Thursday, September 2, 2010
FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS
Number of illegal immigrants in US now declining
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Hope Yen, Associated Press Writer – Thu Sep 2, 1:42 am ET
WASHINGTON – The number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. has dropped for the first time in two decades — decreasing by 8 percent since 2007, a new study finds. The reasons range from the sour economy to Mexican violence and increased U.S. enforcement that has made it harder to sneak across the border.
Much of the decline comes from a sharp drop-off in illegal immigrants from the Caribbean, Central America and South America attempting to cross the southern border of the U.S., according to the Pew Hispanic Center, which based its report on an analysis of 2009 census data.
The findings come amid bitter debate over Arizona's strict new immigration law, which was passed earlier this year but is on hold for now as it is challenged in federal court. The Obama administration contends the state law usurps federal authority and promotes racial profiling, while Arizona leaders say states are justified to step in if federal enforcement falls substantially short.
The study released Wednesday estimates that 11.1 million illegal immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2009. That represents a decrease of roughly 1 million, or 8 percent, from a peak of 12 million in 2007.
The study puts the number of illegal immigrants down to about where it was in 2005. They still make up roughly 4 percent of the U.S. population.
The Homeland Security Department's own estimate of illegal immigrants is slightly lower, at 10.8 million. The government uses a different census survey that makes some year-to-year comparisons difficult.
An increase in unauthorized immigrants leaving the U.S., by deportation or for economic reasons, may have played a factor in the falling number.
In recent years, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has deported an increasing number of illegal immigrants, reaching a high last year of more than 389,000 people, according to government figures.
States in the Southeast and Southwest saw some of the biggest declines in the number of illegal immigrants from 2008 to 2009, including Florida, Nevada and Virginia. Arizona saw a decrease, but it was too small to be statistically significant.
It's hard to figure out how much of the decline to attribute to the bad economy and how much to federal immigration enforcement, said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at Pew who co-wrote the analysis.
"They're certainly acting together," he said. Passel said illegal immigrants now find it more expensive and dangerous to cross into the U.S. and also have less incentive to do so given the languishing job market in construction and other low-wage industries.
The Pew analysis found the sharpest decline — 22 percent — among illegal immigrants from Latin American countries other than Mexico. This may reflect a lesser-known aspect of the immigration debate that broke into the news again last week when the bodies of 72 Central and South American migrants were found in a cartel stronghold in northern Mexico: Thousands of non-Mexicans go missing on their way to the United States, falling victim to demands that they pay impossible ransoms to criminal gangs that control access to the U.S. border.
"While people are arguing the government is not stopping illegal immigration, our data suggests the flow of undocumented immigrants sneaking into the country has dropped dramatically," Passel said.
The estimates by Pew will add to the political back-and-forth on immigration reform.
President Barack Obama, who is challenging the Arizona law, has pledged to push an overhaul of federal immigration law but has declined to set a timeline.
After the passage of Arizona's immigration law, more than a dozen states were considering similar legislation or have issued legal opinions aimed at strengthening immigration enforcement. They include Florida, Virginia, South Carolina and Utah.
Boosted by immigration and high numbers of births among Latinos, minorities now make up roughly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which they are projected to become the majority of Americans by mid-century. Roughly one in four counties currently have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point.
Still, the Census Bureau has made clear that projected minority growth — particularly among Hispanics — could change substantially depending on immigration policies and the economy.
Other Pew findings:
_The states with the highest percentage of illegal immigrants were California (6.9 percent), Nevada (6.8 percent), Texas (6.5 percent) and Arizona (5.8 percent). The numbers are expected to play an important factor in whether those states lose or gain fewer U.S. House seats than expected after the 2010 census.
_Illegal immigrants make up about 28 percent of the foreign-born population in the U.S., down from 31 percent in 2007.
_The unemployment rate for illegal immigrants in March 2009 was 10.4 percent — higher than that of U.S.-born workers or legal immigrants, who had unemployment of 9.2 percent and 9.1 percent, respectively.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an outspoken advocate of welcoming more immigrants to the U.S., said he was not surprised by the study's findings.
"It exemplifies what I've been saying all along," Bloomberg told reporters. "Not totally, but generally, people come here from around the world — whether they come here legally or illegally — to work, to build a better life for themselves and for their families. And when our economy is down, it's just tougher to get a job."
The Pew analysis is based on census data through March 2009. Because the Census Bureau does not ask people about their immigration status, the estimate on illegal immigrants is derived largely by subtracting the estimated legal immigrant population from the total foreign-born population. It is a method that has been used by the government and Pew for many years and is generally accepted.
___
Associated Press writer Sara Kugler Frazier in New York contributed to this report.
Online:
Pew Hispanic Center: http://pewhispanic.org/
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Hope Yen, Associated Press Writer – Thu Sep 2, 1:42 am ET
WASHINGTON – The number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. has dropped for the first time in two decades — decreasing by 8 percent since 2007, a new study finds. The reasons range from the sour economy to Mexican violence and increased U.S. enforcement that has made it harder to sneak across the border.
Much of the decline comes from a sharp drop-off in illegal immigrants from the Caribbean, Central America and South America attempting to cross the southern border of the U.S., according to the Pew Hispanic Center, which based its report on an analysis of 2009 census data.
