out with their peers, race notwithstanding. They have never experienced discrimination. Even when they experience it, they are slow to realize it. They are post-racial, whatever that means.

There has been a rich history and legacy of struggle and protest that has been swallowed by the notion of post-racialism in the first decades of this century. It is laudable that President Obama used both a Bible of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and that of President Abraham Lincoln, connecting the 150-year-old dots. President Obama’s choice in using both Bibles in this anniversary year is a testament to his sensitivity and ability to juggle the tightrope he must manage as both president of the United States and the first African American President of our nation.

Most folks 50 and older get it. What about those who are both younger than our nation’s median age and unschooled in the nuances of history? Is our conversation about race in America stuck in some kind of time warp, where we are unable to speak across the   generations because we have extremely different memories, recollections and knowledge about what happened 50 years ago?

We do our nation a disservice when we duck and dodge our racially tinged history. We have to grace and embrace the past in order to move forward with our future.

Somehow this is a message that needs to be transmitted to young people, especially in this 150th year after emancipation, this 50th year after the March on Washington, this season of embracing and celebrating our history.

Julianne Malveaux is a Washington, D.C.-based economist and writer. She is President Emerita of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C.

Let's get real. The only way to protect oneself from gun violence is to get rid of the guns. The suggested ways of stopping gun violence include background checks, increased mental help, reduced magazine size and swat teams in every school.

Because there are over 300 million guns in the United States, these suggestions will not stop a mass killer. If a mentally deranged person wants to get a gun, there are plenty around. Most murders are not mass killings but one-on- one and there are some other steps we can take to reduce that number.

1. Fifty percent of the people involved in violent crimes do not have a high school diploma. Another forty percent have no college hours. Based on these numbers, if high school students go on to college the murder rate will drop by ninety percent. Ending poverty and improving the schools will ensure that every student is ready for college.

2. Another step we can take is to require an annual gun registration fee. This will reduce the number of guns in private hands.

3. Killing has become entertainment in the movies, on television and in video games. Assigning an x-rated label on this type of entertainment would start to drive the killing-is-ok mentality from the nation. To stop the mass killings, America will have to create a gun free society.

The profile of a mass killer is so diverse, it is almost impossible to know who the future killers are. To prevent another mass murder like the one that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut where twenty children and six adults were killed, we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  

Another way to rid the country of guns would to be to get a court ruling that only the militia has the right to bear arms, which I think is the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. We can become a gun free society if we focus more on what we are capable of and less on what we are afraid of.

Elie Parker

San Leandro, CA

What was it that made watching the ceremonies of President Obama’s second inauguration more satisfying than even the thrilling spectacle of four years ago?

Certainly, part of it was its occurring the same day as the celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday and amid the month-long commemoration of the Emancipation Proclamation— underscoring the direct line of descent from black Americans’ longtime freedom struggle to the present.

Certainly, part of it was also savoring Obama’s success in making history the second time around— knowing that he had endured the extraordinary test of staunching a wrenching economic crisis; extricating the United States from the Bush administration’s tragic misadventure in Iraq; maneuvering around the obstructionist tactics of the Congressional Republicans; and beating back the fat-cat power grab the atrocious Supreme Court Citizens United decision, which approved unlimited corporate donations to political campaigns, was supposed to further.

Part of it was, knowing that albeit the operational genius of the president and his campaign staff, the credit for his victory doesn’t wholly belong to them. To borrow a phrase, they didn’t build that by themselves. They had help from the multiracial, multicultural coalition of voters that enabled the Democrats to keep control of the White House and the Senate.

Barack Obama has been wreathed in “making history” since he gained the presidency of the Harvard Law Review 23-years-ago. But voluminous evidence exists that the foundation for his current history-making lies in the astutely-waged, post-1960s political gamesmanship of the Democratic Party’s most sustaining voting bloc: African-American voters.

That point was driven home most recently by a report the Pew Research Center released in late December. Its title tells the tale: “The Growing Electoral Clout of Blacks Is Driven by Turnout, Not Demographics.”

The study’s preliminary analysis of the 129 million votes cast November 6 indicates that blacks not only voted at a substantially higher rate than Hispanic-American and Asian-American voters— who also voted massively for Obama— but may have voted at a higher rate than Whites as well.

If so, it would be a “first” in the history of the presidential-election vote. But the mere fact that it’s a possibility underscores several powerful recent developments about the political participation of black voters and other voters of color.

For one thing, even as blacks’ population growth and, therefore, growth in eligible voters has been leveling off, their rates of turning out to vote have increased markedly. In 2008 that rate hit a high-water mark of 65.2 percent— a rise of five percentage points from 2004. By contrast, whites turned out to vote that year at a rate of 66.1 percent, a percentage point lower than their 2004 showing.

