From Alliance Defense Fund:
9/11 Memorial Pledged as Part of Mosque Plan .ArticleComments (169)more in New York ».EmailPrintSave This ↓ More.
.Twitter
Digg
+ More
close Yahoo! BuzzMySpacedel.icio.usRedditFacebookLinkedInFarkViadeoOrkut Text By TAMER EL-GHOBASHY
On the eve of expected city approval of a mosque and Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero, backers of the project are pledging to include a memorial to the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks as part of an effort to allay opponents' complaints that the mosque's location is insensitive.
"We've heard and felt their pain, and we're extending ourselves," said Daisy Khan, a partner in the building and the wife of the cleric leading the effort. "We want to repair the breach and be at the front and center to start the healing."
View Full Image
Paul Quitoriano for The Wall Street Journal
Daisy Khan: 'We've...felt their pain.'
.Metropolis: Q&A With Daisy Khan
"No one should be asked to leave their neighborhood. This is our neighborhood and we've been part of it for 27 years. Our opponents are not from this neighborhood."
Read the full interview with Daisy Khan, one of the organizers of the planned Islamic center near Ground Zero.
More
Opinion: WTC Mosque, Meet the Auschwitz Nuns
Sides Dig In Over Ground Zero Mosque
Opinion: Open Letter on the Ground Zero Mosque
Metropolis: How Mosque Debate Plays in N.Y. Elections
All Metropolis posts on the Ground Zero mosque
.Journal Community
..Offering the first glimpse into how the developers of the $100 million project hope to blunt the persistent criticism, Ms. Khan said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that the board that runs the center will include members of other religions "to protect the interests of the center and to ensure the center has the highest standards of transparency." She also said the developers will explore including an interfaith chapel as part of the final plans.
"The universal values of all religions will be the underpinning of our center," said Ms. Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement. "It will all happen in an atmosphere of interfaith collaboration."
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said Ms. Khan's statements on transparency, inclusiveness and healing don't address the central point of his group's opposition: that the location of the center is insensitive to the families of the Sept. 11 victims. "If you want to heal us, don't do it in our cemetery," he said. "We are joining in with families who are not saying don't do it at all, but saying don't do it here."
Opposition to the project, now called Park51, began in earnest with some families of the victims of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center expressing outrage over what they understood to be a mosque at Ground Zero. The momentum grew, despite repeated votes from the local community board in support of the center, and has become a national political issue. Ms. Khan rejected accusations from some opponents that her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, has refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist group.
"Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror," she said. "Imam has outright condemned all forms of terrorism."
With the city Landmarks and Preservation Commission set Tuesday to greenlight the project at Park Place and Broadway, Ms. Khan said that none of the money has been raised yet for the center. She wouldn't rule out accepting foreign funding, but said the group would be careful about who it took money from.
View Full Image
AFP/Getty Images
The former Burlington Coat Factory building that will make way for the Cordoba House which some are calling the "Ground Zero Mosque."
.She said that was part of the reason for the plan to include members of other faiths on the board, as well as a pledge to work closely with the Charities Bureau of the state attorney general's office and abide by "highest standards set forth by the Treasury Department," which investigates links between charities and terror groups.
Ms. Khan said she and her husband are not deaf to the controversy but remain steadfast in their belief that the center has the right to exist in Lower Manhattan and will serve as the nucleus for improved relations between Muslim New Yorkers and their neighbors. "We have learned from other religions that this is the path to the Americanization of a religion," Ms. Khan said. "Islam is an American religion now—it has to create institutions that intersect with its own community and the broader community that surrounds it."
Park51 will include a prayer space designed for about 2,000 worshipers, but Ms. Khan said the plans also call for a gym, a pool and a 500-seat theater and gallery space for rotating exhibitions. There will be a restaurant and a small culinary school in addition to retail space. A catering hall for weddings and other social events is also planned.
Ms. Khan said classrooms and lecture halls will host discussions aimed at keeping Muslims away from extremism. "There must be a robust debate on the critical issues of radicalization, extremism and terrorism," she said. She envisions the leadership of the center to be young, energetic Muslims "who are very comfortable in their American identity and committed to their Muslim identity."
Write to Tamer El-Ghobashy at tamer.el-ghobashy@wsj.com
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
John Esposito, Islamophobia And The Ground Zero Mosque
from The American Thinker:
August 03, 2010
John Esposito, Islamophobia, and the Ground Zero Mosque
By Stephen Schwartz
John L. Esposito, professor of religion and international affairs and director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, is America's best-known apologist for Saudi Wahhabism, the Turkish fundamentalist Justice and Development Party (AKP), and Islamist ideologies in general. To many, he personifies all that's wrong with Middle East studies in America today.
On July 19, 2010, Esposito contributed a column to the CNN website titled "Islamophobia and the Muslim Center at Ground Zero." In it, he downplays complaints about the project for a fifteen-story Islamic cultural center near the site of the 9/11 atrocities by focusing on angry comments from Manhattanites who see the proposal as an expression of Islamist supremacy. Here's how he sums up criticism of the mosque project: "Islam-bashing charges leveled with no concrete evidence by pundits and politicians."