The findings come amid bitter debate over Arizona's strict new immigration law, which was passed earlier this year but is on hold for now as it is challenged in federal court. The Obama administration contends the state law usurps federal authority and promotes racial profiling, while Arizona leaders say states are justified to step in if federal enforcement falls substantially short.
The study released Wednesday estimates that 11.1 million illegal immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2009. That represents a decrease of roughly 1 million, or 8 percent, from a peak of 12 million in 2007.
The study puts the number of illegal immigrants down to about where it was in 2005. They still make up roughly 4 percent of the U.S. population.
The Homeland Security Department's own estimate of illegal immigrants is slightly lower, at 10.8 million. The government uses a different census survey that makes some year-to-year comparisons difficult.
An increase in unauthorized immigrants leaving the U.S., by deportation or for economic reasons, may have played a factor in the falling number.
In recent years, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has deported an increasing number of illegal immigrants, reaching a high last year of more than 389,000 people, according to government figures.
States in the Southeast and Southwest saw some of the biggest declines in the number of illegal immigrants from 2008 to 2009, including Florida, Nevada and Virginia. Arizona saw a decrease, but it was too small to be statistically significant.
It's hard to figure out how much of the decline to attribute to the bad economy and how much to federal immigration enforcement, said Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at Pew who co-wrote the analysis.
"They're certainly acting together," he said. Passel said illegal immigrants now find it more expensive and dangerous to cross into the U.S. and also have less incentive to do so given the languishing job market in construction and other low-wage industries.
The Pew analysis found the sharpest decline — 22 percent — among illegal immigrants from Latin American countries other than Mexico. This may reflect a lesser-known aspect of the immigration debate that broke into the news again last week when the bodies of 72 Central and South American migrants were found in a cartel stronghold in northern Mexico: Thousands of non-Mexicans go missing on their way to the United States, falling victim to demands that they pay impossible ransoms to criminal gangs that control access to the U.S. border.
"While people are arguing the government is not stopping illegal immigration, our data suggests the flow of undocumented immigrants sneaking into the country has dropped dramatically," Passel said.
The estimates by Pew will add to the political back-and-forth on immigration reform.
President Barack Obama, who is challenging the Arizona law, has pledged to push an overhaul of federal immigration law but has declined to set a timeline.
After the passage of Arizona's immigration law, more than a dozen states were considering similar legislation or have issued legal opinions aimed at strengthening immigration enforcement. They include Florida, Virginia, South Carolina and Utah.
Boosted by immigration and high numbers of births among Latinos, minorities now make up roughly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which they are projected to become the majority of Americans by mid-century. Roughly one in four counties currently have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point.
Still, the Census Bureau has made clear that projected minority growth — particularly among Hispanics — could change substantially depending on immigration policies and the economy.
Other Pew findings:
_The states with the highest percentage of illegal immigrants were California (6.9 percent), Nevada (6.8 percent), Texas (6.5 percent) and Arizona (5.8 percent). The numbers are expected to play an important factor in whether those states lose or gain fewer U.S. House seats than expected after the 2010 census.
_Illegal immigrants make up about 28 percent of the foreign-born population in the U.S., down from 31 percent in 2007.
_The unemployment rate for illegal immigrants in March 2009 was 10.4 percent — higher than that of U.S.-born workers or legal immigrants, who had unemployment of 9.2 percent and 9.1 percent, respectively.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an outspoken advocate of welcoming more immigrants to the U.S., said he was not surprised by the study's findings.
"It exemplifies what I've been saying all along," Bloomberg told reporters. "Not totally, but generally, people come here from around the world — whether they come here legally or illegally — to work, to build a better life for themselves and for their families. And when our economy is down, it's just tougher to get a job."
The Pew analysis is based on census data through March 2009. Because the Census Bureau does not ask people about their immigration status, the estimate on illegal immigrants is derived largely by subtracting the estimated legal immigrant population from the total foreign-born population. It is a method that has been used by the government and Pew for many years and is generally accepted.
___
Associated Press writer Sara Kugler Frazier in New York contributed to this report.
Online:
Pew Hispanic Center: http://pewhispanic.org/
FROM TOWNHALL
Down With Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor
Email Michael Barone
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz digg
Some of the most important things in history are things that didn't happen -- even though just about everyone thought they would.
Recent example: Scads of liberals gleefully predicted that the financial crisis and deep recession would destroy Americans' faith in markets and increase their confidence in big government. Many conservatives gloomily feared they were right.
Hasn't happened. If anything, public opinion has moved in the other direction, with most Americans rejecting the stimulus package and the health care bill, denying that government action is needed to address global warming, expressing negative feelings about labor unions.
How to explain this? One way is to see the public's reaction as opposition to governance by an alliance of Big Units -- Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor.
In the 1930s, Americans supposedly lost faith in markets and rallied to government. But if you go back and look at public opinion polling then, you find something rather different. You find majorities grumbling about Big Government, scorning Big Business and opposing Big Labor.
The 1940s were different. Facing the threat of total war, Franklin Roosevelt transformed himself from "Dr. New Deal" to "Dr. Win the War." He fostered cooperation between Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor. Roosevelt was brilliant at selecting, from all these sources, the best men (and women) for jobs he considered important.