  Of course, Obama’s candidacy was partly responsible for blacks’ march to the polls. But, in fact, their turnout for presidential elections had been climbing sharply since 1996. That means that even before the Obama candidacy, the black electorate was on a path to maximizing its voting potential.

The importance of these facts and trends is that this past November President Obama won the support of 93 percent of black voters; 73 percent of Asian-American voters; 71 percent of Hispanic-American voters; and the majority of votes from women as a group and the 18-to-29 voting bloc. That support, along with gaining 39 percent of white voters, gave him a 4.7 million popular-vote margin and the 332-to-206 Electoral College margin over Mitt Romney.

To try to blunt these groups’ rising voting power, Republican Party officials— whose efforts at using voter-identification measures to limit the electoral power of blacks and other Democratic-leaning voters clearly backfired in November— are now boosting a variety of legislative schemes in such states as Virginia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Those measures seek to split up the state’s total Electoral-College votes according to which presidential candidate wins what congressional districts in that state. Only Maine and Nebraska do it that way now. If such a scheme, which favors rural— and thus, overwhelmingly Republican— districts over the more heavily-populated, diverse and Democratic- leaning urban districts, had been in place in November, it would have enabled Romney to eke out a win over Obama.

Donald A. McEachin, a Virginia Democratic state legislator, interviewed about such measures by the Washington Post, called them “sore-loser bills.”

Progressive advocacy groups must now do some doubling-down of their own on these policies straight from the tawdry playbook of the Jim Crow South. They must mobilize to defeat these anti-democracy measures and intensify efforts to increase both the registration of new voters among white progressives and Americans of color— and to ensure that they turn out at the polls in coming elections in ever-increasing numbers.

History is repeating itself, yes. The forces of progress need to make sure that for today’s neo-racists, in 2014 and 2016 as in 2012, history repeats itself not only as farce, but also as defeat.

Lee A. Daniels is a journalist based in New York City who was most recently Founding Editor of TheDefendersOnline.com. His book, “Last Chance: The Political Threat to Black America” was published in 2008.

Four years ago, President Obama made history by becoming the first black president in the history of the United States. I would like to think that even those who did not support his candidacy were proud of what the American people demonstrated— that anything is possible within our system of government. Play by the rules, work hard, present a compelling agenda and the American people will respond.

Obama was by far a much better candidate than John McCain and presented a more inspiring vision for America.

McCain had much more substance, but an inability to speak directly to the American people.

Four years later, “Hope and Change” has turned in to “I Hope He Changes.”  This is a common sentiment running through the black community. They were disappointed in the total silence of the Obama Administration on issues such as the high unemployment rate within the black community, the lack of engagement within the continent of Africa, and the seeming lack of attention paid to domestic issues.

I will remind you that blacks gave Obama 96 percent of their vote in 2008 and thus far have little to show for it. Homosexuals (two percent of the electorate has seen tangible results from Obama— repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; the push to recognize homosexual marriage, etc.), illegals have seen tangible results from Obama (the push for amnesty, the Dream Act, etc.), but blacks have seen and heard speeches—“get out of bed, put your marching shoes on and stop complaining.”

So, the question I have been pondering is this: Which is more important to the black community— someone who makes them feel good (Obama) or someone who secures tangible legislation to address their concerns?

Psychologically speaking, no one can make you feel good if you don’t already feel good about yourself. No one can make you feel loved if you don’t already love yourself. You never hear homosexuals or illegals speaking in terms of Obama making them feel good. They want something specific or they are willing to withhold their support.

I think there is strong consensus within the black community that the unemployment rate is at epidemic proportions and would not be tolerated within other communities. But we have shown no willingness to do anything about it other than complain.

Remember a former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus once said, “If Obama was white we would be marching on the White House.” So, why should any person take the black community seriously when there is no fear of retribution?  Was it not LBJ who said, “Better to be feared than to be loved?”

However, I am curious as to how we can have one standard for a black president and another one for a white one?  Should we not be marching on the White House regardless of color, if black unemployment is double digits? Should we not be marching on the White House when more than 500 blacks have been killed in Chicago (and many of them young children) and a sitting president barely mentions it publicly? Should we not be marching on the White House when our president is rebuilding countries all over the world, while ours is falling apart?

I, like most Americans, was thrilled to see a black person elected president. But, I can’t get a job based on a feeling, I can’t get a student loan because I feel good, I can’t prevent crime from happening because I feel good. At some point, you must take away the emotional (feeling good) and replace that with something tangible (legislation).