Esposito claims that "[m]osque construction in the United States has become a catalyst for increased anti-Islam and anti-Muslim sentiment, discrimination and hate crimes in recent years." Discrimination and hate crimes? Where is the concrete evidence to back up that provocative claim? Does Esposito adhere to an academic standard when making such an allegation? In fact, the FBI's most recent statistics on victims of hate crimes motivated by religious bias lists Jews at the top with 66.1% and Muslims at 7.5%.
Esposito asks, "Why should Muslims who are building a center be any more suspect than Jews who build a synagogue or center or Christians who build a church or conference center?" Answer: Neither Jewish nor Christian houses of worship are overwhelmingly financed from outside U.S. borders, and neither the Jewish nor Christian faith communities in America are overwhelmingly dominated by radicals. But too many of the major mosques in America are financed by Saudi Arabia's ultra-radical, fundamentalist, and supremacist Wahhabi sect, while the "Wahhabi lobby" of extremist groups -- the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) at the forefront -- crush American Muslims, suppressing any dissent from radical ideology. For these reasons, as I wrote in the Canadian National Post in April 2010, American Islam is intellectually impoverished. Esposito, as an academic chieftain in Middle East studies, has contributed to this sad condition.
Esposito prefers to ignore reality: The massive structure planned by property owner Sharif Al-Gamal, with Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" as the imam of its Islamic prayer space, and with the support of former diplomatic and financial operatives for the Iranian clerical regime, has caused doubt among both American Muslims and non-Muslims. While some non-Muslims believe the choice of "Cordoba" -- a city in Spain -- was intended to evoke Muslim reconquest, it is better known, even among Muslims, as an exaggerated but important symbol of interfaith cooperation.
I have been a Sunni Muslim since 1997. I have been denounced repeatedly by radical Muslims and by opponents of Islam. I have expressed my opposition to the Ground Zero Islamic center project in interviews and articles. My criticism of the proposal is based on three issues:
•Insensitivity toward non-Muslims. American Muslims -- especially their leaders and the large body of Islamophile academics led by Esposito -- have a great deal of work to do to convince a significant share of non-Muslims that Islam can function alongside other faiths in the panorama of American religious communities. Traditional Islamic guidance calls on Muslims living in societies with a non-Muslim majority to avoid giving offense to their neighbors. The Koran states (29:46), "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Could anything appear more offensive and less considerate of American non-Muslims than erecting a large Islamic building close to Ground Zero?
•Disregard for the security of American Muslims. Islam teaches that a Muslim's first interest is to obtain security for his or her family and fellow Muslims. Al-Gamal and Rauf have argued that the intent of the Ground Zero project is to further understanding of Islam and to help heal the collective wound inflicted on 9/11. But rather than a patient, calm effort to advance conciliation, the Ground Zero mosque project appears to be a heedless venture that will inexorably increase suspicion of Muslims. What could do more to undermine the security of American Muslims than an insult, intended or not, to the memory of the dead of 9/11?
•Radical and otherwise suspect associations maintained by Rauf. It has become widely known that Rauf is a leading figure in the so-called Perdana Global Peace Organisation, which is headed by one of the Islamic world's most offensive Jew-haters, former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir bin Mohamad. Perdana was instrumental in organizing the Turkey-based attempt to run the Israeli naval embargo of Hamas-run Gaza at the end of May. The group's roster of "Role Players & Contributors" begins with Mahathir, listing Rauf as second below him. Incredibly, the same list includes Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian leftist professor known for his ardent defense of Slobodan Milosevic, the late Serbian demagogue. What could be more Islamophobic than to join in a public enterprise with such an individual?
Perdana is clearly an alignment of differing extremists, brought together by hatred of America, Israel, and globalization. In that regard, it much resembles Middle East studies in America as guided by Esposito. It includes defenders of Hamas and defenders of Milosevic. How can anybody active in such an effort claim to seek mutual understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims at a location near Ground Zero?
The "Islamophobia" to which Esposito pays lip service is not merely a politically correct label invented to silence criticize of Muslims. Islamophobia exists. It consists of condemnation of the whole religion of Islam as evil. Denunciation of crimes committed by Muslims, such as the 9/11 attacks, or the extremist affiliations of Muslims like Feisal Abdul Rauf, is not Islamophobia. Rather, such repudiation is urgently necessary for the health of American Islam as a faith community and should certainly come before any schemes for ambitious, overbearing mosques or Islamic cultural centers. Given his position in Middle East studies, Esposito should understand that. His apologetics guarantee that he won't.
Stephen Schwartz is executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. He wrote this article for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.
August 03, 2010
John Esposito, Islamophobia, and the Ground Zero Mosque
By Stephen Schwartz
John L. Esposito, professor of religion and international affairs and director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, is America's best-known apologist for Saudi Wahhabism, the Turkish fundamentalist Justice and Development Party (AKP), and Islamist ideologies in general. To many, he personifies all that's wrong with Middle East studies in America today.