The result was a war effort that was brilliantly successful. America was the arsenal of democracy, vanquishing its enemies and inventing the atomic bomb. Big Unit governance gained enormous prestige and held onto it for a generation after the war.
The result was prosperity but also stasis. The Big Government of 1970 looked a lot like the Big Government of the 1940s. The same Big Businesses that dominated the Fortune 500 list in 1940 did so in 1970. The list of Big Labor unions remained pretty much the same.
Around 1970, these Big Units lost their edge. Big Government got mired in wars on poverty and in Vietnam. Big Business got hidebound and bureaucratic. Big Labor started to shrink.
Starting around 1980, the country began to revive. Big Government lowered taxes and deregulated transportation and communications. Entrepreneurs and investors replaced stodgy corporate managements with new companies and new products.
The conformist "organization man" Americans of the 1950s were replaced by non-conformist innovators, risk-takers and creators who made a new economy that central planners could never have envisioned. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't wait for those at the top of Big Units to tell them what to do.
Big Business changed: The Fortune 500 list of 2010 doesn't look anything like that of 1970. Big Labor almost vanished: Most union members today are public employees.
The Obama Democrats, faced with a grave economic crisis, responded with policies appropriate to the Big Unit America that was disappearing during the president's childhood.
Their financial policy has been to freeze the big banks into place. Their industrial policy was to preserve as much as they could of General Motors and Chrysler for the benefit of the United Auto Workers. Their health care policy was designed to benefit Big Pharma and other big players. Their housing policy has been to try to maintain existing prices. Their macroeconomic policy was to increase the size and scope of existing government agencies to what looks to be the bursting point.
What we see is Big Government colluding with Big Business and trying to breathe life into Big Labor.
Some of this can be defended. The Obama Democrats are right in pointing out that the TARP financial bailout was the product of the George W. Bush administration, and they may well be right that it would have been disastrous to allow Citibank to fail.
But Big Unit policies are not a good fit for a country that has grown out of the wreckage the Big Units made of things in the 1970s. They freeze poorly performing incumbents in place, and they don't provide the breathing room for small units to start up and grow.
In the meantime, the Big Units are not performing as well as they did for Dr. Win the War. The visibly flagging economy and the slapdash stimulus and health care bills have left most voters ready to take a chance on the still reviled Republicans. The unanswered question is, will the Republicans have an effective alternative to Big Unit governance?
Michael Barone
Michael Barone is a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. He is Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner and a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Michael Barone's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Email Michael Barone
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz digg
Some of the most important things in history are things that didn't happen -- even though just about everyone thought they would.
Recent example: Scads of liberals gleefully predicted that the financial crisis and deep recession would destroy Americans' faith in markets and increase their confidence in big government. Many conservatives gloomily feared they were right.
Hasn't happened. If anything, public opinion has moved in the other direction, with most Americans rejecting the stimulus package and the health care bill, denying that government action is needed to address global warming, expressing negative feelings about labor unions.
How to explain this? One way is to see the public's reaction as opposition to governance by an alliance of Big Units -- Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor.
In the 1930s, Americans supposedly lost faith in markets and rallied to government. But if you go back and look at public opinion polling then, you find something rather different. You find majorities grumbling about Big Government, scorning Big Business and opposing Big Labor.
The 1940s were different. Facing the threat of total war, Franklin Roosevelt transformed himself from "Dr. New Deal" to "Dr. Win the War." He fostered cooperation between Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor. Roosevelt was brilliant at selecting, from all these sources, the best men (and women) for jobs he considered important.
The result was a war effort that was brilliantly successful. America was the arsenal of democracy, vanquishing its enemies and inventing the atomic bomb. Big Unit governance gained enormous prestige and held onto it for a generation after the war.
The result was prosperity but also stasis. The Big Government of 1970 looked a lot like the Big Government of the 1940s. The same Big Businesses that dominated the Fortune 500 list in 1940 did so in 1970. The list of Big Labor unions remained pretty much the same.
Around 1970, these Big Units lost their edge. Big Government got mired in wars on poverty and in Vietnam. Big Business got hidebound and bureaucratic. Big Labor started to shrink.
Starting around 1980, the country began to revive. Big Government lowered taxes and deregulated transportation and communications. Entrepreneurs and investors replaced stodgy corporate managements with new companies and new products.
The conformist "organization man" Americans of the 1950s were replaced by non-conformist innovators, risk-takers and creators who made a new economy that central planners could never have envisioned. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't wait for those at the top of Big Units to tell them what to do.
Big Business changed: The Fortune 500 list of 2010 doesn't look anything like that of 1970. Big Labor almost vanished: Most union members today are public employees.
The Obama Democrats, faced with a grave economic crisis, responded with policies appropriate to the Big Unit America that was disappearing during the president's childhood.
Their financial policy has been to freeze the big banks into place. Their industrial policy was to preserve as much as they could of General Motors and Chrysler for the benefit of the United Auto Workers. Their health care policy was designed to benefit Big Pharma and other big players. Their housing policy has been to try to maintain existing prices. Their macroeconomic policy was to increase the size and scope of existing government agencies to what looks to be the bursting point.
What we see is Big Government colluding with Big Business and trying to breathe life into Big Labor.
