Jumanah Imad Albahri smears David Horowitz for pointing to the real causes of violence afflicting the black community.
Ever since she affirmed, with clarity and conviction, that she supports Hezbollah's candid desire to herd all the world's Jews into Israel so as to ultimately make their mass extermination easier to carry out, Muslim Students Association member Jumanah Imad Albahri has quickly devolved into what can only be described as a pathetic figure.
While the UC San Diego student now whimpers that she is a victim of “alienation” and “marginalization” – note how well-versed she is in the lexicon of victimology – it has become increasingly obvious that her chief affliction is a profound lack of common sense. This deficiency is made plain by the fact that after Albahri gave her recent thumbs-up to genocide, she did not deem it prudent to keep a low profile for awhile – in order to give the foul stench of her bigotry a bit of time to dissipate. Instead, she has persisted in publicly spouting further stupidities, the latest of which brands David Horowitz, who first exposed her unmistakable Jew-hatred at an “Israel Apartheid Week” event earlier this month, as a racist. To “prove” the veracity of her smear, Albahri cites Horowitz's supposedly objectionable 1999 article titled “Guns Don’t Kill Black People, Other Blacks Do.” So offensive was that piece, claims Albahri, that Horowitz “needs to apologize” for having written it. Really?
Horowitz's article centered around an NAACP plan to file a class action lawsuit against firearm manufacturers because gun violence was snuffing out the lives of young black men in grossly disproportionate numbers. “Firearm homicide has been the leading cause of death among young African-American males for nearly 30 years,” an NAACP press release lamented at the time. Ostensibly to help remedy this problem, the lawsuit aimed to “force” gun makers “to distribute their product” more “responsibly.” The implication was that if only the gun industry would be more concerned about the rivers of blood flowing through black communities, and less preoccupied with the rivers of cash pouring into its coffers, this crisis would either diminish substantially or disappear entirely.
Horowitz rightly pointed out that the NAACP, by focusing on the alleged transgressions of gun manufacturers, was misdiagnosing the cause of the violence that was decimating the black community. He pointed out, for instance, that 90 percent of all gun-related killings of African Americans were perpetrated by other blacks, and that blacks (who constituted 12 percent of the U.S. population) committed 54 percent of all homicides. Was Horowitz, as Albahri implies in her denunciation of the article, simply engaged in an effort to demean blacks by citing these very sobering facts? No. His point was to bring attention on the real cause of the violent epidemic that was afflicting young blacks; without such an honest appraisal, any prescribed “solutions” – such as suing gun manufacturers – would inevitably be misguided and ineffective, perhaps even counterproductive.
Thus, to shed light on the key issue, Horowitz pointed out that seven of every ten black babies in the United States were being born into homes where there were no fathers – a fact that condemned them, statistically, to alarmingly high probabilities of living in poverty and eventually spending time in prison. Harvard Professor Stephan Thernstrom, for instance, reports that the poverty rate for black children living in single-parent homes is nearly five times greater than for those living in married-couple families. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median income of fatherless black families is scarcely one-third as high as for two-parent black families. Unwed mothers, regardless of their race, are four times more likely to live in poverty than the average American. And 85 percent of all black children in poverty live in single-parent, mother-child homes.
The more we study the numbers, the more they boggle the mind. Regardless of race, children raised without fathers comprise an astonishing 70 percent of our nation's long-term prison inmates, 70 percent of all young people in state reform institutions, 60 percent of rapists, and 72 percent of adolescent murderers. Regardless of race, each year a boy spends without a father increases his likelihood of future incarceration by about 5 percent. And regardless of race, children from fatherless homes are characterized by much higher-than-average rates of academic failure, placement in special-education classes, behavioral disorders, drug abuse, and such psychiatric problems as depression and anxiety. In other words, growing up without a father is a far better forecaster of a boy’s future criminality than either race or poverty.
Even if all the gun makers in America were unrepentant, bloodthirsty bigots intent on disseminating weapons of death throughout every street and alley of every black neighborhood in the country, they could not harm African Americans nearly as much as the demise of two-parent families has devastated them already. David Horowitz, in his article, was simply pointing out this vital truth – and noting that the NAACP's energies and resources would have been better spent addressing that issue, rather than on demonizing gun manufacturers for a crisis they did not create. If Miss Albahri is unable to understand this, that's too bad. Mr. Horowitz communicated the message quite clearly. It's not his job to comprehend it for her.