On July 19, 2010, Esposito contributed a column to the CNN website titled "Islamophobia and the Muslim Center at Ground Zero." In it, he downplays complaints about the project for a fifteen-story Islamic cultural center near the site of the 9/11 atrocities by focusing on angry comments from Manhattanites who see the proposal as an expression of Islamist supremacy. Here's how he sums up criticism of the mosque project: "Islam-bashing charges leveled with no concrete evidence by pundits and politicians."
Esposito claims that "[m]osque construction in the United States has become a catalyst for increased anti-Islam and anti-Muslim sentiment, discrimination and hate crimes in recent years." Discrimination and hate crimes? Where is the concrete evidence to back up that provocative claim? Does Esposito adhere to an academic standard when making such an allegation? In fact, the FBI's most recent statistics on victims of hate crimes motivated by religious bias lists Jews at the top with 66.1% and Muslims at 7.5%.
Esposito asks, "Why should Muslims who are building a center be any more suspect than Jews who build a synagogue or center or Christians who build a church or conference center?" Answer: Neither Jewish nor Christian houses of worship are overwhelmingly financed from outside U.S. borders, and neither the Jewish nor Christian faith communities in America are overwhelmingly dominated by radicals. But too many of the major mosques in America are financed by Saudi Arabia's ultra-radical, fundamentalist, and supremacist Wahhabi sect, while the "Wahhabi lobby" of extremist groups -- the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) at the forefront -- crush American Muslims, suppressing any dissent from radical ideology. For these reasons, as I wrote in the Canadian National Post in April 2010, American Islam is intellectually impoverished. Esposito, as an academic chieftain in Middle East studies, has contributed to this sad condition.
Esposito prefers to ignore reality: The massive structure planned by property owner Sharif Al-Gamal, with Feisal Abdul Rauf of the "Cordoba Initiative" as the imam of its Islamic prayer space, and with the support of former diplomatic and financial operatives for the Iranian clerical regime, has caused doubt among both American Muslims and non-Muslims. While some non-Muslims believe the choice of "Cordoba" -- a city in Spain -- was intended to evoke Muslim reconquest, it is better known, even among Muslims, as an exaggerated but important symbol of interfaith cooperation.
I have been a Sunni Muslim since 1997. I have been denounced repeatedly by radical Muslims and by opponents of Islam. I have expressed my opposition to the Ground Zero Islamic center project in interviews and articles. My criticism of the proposal is based on three issues:
•Insensitivity toward non-Muslims. American Muslims -- especially their leaders and the large body of Islamophile academics led by Esposito -- have a great deal of work to do to convince a significant share of non-Muslims that Islam can function alongside other faiths in the panorama of American religious communities. Traditional Islamic guidance calls on Muslims living in societies with a non-Muslim majority to avoid giving offense to their neighbors. The Koran states (29:46), "Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book" -- i.e., Jews and Christians. Could anything appear more offensive and less considerate of American non-Muslims than erecting a large Islamic building close to Ground Zero?
•Disregard for the security of American Muslims. Islam teaches that a Muslim's first interest is to obtain security for his or her family and fellow Muslims. Al-Gamal and Rauf have argued that the intent of the Ground Zero project is to further understanding of Islam and to help heal the collective wound inflicted on 9/11. But rather than a patient, calm effort to advance conciliation, the Ground Zero mosque project appears to be a heedless venture that will inexorably increase suspicion of Muslims. What could do more to undermine the security of American Muslims than an insult, intended or not, to the memory of the dead of 9/11?
•Radical and otherwise suspect associations maintained by Rauf. It has become widely known that Rauf is a leading figure in the so-called Perdana Global Peace Organisation, which is headed by one of the Islamic world's most offensive Jew-haters, former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir bin Mohamad. Perdana was instrumental in organizing the Turkey-based attempt to run the Israeli naval embargo of Hamas-run Gaza at the end of May. The group's roster of "Role Players & Contributors" begins with Mahathir, listing Rauf as second below him. Incredibly, the same list includes Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian leftist professor known for his ardent defense of Slobodan Milosevic, the late Serbian demagogue. What could be more Islamophobic than to join in a public enterprise with such an individual?
Perdana is clearly an alignment of differing extremists, brought together by hatred of America, Israel, and globalization. In that regard, it much resembles Middle East studies in America as guided by Esposito. It includes defenders of Hamas and defenders of Milosevic. How can anybody active in such an effort claim to seek mutual understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims at a location near Ground Zero?
The "Islamophobia" to which Esposito pays lip service is not merely a politically correct label invented to silence criticize of Muslims. Islamophobia exists. It consists of condemnation of the whole religion of Islam as evil. Denunciation of crimes committed by Muslims, such as the 9/11 attacks, or the extremist affiliations of Muslims like Feisal Abdul Rauf, is not Islamophobia. Rather, such repudiation is urgently necessary for the health of American Islam as a faith community and should certainly come before any schemes for ambitious, overbearing mosques or Islamic cultural centers. Given his position in Middle East studies, Esposito should understand that. His apologetics guarantee that he won't.
Stephen Schwartz is executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. He wrote this article for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.
The Changing Face Of Gun Ownership
From The American Thinker:
August 03, 2010
The changing face of gun ownership
Rosslyn Smith
Gun ownership was once shunned by many Americans, secure in the assumption that we live in an ordered society. But I keep running into people who have changed their views on personal firearms possession, and bought guns.
Events such as Hurricane Katrina contributed to this trend. While the stories of mayhem in the wake of Katrina may have been exaggerated by an irresponsible media that reported wild rumors as fact, many citizens quickly came to realize that civilization can be a thin veneer and the police won't always be there when needed.
Two examples of just how respectable gun ownership is today happened to me this last week. First, I am on my Catholic parish's finance committee. As we finished setting our budget for the current fiscal year and adjourned Thursday night's meeting, the topic turned to guns. Soon four of the seven members, including our pastor, were talking about getting together at the local shooting range. At least one additional member is also a gun owner but doesn't target shoot as a hobby. Although the parish is in small town North Carolina, none of us are native to this area. We are big city and suburban folk, active and retired accountants, investment advisors and a former lobbyist for a business association. Our pastor served 20 years in America's Armed Forces before entering his vocation to the priesthood. Where some look at our extensive parish grounds with its large trees around a rambling Victorian rectory and see a lovely setting, Father also sees potential for late night mayhem by bad guys seeking to loot parish valuables. Sometimes part of the task of protecting the spiritual flock is chasing away two legged wolves.
Second, a local family are among the gentlest and most devout Christian people I know, with ministers and missionaries all along the family tree. They have eschewed eating meat out of religious conviction for at least three generations. Recently households on either side of this family have abandoned properties. That leaves a, mom, dad, and three children isolated at the end of a long, secluded, private drive. Our entire community is miles from the sheriff's office. Cell phone signals are iffy here, too.
My neighbor's brother, a lawyer who was a prosecutor early in his legal career, has long carried a gun and also taught his wife to shoot. As times have become more uncertain the brother has increasingly fretted about my neighbor family's physical isolation Even though their budget is very tight right now, we talked on Sunday about my neighbor's plans to finally follow his brother's urging and buy a gun. His main concern is personal protection but he also needs to deal with the critter problems that are part and parcel of country life. With each passing year he is a fraction slower than he used to be. The last time he tried to kill a venomous snake that had taken up residence in their barn with the garden hoe, it almost got him instead. Not wanting to kill animals for food doesn't preclude protecting small children and pets by reluctantly killing a Copperhead that comes close to the house or a racoon that is behaving oddly and thus potentially a carrier of rabies.
This may be one of the few social trends lovers of liberty can celebrate these days.
Posted at 01:04 AM
August 03, 2010
The changing face of gun ownership
Rosslyn Smith
Gun ownership was once shunned by many Americans, secure in the assumption that we live in an ordered society. But I keep running into people who have changed their views on personal firearms possession, and bought guns.
Events such as Hurricane Katrina contributed to this trend. While the stories of mayhem in the wake of Katrina may have been exaggerated by an irresponsible media that reported wild rumors as fact, many citizens quickly came to realize that civilization can be a thin veneer and the police won't always be there when needed.
Two examples of just how respectable gun ownership is today happened to me this last week. First, I am on my Catholic parish's finance committee. As we finished setting our budget for the current fiscal year and adjourned Thursday night's meeting, the topic turned to guns. Soon four of the seven members, including our pastor, were talking about getting together at the local shooting range. At least one additional member is also a gun owner but doesn't target shoot as a hobby. Although the parish is in small town North Carolina, none of us are native to this area. We are big city and suburban folk, active and retired accountants, investment advisors and a former lobbyist for a business association. Our pastor served 20 years in America's Armed Forces before entering his vocation to the priesthood. Where some look at our extensive parish grounds with its large trees around a rambling Victorian rectory and see a lovely setting, Father also sees potential for late night mayhem by bad guys seeking to loot parish valuables. Sometimes part of the task of protecting the spiritual flock is chasing away two legged wolves.
Second, a local family are among the gentlest and most devout Christian people I know, with ministers and missionaries all along the family tree. They have eschewed eating meat out of religious conviction for at least three generations. Recently households on either side of this family have abandoned properties. That leaves a, mom, dad, and three children isolated at the end of a long, secluded, private drive. Our entire community is miles from the sheriff's office. Cell phone signals are iffy here, too.
My neighbor's brother, a lawyer who was a prosecutor early in his legal career, has long carried a gun and also taught his wife to shoot. As times have become more uncertain the brother has increasingly fretted about my neighbor family's physical isolation Even though their budget is very tight right now, we talked on Sunday about my neighbor's plans to finally follow his brother's urging and buy a gun. His main concern is personal protection but he also needs to deal with the critter problems that are part and parcel of country life. With each passing year he is a fraction slower than he used to be. The last time he tried to kill a venomous snake that had taken up residence in their barn with the garden hoe, it almost got him instead. Not wanting to kill animals for food doesn't preclude protecting small children and pets by reluctantly killing a Copperhead that comes close to the house or a racoon that is behaving oddly and thus potentially a carrier of rabies.
This may be one of the few social trends lovers of liberty can celebrate these days.
Posted at 01:04 AM
Shirley Sherrod And The Race Grievance Industry
From The American Thinker:
August 02, 2010
Shirley Sherrod and the Race Grievance Industry
By Rosslyn Smith
Shirley Sherrod, litigant and co-mastermind of the Pigford settlement, which bestowed large checks on 86,000 of the country's 40,000 black farmers, ironically may help usher in a long-overdue post-racial era in America. Publicity, once the ally of the racial grievance industry, is now the enemy of deals done in quiet.
After Dan Riehl linked to a law firm that specializes in filing complaints in the Pigford settlement for a 33.5% contingency fee -- Pogust, Braslow & Millrood, LLC, in Conshohoken, Pennsylvania -- their site at http://www.blackfarmersjustice.com seems to have gone offline. Riehl notes this language from the law firm's 2008 press release:
Last summer, Senator Barack Obama (IL) introduced legislation to allow these individuals the opportunity to prove their claims of racial discrimination on the merits. Senator Obama's legislation ultimately became part of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, passed by Congress on May 22, 2008.
Another site that Riehl linked on the Pigford case was still up. He said this about the comments there.
Kind of, like -- hey, I had an uncle who farmed, I think, back in the day. Or, maybe it was a second cousin. Can I get in on some of this fast cash, too? Sure, just kickback 33.5% to the lawyers, maybe we can get you signed up. I smell major scam.
My comment is more pointed than Riehl's. Since the 1960s, I have heard endless acclamations of black pride that, in terms of policy, progressively became little more than groveling for government handouts. The last American who personally experienced slavery died in 1948, five years before I was born. 1948 also happened to be the year the Democratic Party, traditional political home of Southern segregationists, adopted a specific four-point political platform dedicated to Civil Rights.
Racial discrimination has been considered a legal abomination by both political parties since then. Outside of a few lunatic fringe groups, it has been considered a social faux pas since the early 1960s. Indeed, the number of people who actually lived in a legally segregated society is rapidly diminishing. With Obama in the White House, a black man recently beating Strom Thurmond's son like a drum in a South Carolina Republican primary, and the last Democrat practitioners of de jure segregation -- such as Robert "Sheets" Byrd -- rapidly assuming room temperature, as a practical matter, the segregationist race card is now dead as a political weapon. Americans have absorbed the lesson that we judge people on the soundness of their ideas and the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
With the passing of the last of those who once saw race as definitive, we want the bill for the racial sins of the past to be finally be stamped paid in full! Our patience with the political class's subjective definition of racism as anything that offends a person of color is virtually nonexistent. Attempts to lay a guilt trip on us as have been made in the past, and now they are going to end only in pushback against those who have done very well for themselves by claiming racial injury.
It would indeed be time to be bored with race except for one thing. Racial preferences enacted in past decades continue to cost us a fortune we no longer can afford to spend. No matter how boring the topic has become on an intellectual level, race-mongering continues to cost us a lot of money. Political interest groups such as the NAACP have a vested interest in keeping the idea of racial injustice alive. They do so by falsely equating unequal outcomes as the result of luck, talent, and temperament, with unequal treatment as a matter of law. Agencies at all levels of government, college admission officers, and a small army of private-sector diversity training consultants and Human Resource administrators also have a vested interest in the idea of racial injustice.
The real estate bubble happened in part because lenders were told they had to extend credit to people who weren't creditworthy, and on properties in substandard neighborhoods lest they be seen as discriminating on the basis of race. The recent so-called financial reform bill contains similar racial and gender preferences that will distort the credit market.
As long as there is a buck to be made by someone who cites racial discrimination, whether in personal or historic terms, the topic will remain part of the national political conversation. The difference is that from now on, anyone who cites past discrimination in expectation of a handout is increasingly going to be told, Life sucks for all of us. Stop whining about race and do something useful for a change.
August 02, 2010
Shirley Sherrod and the Race Grievance Industry
By Rosslyn Smith
Shirley Sherrod, litigant and co-mastermind of the Pigford settlement, which bestowed large checks on 86,000 of the country's 40,000 black farmers, ironically may help usher in a long-overdue post-racial era in America. Publicity, once the ally of the racial grievance industry, is now the enemy of deals done in quiet.
After Dan Riehl linked to a law firm that specializes in filing complaints in the Pigford settlement for a 33.5% contingency fee -- Pogust, Braslow & Millrood, LLC, in Conshohoken, Pennsylvania -- their site at http://www.blackfarmersjustice.com seems to have gone offline. Riehl notes this language from the law firm's 2008 press release:
Last summer, Senator Barack Obama (IL) introduced legislation to allow these individuals the opportunity to prove their claims of racial discrimination on the merits. Senator Obama's legislation ultimately became part of the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, passed by Congress on May 22, 2008.
Another site that Riehl linked on the Pigford case was still up. He said this about the comments there.
Kind of, like -- hey, I had an uncle who farmed, I think, back in the day. Or, maybe it was a second cousin. Can I get in on some of this fast cash, too? Sure, just kickback 33.5% to the lawyers, maybe we can get you signed up. I smell major scam.