Some of this can be defended. The Obama Democrats are right in pointing out that the TARP financial bailout was the product of the George W. Bush administration, and they may well be right that it would have been disastrous to allow Citibank to fail.
But Big Unit policies are not a good fit for a country that has grown out of the wreckage the Big Units made of things in the 1970s. They freeze poorly performing incumbents in place, and they don't provide the breathing room for small units to start up and grow.
In the meantime, the Big Units are not performing as well as they did for Dr. Win the War. The visibly flagging economy and the slapdash stimulus and health care bills have left most voters ready to take a chance on the still reviled Republicans. The unanswered question is, will the Republicans have an effective alternative to Big Unit governance?
Michael Barone
Michael Barone is a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. He is Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner and a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Michael Barone's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
FROM TOWNHALL
Arizona vs. the U.N. Human Rights Police
Email Michelle Malkin
Columnist's Archive Share8 Buzz digg
Sign-Up An indignant President Obama complained last week, "I can't spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead." Fine. How about plastering a copy of his presidential oath of office there instead? The kowtowing commander-in-chief is in dire need of a daily reminder that his job is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- not international law or global diktats.
Case in point: Last week, Obama's State Department handed in America's first-ever report to the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights in conjunction with something called the "Universal Periodic Review." In short, the 29-page document is a self-aggrandizing report card touting the administration's far-left domestic and foreign policy initiatives for the world's approval. The report boasts of racial- and gender-bean-counting in the executive branch; Justice Department outreach to Muslim grievance groups opposed to post-9/11 security measures; teachers' union payoffs in the federal stimulus law; continuing commitment to closing the Gitmo detention facility for enemy combatants; and the illusory lifesaving effects of Obamacare on minorities through "expanding community health centers" (which have yet to be built, but not that it matters in our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president's age of post-achievement).
The report also includes a section on "values and immigration," which essentially singles out Arizona's immigration enforcement law as a human rights deficiency "that is being addressed in a court action."
In response, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer rightly blasted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration for succumbing to "internationalism run amok." Brewer pointed out in a letter to Clinton, "Human rights as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions are expressly protected in S.B. 1070 and defended vigorously by my Administration. In fact, the Department of Justice has correctly not included these so-called 'human rights' issues in the current litigation against the State of Arizona." Somehow, that inconvenient detail escaped the Foggy Bottom bureaucrats' notice.
No one should be surprised, of course, that the Department of Blame America First is prostrating itself before the likes of repressive U.N. Human Rights Council members Libya, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China. No one should be surprised that Obama's globalist panderers couldn't simply keep their mouths shut and refrain from trashing Americans with whom they disagree. In May, you'll recall, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner preemptively trashed our country's human rights record to Chinese government officials and humiliated Arizonans -- and all Americans -- who support states' rights to protect their borders and enhance their security through strict immigration enforcement. An obsequious Posner called S.B. 1070 "a troubling trend in our society" in his bow-and-scrape conversations with the ChiComs.
The inclusion of Arizona in a politically correct catalogue of human rights and wrongs is more than "downright offensive," as Brewer put it. It's a national travesty. In the very same Obama administration document, the State Department praises the administration for its "robust protections for freedom of expression." The report notes sanctimoniously: "As a general matter, the government does not punish or penalize those who peacefully express their views in the public sphere, even when those views are critical of the government. Indeed, dissent is a valuable and valued part of our politics."
Yeah? Tell that to the Democratic members of Congress leading the punitive economic boycott and political demonization of Arizona. Or to Attorney General Eric Holder, who rushed to attack S.B. 1070 before he had even read it. Fresh off this U.N. mess, Holder's Social Justice Department has launched yet another vendetta against Arizona. On Monday, DOJ filed suit against Phoenix-area community colleges because they imposed strict citizenship screening of potential employees.
As Obama throws America under the bus for the cause of open borders, the shady U.N. human rights police must be laughing their jackboots off.
Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin makes news and waves with a unique combination of investigative journalism and incisive commentary. She is the author of Culture of Corruption.
Be the first to read Michelle Malkin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox
Email Michelle Malkin
Columnist's Archive Share8 Buzz digg
Sign-Up An indignant President Obama complained last week, "I can't spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead." Fine. How about plastering a copy of his presidential oath of office there instead? The kowtowing commander-in-chief is in dire need of a daily reminder that his job is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" -- not international law or global diktats.
Case in point: Last week, Obama's State Department handed in America's first-ever report to the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights in conjunction with something called the "Universal Periodic Review." In short, the 29-page document is a self-aggrandizing report card touting the administration's far-left domestic and foreign policy initiatives for the world's approval. The report boasts of racial- and gender-bean-counting in the executive branch; Justice Department outreach to Muslim grievance groups opposed to post-9/11 security measures; teachers' union payoffs in the federal stimulus law; continuing commitment to closing the Gitmo detention facility for enemy combatants; and the illusory lifesaving effects of Obamacare on minorities through "expanding community health centers" (which have yet to be built, but not that it matters in our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president's age of post-achievement).
The report also includes a section on "values and immigration," which essentially singles out Arizona's immigration enforcement law as a human rights deficiency "that is being addressed in a court action."
In response, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer rightly blasted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration for succumbing to "internationalism run amok." Brewer pointed out in a letter to Clinton, "Human rights as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona Constitutions are expressly protected in S.B. 1070 and defended vigorously by my Administration. In fact, the Department of Justice has correctly not included these so-called 'human rights' issues in the current litigation against the State of Arizona." Somehow, that inconvenient detail escaped the Foggy Bottom bureaucrats' notice.
No one should be surprised, of course, that the Department of Blame America First is prostrating itself before the likes of repressive U.N. Human Rights Council members Libya, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China. No one should be surprised that Obama's globalist panderers couldn't simply keep their mouths shut and refrain from trashing Americans with whom they disagree. In May, you'll recall, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner preemptively trashed our country's human rights record to Chinese government officials and humiliated Arizonans -- and all Americans -- who support states' rights to protect their borders and enhance their security through strict immigration enforcement. An obsequious Posner called S.B. 1070 "a troubling trend in our society" in his bow-and-scrape conversations with the ChiComs.
The inclusion of Arizona in a politically correct catalogue of human rights and wrongs is more than "downright offensive," as Brewer put it. It's a national travesty. In the very same Obama administration document, the State Department praises the administration for its "robust protections for freedom of expression." The report notes sanctimoniously: "As a general matter, the government does not punish or penalize those who peacefully express their views in the public sphere, even when those views are critical of the government. Indeed, dissent is a valuable and valued part of our politics."
Yeah? Tell that to the Democratic members of Congress leading the punitive economic boycott and political demonization of Arizona. Or to Attorney General Eric Holder, who rushed to attack S.B. 1070 before he had even read it. Fresh off this U.N. mess, Holder's Social Justice Department has launched yet another vendetta against Arizona. On Monday, DOJ filed suit against Phoenix-area community colleges because they imposed strict citizenship screening of potential employees.
As Obama throws America under the bus for the cause of open borders, the shady U.N. human rights police must be laughing their jackboots off.
Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin makes news and waves with a unique combination of investigative journalism and incisive commentary. She is the author of Culture of Corruption.
Be the first to read Michelle Malkin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox
FROM TOWNHALL
The Never Land Mosque
Email Mike Adams
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz digg
Sign-Up I’m sitting at my desk trying to think of ways to insult the followers of Islam as intentionally and as maliciously as the Park51 organizers have recently insulted the citizens of this great Christian nation. It isn’t easy to be as abrasive and arrogant as those who propose building a mosque at Ground Zero. But I’m trying my best.
Here are some of my ideas:
I propose building a mosque at Never Land ranch, the former home of Michael Jackson. I would then defend the building of the mosque by reminding opponents that people have been making pilgrimages to Never Land in order to worship a mentally deranged pedophile for years. Putting a mosque there would not change things substantially. Plus, one can reach California from Dearborn, Michigan in a couple of days. The same cannot be said of Mecca.
I propose building a large bomb filled with bacon grease, which would be dropped on the new Ground Zero mosque during the ground-breaking ceremony. Dubbed the “Mother of All Bacon,” or MOAB, this bomb would not actually hurt anyone. It would just permanently defile the location so that no one could worship there. That would take care of any Separation of Church and State issues in the event that Obama tries to use any future stimulus money during site construction. My bomb would also have a picture of Mohammed painted on the side with the caption “Mr. SOB” printed below.
In case you were wondering, “Mr. SOB” is short for “Mr. Scared-of-Bacon.”
Finally, I would propose setting up a vending area that fully surrounds the Ground Zero mosque. I would then gather a number of my redneck friends from South Carolina for a massive hog hunt. We would then sell the smoked hogs at vending locations near each entrance to the Ground Zero mosque. I would offer a “Boar-doba” special all-you-can-eat pig pickin’ platter for $9.11.
Before anyone gets too upset with my proposals and tries to behead me for my remarks on Islam, please remember two things:
1) I am writing this column with a loaded double barrel shotgun to my right and a loaded .357 magnum to my left. If you are a sword-wielding jihadist, please don’t bother. You’ll only annoy me and make me spill my coffee.
2) I am writing this column with tongue firmly planted in cheek. No follower of Jesus would take even one of my proposals seriously. They are meant to remind readers of just how crude, barbaric, violent, and intentionally insulting the followers of Islam really are. Religion of peace, my backside!
It may well surprise my readers when they hear me say that I will not join the efforts of those who seek to block the building of the new mosque at Ground Zero. I take this position for the same reason that I have refused to support legislation banning the burning of the American Flag.
John Stewart Mill once said that censorship is wrong for two reasons. First, it deprives people of the truth. Second, it deprives people of a greater appreciation of the truth via its juxtaposition with falsity.
When someone burns an American Flag we learn the truth about the extent of anti-Americanism among the ranks of our own. We also develop a greater appreciation of those who have fought for our freedoms. When I see my neighbor burning a flag I can boycott his business. I can then give my business to a veteran who has fought to defend the hateful idiocy of flag burners everywhere.
We cannot punish anti-Americanism if we engage in the prior restraint of its expression. We must allow it to flourish for a time if we are to mobilize a more effective response. The application of this reasoning to the controversy over the present Ground Zero mosque is obvious.
By not standing in the way of the construction of this mosque we will allow its supporters to exercise fully their constitutional right to make fools of themselves. When the mosque is completed I look forward to retracing the trail of its financial supporters to the very beginning. I have no doubt that such a search will lead us into the halls of the Obama White House. Nor do I have any doubt that Obama’s affirmative support of this project will lead to his permanent political downfall.
In the end, members of the Obama Administration may decide that the complex housing the mosque at Ground Zero would be a good place for an Obama Presidential Library. Either way, it is a good place to celebrate anti-Americanism for the free world to see and the sane world to judge.
Mike Adams
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
____________________________________________________________
OK WHO IS GONNA BUY A HOG & PUT IT, WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD THE MOSQUE NEAR GROUND ZERO SITE? KILL THE HOG THERE & HAVE THE HOG DEFILE THE GROUND.
Email Mike Adams
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz digg
Sign-Up I’m sitting at my desk trying to think of ways to insult the followers of Islam as intentionally and as maliciously as the Park51 organizers have recently insulted the citizens of this great Christian nation. It isn’t easy to be as abrasive and arrogant as those who propose building a mosque at Ground Zero. But I’m trying my best.
Here are some of my ideas:
I propose building a mosque at Never Land ranch, the former home of Michael Jackson. I would then defend the building of the mosque by reminding opponents that people have been making pilgrimages to Never Land in order to worship a mentally deranged pedophile for years. Putting a mosque there would not change things substantially. Plus, one can reach California from Dearborn, Michigan in a couple of days. The same cannot be said of Mecca.
I propose building a large bomb filled with bacon grease, which would be dropped on the new Ground Zero mosque during the ground-breaking ceremony. Dubbed the “Mother of All Bacon,” or MOAB, this bomb would not actually hurt anyone. It would just permanently defile the location so that no one could worship there. That would take care of any Separation of Church and State issues in the event that Obama tries to use any future stimulus money during site construction. My bomb would also have a picture of Mohammed painted on the side with the caption “Mr. SOB” printed below.
In case you were wondering, “Mr. SOB” is short for “Mr. Scared-of-Bacon.”
Finally, I would propose setting up a vending area that fully surrounds the Ground Zero mosque. I would then gather a number of my redneck friends from South Carolina for a massive hog hunt. We would then sell the smoked hogs at vending locations near each entrance to the Ground Zero mosque. I would offer a “Boar-doba” special all-you-can-eat pig pickin’ platter for $9.11.
Before anyone gets too upset with my proposals and tries to behead me for my remarks on Islam, please remember two things:
1) I am writing this column with a loaded double barrel shotgun to my right and a loaded .357 magnum to my left. If you are a sword-wielding jihadist, please don’t bother. You’ll only annoy me and make me spill my coffee.
2) I am writing this column with tongue firmly planted in cheek. No follower of Jesus would take even one of my proposals seriously. They are meant to remind readers of just how crude, barbaric, violent, and intentionally insulting the followers of Islam really are. Religion of peace, my backside!
It may well surprise my readers when they hear me say that I will not join the efforts of those who seek to block the building of the new mosque at Ground Zero. I take this position for the same reason that I have refused to support legislation banning the burning of the American Flag.
John Stewart Mill once said that censorship is wrong for two reasons. First, it deprives people of the truth. Second, it deprives people of a greater appreciation of the truth via its juxtaposition with falsity.
When someone burns an American Flag we learn the truth about the extent of anti-Americanism among the ranks of our own. We also develop a greater appreciation of those who have fought for our freedoms. When I see my neighbor burning a flag I can boycott his business. I can then give my business to a veteran who has fought to defend the hateful idiocy of flag burners everywhere.
We cannot punish anti-Americanism if we engage in the prior restraint of its expression. We must allow it to flourish for a time if we are to mobilize a more effective response. The application of this reasoning to the controversy over the present Ground Zero mosque is obvious.
By not standing in the way of the construction of this mosque we will allow its supporters to exercise fully their constitutional right to make fools of themselves. When the mosque is completed I look forward to retracing the trail of its financial supporters to the very beginning. I have no doubt that such a search will lead us into the halls of the Obama White House. Nor do I have any doubt that Obama’s affirmative support of this project will lead to his permanent political downfall.
In the end, members of the Obama Administration may decide that the complex housing the mosque at Ground Zero would be a good place for an Obama Presidential Library. Either way, it is a good place to celebrate anti-Americanism for the free world to see and the sane world to judge.
Mike Adams
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" On Campus.
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to receive Mike Adams' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
____________________________________________________________
OK WHO IS GONNA BUY A HOG & PUT IT, WHERE THEY WANT TO BUILD THE MOSQUE NEAR GROUND ZERO SITE? KILL THE HOG THERE & HAVE THE HOG DEFILE THE GROUND.
FROM TOWNHALL
Time enough to know the real Obama
Email Marybeth Hicks
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz digg
Sign-Up When I ask my daughter how things are going at school, her voice tells me more than her words. “It’s all good,” she says with lukewarm enthusiasm. Obviously, it’s not.
Explaining her misgivings about some friends she thought she knew well, she reminds herself, “I’m disappointed, but I guess it just takes time to get to know people.”
It’s an important life lesson. We can’t know others based on first impressions or even on shared but limited experiences. We’re not friends because Facebook says so, or because we’ve hung out occasionally.
It simply takes time to get to know people well enough to truly discern their authentic character.
This lesson is as true in our national politics as it is in a college dorm.
I’ve always tried to view politicians as both officeholders and fellow citizens. As officeholders, I can vehemently disagree with their ideas and political points of view, but as fellow citizens, I appreciate their talents and personalities.
In fact, I’ve admired plenty of politicians whose policies I believe are pure hooey, and when he first appeared on the national scene, President Obama was among those.
I hoped that he looked at his fellow citizens in the same way – that while he won 52 percent of the popular vote for the presidency, he at least respected the 46 percent of us who didn’t elect him based on the fact that we strongly opposed his agenda.
I’m convinced now, though, that Mr. Obama holds in contempt anyone who disagrees with him. He pays lip service to the notion of “spirited debate,” but the truth is, he thinks those who espouse traditional values are just a bunch of uneducated bumpkins.
Case in point: When asked on Sunday by NBC newsman Brian Williams about his impression of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who gathered in Washington for conservative radio/TV host Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally, the president said, “I — I do think that it’s important for us to recognize that right now, the country’s going through a very difficult time, as a consequence of years of neglect in a whole range of areas. Our schools not working the way they need to, so we’ve slipped in terms of the number of college graduates, you know?... So, given all those anxieties…It’s not surprising that somebody like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion of the country.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama used a lie to insult that “certain portion” of folks. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports record numbers of college graduates in the years from 1997 through 2008, a trend that continues.
He’s right about one thing; people are anxious and he’s the reason.
It’s incumbent on all of us to assess not only the performance in office that has Mr. Obama’s poll numbers plummeting, but more importantly, the moral character of our president.
Conservative columnist, attorney and best-selling author David Limbaugh says, “As fellow guardians of the public trust we have a duty to examine a politician’s record, his actions, and all of his statements, not just the ones that we want to hear.”
In his new book, Crimes Against Liberty, Limbaugh meticulously lays out the President’s offenses to Americans, our institutions, and our general welfare and standing in the world. It’s startling to see how much evidence Limbaugh has amassed in such a short time to illustrate the contempt for his fellow citizens that underlies Mr. Obama’s words and deeds. [Full disclosure: I am a fellow Regnery Publishing author].
“The American people, and especially astute pundits and commentators, should not have been fooled by Obama's masquerade as a post-partisan,” Limbaugh told me. “Obama's true plans were there for all but the willfully obtuse to see and no one has a reasonable excuse for being fooled by his extreme liberalism, even though he adamantly denied it during the campaign.”
It’s disappointing, to be sure. But we can’t pretend we don’t know him now.
Marybeth Hicks
Marybeth Hicks is the author of Bringing up Geeks: How to Protect Your Kid’s Childhood in a Grow-up-too-fast World (Penguin/Berkley, July 2008).
Email Marybeth Hicks
Columnist's Archive Share Buzz digg
Sign-Up When I ask my daughter how things are going at school, her voice tells me more than her words. “It’s all good,” she says with lukewarm enthusiasm. Obviously, it’s not.
Explaining her misgivings about some friends she thought she knew well, she reminds herself, “I’m disappointed, but I guess it just takes time to get to know people.”
It’s an important life lesson. We can’t know others based on first impressions or even on shared but limited experiences. We’re not friends because Facebook says so, or because we’ve hung out occasionally.
It simply takes time to get to know people well enough to truly discern their authentic character.
This lesson is as true in our national politics as it is in a college dorm.
I’ve always tried to view politicians as both officeholders and fellow citizens. As officeholders, I can vehemently disagree with their ideas and political points of view, but as fellow citizens, I appreciate their talents and personalities.
In fact, I’ve admired plenty of politicians whose policies I believe are pure hooey, and when he first appeared on the national scene, President Obama was among those.
I hoped that he looked at his fellow citizens in the same way – that while he won 52 percent of the popular vote for the presidency, he at least respected the 46 percent of us who didn’t elect him based on the fact that we strongly opposed his agenda.
I’m convinced now, though, that Mr. Obama holds in contempt anyone who disagrees with him. He pays lip service to the notion of “spirited debate,” but the truth is, he thinks those who espouse traditional values are just a bunch of uneducated bumpkins.
Case in point: When asked on Sunday by NBC newsman Brian Williams about his impression of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who gathered in Washington for conservative radio/TV host Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally, the president said, “I — I do think that it’s important for us to recognize that right now, the country’s going through a very difficult time, as a consequence of years of neglect in a whole range of areas. Our schools not working the way they need to, so we’ve slipped in terms of the number of college graduates, you know?... So, given all those anxieties…It’s not surprising that somebody like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion of the country.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama used a lie to insult that “certain portion” of folks. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports record numbers of college graduates in the years from 1997 through 2008, a trend that continues.
He’s right about one thing; people are anxious and he’s the reason.
It’s incumbent on all of us to assess not only the performance in office that has Mr. Obama’s poll numbers plummeting, but more importantly, the moral character of our president.
Conservative columnist, attorney and best-selling author David Limbaugh says, “As fellow guardians of the public trust we have a duty to examine a politician’s record, his actions, and all of his statements, not just the ones that we want to hear.”
In his new book, Crimes Against Liberty, Limbaugh meticulously lays out the President’s offenses to Americans, our institutions, and our general welfare and standing in the world. It’s startling to see how much evidence Limbaugh has amassed in such a short time to illustrate the contempt for his fellow citizens that underlies Mr. Obama’s words and deeds. [Full disclosure: I am a fellow Regnery Publishing author].
“The American people, and especially astute pundits and commentators, should not have been fooled by Obama's masquerade as a post-partisan,” Limbaugh told me. “Obama's true plans were there for all but the willfully obtuse to see and no one has a reasonable excuse for being fooled by his extreme liberalism, even though he adamantly denied it during the campaign.”
It’s disappointing, to be sure. But we can’t pretend we don’t know him now.
Marybeth Hicks
Marybeth Hicks is the author of Bringing up Geeks: How to Protect Your Kid’s Childhood in a Grow-up-too-fast World (Penguin/Berkley, July 2008).
FROM TOWNHALL
The president's agenda, arrogance and attitude have dulled that shiny, gold-plated image so many Americans bought. Now, his hubris and damn-the-voters posture are leading his party to a 2010 disaster.
President George W. Bush was a buoy for Republicans in 2002, the first midterm election of his presidency. Obama, on the other hand, is like an anvil. How did things go so wrong?
His predicament is partly the result of bad luck. Obama did not create the bad economy, even if it helped him get elected. He did not cause the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, even if a majority of Americans now frown upon his response to it. Both circumstances are now exacerbating his current problems, but neither can explain the relatively sudden crackup that polls suggest happened between late 2009 and early 2010.
The simplest explanation for Obama's demise is ObamaCare, but it's still not enough just to point to the law itself. Think of the health care debate as the small chip in your windshield, which, though small, compromises its integrity. When your car hits the next big bump, the chip becomes a crack, which then grows and spreads with every little jolt. In similar fashion, Obama's ruthless push for health care reform—and his failure to heed the public's negative reaction—created the first cracks in Obama's administration. They have since widened and multiplied with each new disaster, gaffe and piece of bad economic news.
Obama laid the groundwork for failure much earlier, during his 2008 election campaign. As a candidate, he promised Hope, Change and as few specifics as reasonably possible. This was the political path of least resistance, and President George W. Bush's unpopularity virtually guaranteed its success. The mainstream media, enrapt by the candidate's tingle-inspiring rhetoric and transformative post-partisanship, did as little as possible to reveal Obama's true policy intentions and left-leaning ideological origins.
This played to Obama's strong suit. David Mendell of the Chicago Tribune wrote in his 2007 biography, "Obama: From Promise to Power," of the senator’s "ingenious lack of specificity. … While talking or writing about a deeply controversial subject, he considers all points of view before cautiously giving his own often risk-averse assessment, an opinion that often appears so universal that people of various viewpoints would consider it their own."
This formula, along with incredible good luck, had been key to Obama’s effortless political rise as a legislator. But when it brought him to executive power, the effect was slightly different. Because he never had to sell his least popular policy reforms, Obama won office without the broad mandate he needed to govern as he wanted. This is the best available explanation for why Americans reacted so negatively to his agenda as soon as it materialized in Congress. They suddenly felt surprised, even deceived, after all the talk of post-partisanship.
President George W. Bush was a buoy for Republicans in 2002, the first midterm election of his presidency. Obama, on the other hand, is like an anvil. How did things go so wrong?
His predicament is partly the result of bad luck. Obama did not create the bad economy, even if it helped him get elected. He did not cause the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, even if a majority of Americans now frown upon his response to it. Both circumstances are now exacerbating his current problems, but neither can explain the relatively sudden crackup that polls suggest happened between late 2009 and early 2010.
The simplest explanation for Obama's demise is ObamaCare, but it's still not enough just to point to the law itself. Think of the health care debate as the small chip in your windshield, which, though small, compromises its integrity. When your car hits the next big bump, the chip becomes a crack, which then grows and spreads with every little jolt. In similar fashion, Obama's ruthless push for health care reform—and his failure to heed the public's negative reaction—created the first cracks in Obama's administration. They have since widened and multiplied with each new disaster, gaffe and piece of bad economic news.
Obama laid the groundwork for failure much earlier, during his 2008 election campaign. As a candidate, he promised Hope, Change and as few specifics as reasonably possible. This was the political path of least resistance, and President George W. Bush's unpopularity virtually guaranteed its success. The mainstream media, enrapt by the candidate's tingle-inspiring rhetoric and transformative post-partisanship, did as little as possible to reveal Obama's true policy intentions and left-leaning ideological origins.
This played to Obama's strong suit. David Mendell of the Chicago Tribune wrote in his 2007 biography, "Obama: From Promise to Power," of the senator’s "ingenious lack of specificity. … While talking or writing about a deeply controversial subject, he considers all points of view before cautiously giving his own often risk-averse assessment, an opinion that often appears so universal that people of various viewpoints would consider it their own."
This formula, along with incredible good luck, had been key to Obama’s effortless political rise as a legislator. But when it brought him to executive power, the effect was slightly different. Because he never had to sell his least popular policy reforms, Obama won office without the broad mandate he needed to govern as he wanted. This is the best available explanation for why Americans reacted so negatively to his agenda as soon as it materialized in Congress. They suddenly felt surprised, even deceived, after all the talk of post-partisanship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