Our presidents represent the whole of the United States, but sometimes, different groups need special attention based on their unique needs. This is one area where Obama has been grossly derelict. But, again, what are blacks prepared to do to get him to act? Thus far, the answer has been absolutely nothing.

So, in a kind of weird way, Obama has made it much easier for future white presidents to ignore blacks, regardless of party. For example, we know the next president will be white, so what happens when he doesn’t do something blacks think he should and his response is, “You didn’t ask Obama for this, so why should I do it for you?” This is strictly a hypothetical question, but I can guarantee that future presidents and their staffs will at least think these thoughts. How does the black community deal with this question?

This is the problem blacks have created for themselves by giving Obama a pass on many issues simply because he is black. We must become more politically sophisticated and less emotional. Despite the historic nature of his presidency, his lack of a real relationship with the black community remains a mystery.

Raynard Jackson is president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a Washington, D.C.-based public relations/government affairs firm. He can be reached through his website: www.raynardjackson.com.

 The Emancipation Proclamation, which set our nation on the path to the end of slavery, was signed 150 years ago this month. This year we should resolve to teach our children the story of our collective history. The past century and a half offers countless tales of bravery and sacrifice to inspire the next generation. Only by sharing our history will we be able to continue our progress over the next 150 years.

President Lincoln’s wartime proclamation in 1863 read that “all persons held as slaves” in rebel states, “are, and henceforward shall be free.” This was a noble idea and certainly a brave gesture. But any astute observer at the time would know that it was more aspiration than policy.

The Emancipation Proclamation applied to 3.1 million slaves, but only freed about 70,000 right away. The rest, like my grandmother’s grandparents, would have to wait until the union army advanced south to end the war. It took another seven years for the Fifteenth Amendment to grant African Americans the right to vote. And even then, Jim Crow laws and threats of violence kept many people of color away from the polls. 

Before Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, Frederick Douglass urged patience to his followers. “Lincoln may be slow,” he said, “but he will take no step backward.” Since then, the civil rights movement has seen many slow periods of buildup spiked by sudden crescendos of passion that sparked great change. We have struggled at times to keep this nation moving forward, but we have also committed, like Lincoln, to never move backward.

As I have reflected on the year that just ended, I noticed everyone doing their usual year-end lists of the biggest winners and losers of the year. I am not a big fan of these lists, but I will acknowledge that the black community was the biggest loser of 2012.

I have been very critical of how media-appointed groups/individuals have been labeled as the leaders of the black community. It’s funny that the media doesn’t use similar language when referring to the white community. Who are their leaders?

Last year, blacks gave President Obama 93 percent of their vote against Mitt Romney (black women voted 96 percent for Obama), yet they sat quietly by as Obama gave goodies to illegals in the country and created new rights for homosexuals. What did blacks get from Obama?

NAACP President Ben Jealous ignorantly went on national TV last week and stated that newly sworn-in U.S. Senator from South Carolina, Tim Scott did not support civil rights. It would have been more accurate to say Senator Scott does not support “liberal rights.”

Last month, I wrote about the band of black women who courageously took a principled stand in support of Obama nominating Susan Rice to be Secretary of State. Yet, these same principled women were so blinded by Obama’s race that they could not bring themselves to criticize him for throwing Rice under the bus.

A lot of these liberal groups and individuals complain that I am too critical of them. Interestingly, they never complain about the accuracy of what I write, just the fact that I put my thoughts out in the marketplace of ideas.

So, for my first column of the New Year, I will offer some suggestions to these groups, as to how they might begin to become more relevant in 2012.

One way the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) can begin to address the perception that they are a liberal professional organization is by providing at least two college interns to both the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee every summer. These students should be given a stipend and living expenses.  I don’t want to hear any excuses about lack of funds for this. If their leadership is not willing to reach into their own pockets to help these students, then why should corporate America?  They need to be what they are looking for.

The National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) rarely if ever engages in public policy hearings on the congressional level. They have many engineers with relevant expert knowledge, but are totally invisible to most members of Congress. When New Orleans had the oil spill a couple years ago, why was NSBE not contacted and asked to provide a list of chemical and environmental engineers from their membership to testify before Congress? The answer is a very simple one: They have never positioned themselves as an organization that has any value to add to any public policy discussion. Furthermore, why do they not provide interns for their students with Congressional committees that have

oversight over various issues relating to engineering?  Can you imagine a student graduating with a degree in engineering plus internships with the private sector and a Congressional committee on their resume?