My comment is more pointed than Riehl's. Since the 1960s, I have heard endless acclamations of black pride that, in terms of policy, progressively became little more than groveling for government handouts. The last American who personally experienced slavery died in 1948, five years before I was born. 1948 also happened to be the year the Democratic Party, traditional political home of Southern segregationists, adopted a specific four-point political platform dedicated to Civil Rights.
Racial discrimination has been considered a legal abomination by both political parties since then. Outside of a few lunatic fringe groups, it has been considered a social faux pas since the early 1960s. Indeed, the number of people who actually lived in a legally segregated society is rapidly diminishing. With Obama in the White House, a black man recently beating Strom Thurmond's son like a drum in a South Carolina Republican primary, and the last Democrat practitioners of de jure segregation -- such as Robert "Sheets" Byrd -- rapidly assuming room temperature, as a practical matter, the segregationist race card is now dead as a political weapon. Americans have absorbed the lesson that we judge people on the soundness of their ideas and the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.
With the passing of the last of those who once saw race as definitive, we want the bill for the racial sins of the past to be finally be stamped paid in full! Our patience with the political class's subjective definition of racism as anything that offends a person of color is virtually nonexistent. Attempts to lay a guilt trip on us as have been made in the past, and now they are going to end only in pushback against those who have done very well for themselves by claiming racial injury.
It would indeed be time to be bored with race except for one thing. Racial preferences enacted in past decades continue to cost us a fortune we no longer can afford to spend. No matter how boring the topic has become on an intellectual level, race-mongering continues to cost us a lot of money. Political interest groups such as the NAACP have a vested interest in keeping the idea of racial injustice alive. They do so by falsely equating unequal outcomes as the result of luck, talent, and temperament, with unequal treatment as a matter of law. Agencies at all levels of government, college admission officers, and a small army of private-sector diversity training consultants and Human Resource administrators also have a vested interest in the idea of racial injustice.
The real estate bubble happened in part because lenders were told they had to extend credit to people who weren't creditworthy, and on properties in substandard neighborhoods lest they be seen as discriminating on the basis of race. The recent so-called financial reform bill contains similar racial and gender preferences that will distort the credit market.
As long as there is a buck to be made by someone who cites racial discrimination, whether in personal or historic terms, the topic will remain part of the national political conversation. The difference is that from now on, anyone who cites past discrimination in expectation of a handout is increasingly going to be told, Life sucks for all of us. Stop whining about race and do something useful for a change.
Obama's Immigration Power Play
from The American Spectator:
The Obama Watch
Obama's Immigration Power Play
By W. James Antle, III on 8.2.10 @ 6:09AM
Last week, the Obama administration got Clinton-appointed Judge Susan Bolton to at least temporarily throw out key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. Within 24 hours came more evidence that they weren't done eviscerating immigration enforcement yet.
That proof came in the form of an astonishing internal memo outlining ways the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) could effectively legalize at least tens of thousands of illegal immigrants even if Congress fails to enact amnesty. Some would be granted resident status with the USCIS simply giving them green cards. Others would be allowed to evade deportation, possibly indefinitely.
"In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations," said the memo, which was prepared by four senior officials from different parts of USCIS for the agency's director. Two of the memo's authors are Obama appointees, as is USCIS head Alejandro N. Mayorkas.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) made the 11-page document public last Thursday, arguing in a public statement, "This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a back door amnesty plan." In June, Grassley and six other senators sent President Obama a letter asking him to deny rumors that his underlings were contemplating amnesty by executive fiat.
Now we have good reason to believe the rumors were true. One proposal contained in the memo was that the USCIS grant "parole in place," which comes with a work permit and the right to apply for a green card, to various illegal immigrants. Another suggestion was to give "deferred action," delaying deportation indefinitely and preserving eligibility to apply for a work permit, to illegal aliens who would have benefited from the DREAM Act.
That would be the same DREAM Act, incidentally, that Congress has repeatedly failed to pass, much as it has shot down broader-based amnesty proposals.
Finally, the memos' authors suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could simply stop issuing the "notice to appear" letters that begin the deportation process. The only exception would be in cases where the illegal alien is found to have "significant negative immigration or criminal history."
The exposure of this memo understandably generated controversy, which the administration was eager to tamp down. A hastily issued USCIS statement insisted that the memos were just a draft and that "nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions."
"To be clear," the statement continued, "DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population." As the Church Lady used to say, "Well, isn't that special?"
Even if the memo merely shows mid-level bureaucrats engaging in a brainstorming session about how to undermine the immigration laws they are being paid to uphold, it captures the essence of this administration's approach to immigration enforcement. Criminal prosecutions of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants are down and worksite raids have virtually stopped. The DHS official running the Office of Detention and Removal Operations has admitted the administration is, as a matter of policy, trying to avoid arresting illegals.
According to one report, through May administrative arrests were down 81 percent from 2008, criminal arrests down 67 percent, indictments are down 73 percent, and convictions down 75 percent. "I think there have been very few operations that have generated arrests of undocumented workers," David Venturella, the acting director in charge of such operations, was quoted as saying at an Urban Institute event.
But what about reports that the Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants? Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told the Washington Post that they planned to deport 400,000 people this fiscal year, up 10 percent from 2008 and 25 percent from 2007.
Like their predecessors in the generally lax Bush administration, Obama's immigration henchmen can be counted on to periodically ratchet up enforcement when doing so will aid the call for "comprehensive immigration reform." Most of this uptick reflects a recent effort to identify illegal aliens who have committed other crimes.
Yet neither the deportations of criminal aliens nor the ballyhooed audits of companies that hire workers with bogus Social Security numbers really turn off the jobs magnet luring illegal immigrants into this country. Remember: as amnesty advocates are always fond of reminding us, we cannot deport every illegal immigrant in the United States. The main goal of attrition through enforcement is to entice large numbers of illegals to in effect deport themselves.
Focusing on the worst criminals among the illegal population -- and relatively light civil fines of employers who flunk their audits -- while giving de facto amnesty to everyone else will not reduce the number of illegal immigrants here to a manageable level. It will merely allow the Obama administration to appear tough while actually undermining attrition through enforcement.
States like Arizona have learned that serious immigration enforcement is a dirty job the federal government won't do -- and one that the Obama administration won't let anyone else perform, either. Even if they must rely on unaccountable federal judges and bureaucrats, it is amnesty or bust, the will of the people and their elected representatives be damned.
Letter to the Editor
The Obama Watch
Obama's Immigration Power Play
By W. James Antle, III on 8.2.10 @ 6:09AM
Last week, the Obama administration got Clinton-appointed Judge Susan Bolton to at least temporarily throw out key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. Within 24 hours came more evidence that they weren't done eviscerating immigration enforcement yet.
That proof came in the form of an astonishing internal memo outlining ways the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) could effectively legalize at least tens of thousands of illegal immigrants even if Congress fails to enact amnesty. Some would be granted resident status with the USCIS simply giving them green cards. Others would be allowed to evade deportation, possibly indefinitely.
"In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations," said the memo, which was prepared by four senior officials from different parts of USCIS for the agency's director. Two of the memo's authors are Obama appointees, as is USCIS head Alejandro N. Mayorkas.
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) made the 11-page document public last Thursday, arguing in a public statement, "This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a back door amnesty plan." In June, Grassley and six other senators sent President Obama a letter asking him to deny rumors that his underlings were contemplating amnesty by executive fiat.
Now we have good reason to believe the rumors were true. One proposal contained in the memo was that the USCIS grant "parole in place," which comes with a work permit and the right to apply for a green card, to various illegal immigrants. Another suggestion was to give "deferred action," delaying deportation indefinitely and preserving eligibility to apply for a work permit, to illegal aliens who would have benefited from the DREAM Act.
That would be the same DREAM Act, incidentally, that Congress has repeatedly failed to pass, much as it has shot down broader-based amnesty proposals.
Finally, the memos' authors suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could simply stop issuing the "notice to appear" letters that begin the deportation process. The only exception would be in cases where the illegal alien is found to have "significant negative immigration or criminal history."
The exposure of this memo understandably generated controversy, which the administration was eager to tamp down. A hastily issued USCIS statement insisted that the memos were just a draft and that "nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions."
"To be clear," the statement continued, "DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population." As the Church Lady used to say, "Well, isn't that special?"
Even if the memo merely shows mid-level bureaucrats engaging in a brainstorming session about how to undermine the immigration laws they are being paid to uphold, it captures the essence of this administration's approach to immigration enforcement. Criminal prosecutions of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants are down and worksite raids have virtually stopped. The DHS official running the Office of Detention and Removal Operations has admitted the administration is, as a matter of policy, trying to avoid arresting illegals.
According to one report, through May administrative arrests were down 81 percent from 2008, criminal arrests down 67 percent, indictments are down 73 percent, and convictions down 75 percent. "I think there have been very few operations that have generated arrests of undocumented workers," David Venturella, the acting director in charge of such operations, was quoted as saying at an Urban Institute event.
But what about reports that the Obama administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants? Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told the Washington Post that they planned to deport 400,000 people this fiscal year, up 10 percent from 2008 and 25 percent from 2007.
Like their predecessors in the generally lax Bush administration, Obama's immigration henchmen can be counted on to periodically ratchet up enforcement when doing so will aid the call for "comprehensive immigration reform." Most of this uptick reflects a recent effort to identify illegal aliens who have committed other crimes.
Yet neither the deportations of criminal aliens nor the ballyhooed audits of companies that hire workers with bogus Social Security numbers really turn off the jobs magnet luring illegal immigrants into this country. Remember: as amnesty advocates are always fond of reminding us, we cannot deport every illegal immigrant in the United States. The main goal of attrition through enforcement is to entice large numbers of illegals to in effect deport themselves.
Focusing on the worst criminals among the illegal population -- and relatively light civil fines of employers who flunk their audits -- while giving de facto amnesty to everyone else will not reduce the number of illegal immigrants here to a manageable level. It will merely allow the Obama administration to appear tough while actually undermining attrition through enforcement.
States like Arizona have learned that serious immigration enforcement is a dirty job the federal government won't do -- and one that the Obama administration won't let anyone else perform, either. Even if they must rely on unaccountable federal judges and bureaucrats, it is amnesty or bust, the will of the people and their elected representatives be damned.
Letter to the Editor
Israel To Deport Influx Of Illegal Migratory Workers
from Rebellion:
Israel to deport hundreds of migrant workers' childrenfrom feed/http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default by Old Rebel
You have to admire Israel. It is determined to preserve and protect its traditional culture -- and that's impossible without preserving its traditional demographics:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the new policy was intended to stem a flood of illegal immigrants, whose children receive state-funded education and healthcare benefits, and to defend Israel's Jewish identity.
"On the one hand, this problem is a humanitarian problem," Netanyahu said during a meeting Sunday of the Cabinet, which had debated the move for nearly a year. "We all feel and understand the hearts of children. But on the other hand, there are Zionist considerations and ensuring the Jewish character of the state of Israel.
"We don't want to create an incentive for the inflow of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrant workers," he said.
Israel has the right to protect its culture.
And so does every other country.
Israel to deport hundreds of migrant workers' childrenfrom feed/http://lsrebellion.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default by Old Rebel
You have to admire Israel. It is determined to preserve and protect its traditional culture -- and that's impossible without preserving its traditional demographics:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the new policy was intended to stem a flood of illegal immigrants, whose children receive state-funded education and healthcare benefits, and to defend Israel's Jewish identity.
"On the one hand, this problem is a humanitarian problem," Netanyahu said during a meeting Sunday of the Cabinet, which had debated the move for nearly a year. "We all feel and understand the hearts of children. But on the other hand, there are Zionist considerations and ensuring the Jewish character of the state of Israel.
"We don't want to create an incentive for the inflow of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrant workers," he said.
Israel has the right to protect its culture.
And so does every other country.
Why Would Anyone Support The Ground Zero Mega Mosque?
From Bare Naked Islam:
Why would anyone support the Ground Zero mosque?
Most BNI readers know the reaons for opposing an Islamic monument that will represent the first step in the Islamic conquest of America, which is how the Ground Zero mosque will be viewed in the Muslim world – a place where nearly 3,000 Americans were burned or crushed to death in the name of Islam.
Democrats and liberals want us to think it’s just another partisan issue But anyone who can’t see the strands of politics and ideology – a particularly nasty form of expansionist politics and an anti-democratic, medieval ideology – woven throughout Islam, is blind.
Obviously the majority of readers on this website do NOT support the mosque. But why do you think anyone else would? You may choose more than one answer and vote more than one time.
Why would anyone support such a kick in the face to Americans?
You are a Muslim who thinks it would be better if the US were governed in accordance with Sharia
You benefit in some way from Saudi petrodollars (this group includes several ex-presidents)
You are an anti-Zionist or antisemite who wants to stick it to the Jews
You are Jewish and want to show your gentile friends that you're a regular guy
You are afraid that Islam will be victorious and you want your future rulers to like you
You are afraid but want to hide it, so you pretend that there's no danger
You are a far left wingnut and you see other leftie wingnuts (including the President) pretending that there's no danger, so you imitate them
You want to be on the other side of Newt Gingrich and especially Sarah Palin
You are white and think opposing Islamic expansionism is racist and you feel guilty for slavery and racism
You are black and think Islam is on the side of oppressed people of color (never mind Sudan, the history of slavery, etc.)
You have become convinced that the US really is the great Satan and anything bad that happens to it is good
Why would anyone support the Ground Zero mosque?
Most BNI readers know the reaons for opposing an Islamic monument that will represent the first step in the Islamic conquest of America, which is how the Ground Zero mosque will be viewed in the Muslim world – a place where nearly 3,000 Americans were burned or crushed to death in the name of Islam.
Democrats and liberals want us to think it’s just another partisan issue But anyone who can’t see the strands of politics and ideology – a particularly nasty form of expansionist politics and an anti-democratic, medieval ideology – woven throughout Islam, is blind.
Obviously the majority of readers on this website do NOT support the mosque. But why do you think anyone else would? You may choose more than one answer and vote more than one time.
Why would anyone support such a kick in the face to Americans?
You are a Muslim who thinks it would be better if the US were governed in accordance with Sharia
You benefit in some way from Saudi petrodollars (this group includes several ex-presidents)
You are an anti-Zionist or antisemite who wants to stick it to the Jews
You are Jewish and want to show your gentile friends that you're a regular guy
You are afraid that Islam will be victorious and you want your future rulers to like you
You are afraid but want to hide it, so you pretend that there's no danger
You are a far left wingnut and you see other leftie wingnuts (including the President) pretending that there's no danger, so you imitate them
You want to be on the other side of Newt Gingrich and especially Sarah Palin
You are white and think opposing Islamic expansionism is racist and you feel guilty for slavery and racism
You are black and think Islam is on the side of oppressed people of color (never mind Sudan, the history of slavery, etc.)
You have become convinced that the US really is the great Satan and anything bad that happens to it is good
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)