The NAACP, The National Urban League, The Congressional Black Caucus still can play a role in our community— if they decide to become relevant. They and other black professional groups can have a bigger impact within our community, but they must be willing to step up and not continue to be viewed as groups that primarily throw a lot of parties.

If any of these groups were hauled into a court of law and accused of being an effective advocate for their respective communities and staying true to their missions as stated in their bylaws— would there be enough evidence to convict them?

The problem with most of these groups is their leadership lacks creative vision for a 21st century world. They have become stale and dated. What does it say about these groups that they are all funded by white corporate America? Do they lack such relevance that their own community sees little value in them?

The days are over where you support a group because it has “black” or has “national in their name. In today’s tight fiscal climate, what is the rationale for anyone to support them? What is the deliverable? What is the call to action? What is the value they provide that can’t be obtained elsewhere?

If these groups don’t have a positive answer to these questions, then they are deserving of being on next year’s biggest loser list.

Raynard Jackson is president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a Washington, D.C.-based public relations/government affairs firm. He can be reached at: www.raynardjackson.com.

President Barack Obama has won his re-election. That history is clear and the big question now is who in the Democratic Party will succeed him as president in 2016.  Prior to now, it was certain to be Hillary Clinton. However, when looking at the present situation doubts about her prospects rise to the fullest. Let’s consider a few current events that will certainly have consequence in the next presidential election.

During the race for 2004, candidate John Kerry spotted the talent of Barack Obama. He gave him a great debut by allowing him to keynote the Democratic National Convention. The junior senator from Illinois responded with one of his greatest speeches and from that point on the whole world knew the name Barack Obama. The two have been close ever since but make it a point to keep that friendship in the background.

With the exception of his criticism of the Vietnam War and other military endeavors, Senator Kerry’s slate is pretty clean. His strong point is foreign affairs and he chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When Senator Barbara Boxer botched the attempt to pass cap and trade through the Senate, President Obama asked Senator Kerry to take over the stewardship of the bill. It failed, but President Obama’s trust of John Kerry was apparent. Foreign affairs and environmental issues are Senator Kerry’s strong suit.

Let me also disclose that I like John Kerry as a person. I did not support him in the 2004 campaign but he apparently holds no grudge. We held a convention in New Orleans in 2006 in support of the rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina.

Senators John Kerry and Barack Obama were in the area at the time and we asked both to come and speak.

Obama did not respond at all but Senator Kerry immediately accepted. When I went to his hotel room to meet and escort him to the podium, he asked me to come in for a few minutes. He struck up a conversation and repeatedly stated that he thought I was a “good man.” I was humbled and reciprocated the compliment. From that point on, my opinion of him grew dramatically.

So here we are in 2013, and what is the political climate for Democratic presidential prospects? The 2008 primary race was divisive. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama camps fought bitterly. Obama won and to keep a good monitor on Hillary, he put her in his cabinet as Secretary of State. This was brilliant! She could not go off the reservation, as this would seem disloyal and conniving. She was locked into place.

In retrospect, her tenure at the State Department has been a complete mess. The world is on fire. Our initiative to better relations with Russia has totally failed. In fact, you would have to go back to the Cold War to find worse times. She said she was going to reset Russia. She might as well have thrown a brick at it. The Middle East and Africa are in upheaval and we can’t seem to get a foot forward in solving the raging issues. Revolution, civil war, insurgency and chaos are running rampant in those regions and we don’t have a clue. This all falls into the lap of Hillary Clinton.

The saddest situation involves Libya. The dictator has gone but so has any semblance of peace and governance. We failed our embassy there by turning our back on its safety and we are now trying to cover it up. It is so similar to the security failures of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania during the Bill Clinton administration. Just like then, they identify a fall person to put the blame on.

They insinuated it was Susan Rice during the Clinton administration and then, unbelievably, they threw her under the “bus” once again. It is Clinton 101. Hillary has failed and President Obama will call on his old friend and confidant John Kerry to clean up the mess. I believe he will, and in 2016 he will rise exponentially above Hillary.

He will also play a role in environmental issues such as the Keystone Pipeline and the Kyoto Protocol. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is also toast. The State Department will take full control of these issues. Administrator Jackson or “Richard Windsor,” as she mysteriously calls herself in secret and an illegal email account, has announced her resignation before the illegal emails are released via a court order. John Kerry will have a hand in cleaning this up also. In essence, he is going to be the “fix it guy.” By 2016 he will be regarded as a healer and strong leader. Goodbye Hillary.

Harry C. Alford is the co-founder, President and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce® at: ebsite is: www.nationalbcc.org. To contact Harry C. Alford, email:  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .