Islamists have threatened a Christian Bishop in the Philippines… (H/T: UP Pompeii)

Philippine bishop reports receiving threat to convert to Islam

MANILA, Philippines (CNS) — A bishop in the southern Philippines reported receiving a letter threatening him with harm if he does not convert to Islam or pay “Islamic taxes.”

Such brazenness in a country where over 86% of the population is Christian, 9% is Muslim and the remaining 5% is divided among various groups such as: Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, animists and non-believers.

Even if those who sent these letters are no more than common criminals who use religion as a mere tool, the fact that they chose to represent themselves as Muslims is in itself significant. But Muslim brazenness does not stop there, unfortunately, this one is far from an isolated case! Remember the kidnapped and murdered Chaldean archbishop of Mosul, Mgr Faraj Rahho? What about the plight of Assyrian Christians in Iraq? What about the Sabian Mandaeans? Or the plight of Christians girls kidnapped in Nigeria by practitioners of the Religion of Peace? What about the treatment of Christian Copts in Egypt? Ot the threats against Western politicians like Geert Wilders or Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi? The list, gentle reader, goes on and on ad nauseum…

You may read the rest at: Freedom’s Cost

Barack Obama’s youthful volunteers have met more than a few of America’s less savory characters while on the campaign trail, according to a story in the Washington Post. Obama’s skin color - he’s black - if you weren’t aware, is for some voters the most important thing about the man. Sad, but that view is held by voters of all ethnic groups.

(more…)

The Florida legislature approved a statement in which it officially apologized for the slavery suffered by blacks.

I’m a bit ambivalent about this whole apologizing thing. For starters, all the real victims are long dead. Additionally, how could a little piece of paper saying “oops, sorry” do diddly squat to make up for generations of slavery? On the other hand, if it makes the community descendant from those slaves feel better, I guess it’s not too big of a deal. Still, this sins of the fathers business doesn’t sit well with me. An apology to the living victims from the government for Jim Crow, now that I could understand.

Thoughts?

David Schraub wrote a fascinating post about US Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, racism and Black Conservatism.

Many people, left and right, think that Thomas believes racism is over in America. Conservatives believe it because they believe it and think of Thomas as one of them. Liberals believe it because they can’t otherwise fathom why Thomas seems so uninterested in the fight for equality.

But they’ve got it precisely backwards. Thomas doesn’t believe racism is gone in America. Thomas believes racism is irrevocably ingrained in America. In this respect, he draws from a deep Black Conservative tradition that sees little hope in the full-frontal assault for civil rights. Rather, they think the only way equality will be achieved in America is by absorbing everything racism has to throw at you, and still excelling. What this means differs for different theorists (the Black Conservative tradition contains men as widely varied as Booker T. Washington and Marcus Garvey), but the strain of thought tends to accept racism as a fact and demand Black people succeed anyway.

So, at the very core of Thomas’ ‘ideology’ lies that notion that racism will never be eradicated. David uses that to make his main point:

[C]onservatives, especially, need to understand this foundation of Thomas’ politics and jurisprudence. This split Thomas has with White conservative is very deep–one camp believes racism is permanent, the other thinks that it has been eliminated. That’s a major gap. Basically, I think it is qualitatively different for a Black person versus a White person to say “racism is permanent.” The reason the former says it is because the latter isn’t willing to do anything about it. As a White person (liberal or conservative) hearing the Black Conservative critique, my only ethical response is to try and prove him wrong. I may fail at it–but virtually any framework that believes racism is bad cannot then allow White people to concede to it without a fight. Because White conservatives don’t grapple with Thomas’ basic observation of racial dynamics, they avoid this tension–but only at the cost of not taking one of their own champions seriously.

I am more realistic, perhaps, than David is. Racism will never completely disappear, simply because prejudices will never disappear and because people will never be completely, or even overwhelmingly or even mostly, virtuous. On the other hand, Justice Thomas’ approach is a bit too passive for my taste. I do think that racism can be fought against, that its influence can be decreased. Not completely, no, but to quite an extent, yes.

I won’t comment on the now infamous German army training video in which an instructor tells a soldier to imagine that he’s facing African-Americans in the Bronx while firing his machinegun, except to say that it is more than just outrageous.

Why? Because I am Dutch - when things like this happen I have a hard time not referring to a certain World War and wondering whether it’s in the genes, etc.

Luckily, Jules Crittenden did respond: und auch yo mutti!

Go to Hot Air to watch two videos featuring Michelle Malkin. In the first one she interviews Opio Sokoni, in the second Black Panther Malik Shabazz.

Quite interesting how these two people are, actually, racists themselves. It’s all “the white man’s fault”. Malik Shabazz even calls Michelle a political prostitute for ‘the white man’.

I do not agree with Michelle on everything (I’m also not a big fan of her interview style by the way), but this black panther clearly causes the line.

And blaming the way rappers refer to women on ‘the white man’? O please.

We should all unite against racism, no matter where we live, but Opio Sokoni and Malik Shabazz don’t do the African American community a service as far as I am concerned.

Well, that’s it for Don Imus: CBS has fired him.

I never heard of Don Imus before this controversy, so I also never listened to his show. I detest racism, but I do not believe, after reading up on Imus, that he is a racist. He was making a joke.

Besides, Sharpton et alia really have no say about racism, discrimination, etc.

Hypocrisy, isn’t it a bliss?

Shortly after Barack Obama’s call on NBC to fire Don Imus, news broke NBC did just that.

The Rev. Al Sharpton, who had been among the leaders of the movement to force Mr. Imus off the air, said in a telephone interview that “we have been halfway successful so far,” and that he and others would continue to press CBS to join NBC in firing Mr. Imus.

Mr. Sharpton said he was organizing a rally to take place today outside CBS’s corporate headquarters in Manhattan.

“This has never been about Don Imus,” Mr. Sharpton said. “I have no idea whether his is a good man or not. This is about the use of public airwaves for bigoted, racist speech.”

If you don’t have an idea whether Imus “is a good man or not”, you should not try to get him fired and accuse him of being a racist either. First do you homework Mr. Sharpton: with racism cases always keep an eye on intent.

I have no sympathy for the talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Imus who try to create as much controversies as possible, who constantly disrespect political opponents, etc. But I have no sympathy for people like Al Sharpton either: I can smell the hypocrisy over here, in the Netherlands.

What about rap songs? What about the way blacks refer to each other in songs, movies, interviews, etc.?

What about freedom of speech, so celebrated by the left these days. Seemingly, except for someone says something they don’t like. If you believe that Imus crossed the line, stop watching his show. Don’t try to destroy his career completely.

Meanwhile, John Amato wonders when all the other “racist talk show hosts on Conservative radio be fired? They spew garbage all day long like Limbaugh (Halfrican American) and Beck with never any consequences.”

Once it starts… it does not stop for a long time.

MSNBC reports:

After a career of cranky insults, radio star Don Imus was fighting for his job Monday following one joke that by his own admission went “way too far.”

CBS Radio and MSNBC both said they were suspending Imus’ morning talk show for two weeks following his reference last week to members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos.”

While CBS made its announcement without comment, MSNBC said Imus’ regret at making the inappropriate comment and his stated dedication to changing the show’s discourse made it believe this was the appropriate response.

So, this is all about ethics, right?

Well no, not exactly:

Imus could be in real danger if the outcry causes advertisers to shy away from him, said Tom Taylor, editor of the trade publication Inside Radio.

Close enough.

Hot Air has the video up of Imus’ appearance on Al Sharpton’s talk radio show.

Hot Air’s Bryan comments that, according to him, “neither of these guys deserves the prominence they both enjoy.”

Ed Morrissey shows that “it’s not the only time Imus has demonstrated a tone deafness on race.”

As for me: I have never listened to Imus’ show, I do not know anything about him, I detest racism, but I am not a fan of political correctness either. One always has to look at the intend, especially in racism cases. People are too easily accused of being racist.

H/t Memeorandum.

Steve Sailer wrote an essay for The American Conservative that’s sure to raise some controversy.

Andrew Sullivan calls Sailer’s essay “stimulating” and “provocative” and comments: “The account of Obama’s alcoholic, absent, polygamous father is the kind of thing you keep in mind when considering the psyche of a possible president.”

No you don’t. Well, I don’t. Well, I do in a way I guess: it makes me respect Obama more. His father was an alcoholic, absent father, but look at how well Obama turned out. He’s one of the political revelation of the last year, he’s got a lot of potential, he wrote a best seller (#1 on the NYT best seller list), he’s rising in the polls, etc.

Anyway, so far the part on which I disagree with Sailer and Sullivan. Namely, I can understand the interest Sailer has for Obama’s racial views and how he thinks of himself.

Matthew Yglesias reacted quite aggressively to Sailer’s essay and to Andrew’s post:

I wonder if Sullivan got all the way to the end of Sailer’s essay, which I found “stimulating” in all the worst ways…

We’re seriously supposed to worry that if Obama becomes president his “heart” may prove stronger than his “head” and he’ll sell us all down the river to become a corrupt East African big man? Really? We also learn that Obama is “nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against his mother’s race” — i.e., Barack hates white people…

Sailer’s race hang-ups are leading him to see things that nobody else sees because they’re not really there.

One of the things I noticed about Sailer’s column is that he doesn’t exactly seem to think highly of Kenyans. He refers to Obama’s male relatives as men who “work as little as possible” and who “rely on their womenfolk for food and shelter” and to his female relatives as women who “re looking for what the author’s grandfather and uncle Sayid both call a “big man” to ease their burdens with funds extracted from the government.”

Later on: “Obama surely knows that his becoming the world’s biggest man would be bad for the work ethic of Kenyans, some of whom would assume America would support them.” The common theme / implication is clear: those darn lazy Kenyans!

Khalid Mansour wrote a nice article for Palestinian newspaper Neda al Quds in which he says some nice things about Condoleezza Rice. Mutasem Sinnokrot translated Marsour’s article for Watching America.

Mansour wrote, among other things, that Rice deserves to be stoned.
(more…)

Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both marched in Selma, Albama, and “made deeply personal appeals to voters in the sanctuaries of black churches”.

Hillary was supported by her husband Bill who was and remains incredibly popular among black voters. On the other there is, of course, Barack Obama who is black himself which should give him quite an edge.

As some others note, Obama’s speech was much stronger than that of Hillary Clinton. Here’s the evidence I’d like to submit (thank you Don):

Keep reading this>>

CNN: Whites say yes, blacks say no. The network has an interesting video up at its website (”Whites say U.S. ready for Obama, blacks don’t”.

The good news for Obama? African-Americans are - gradually - seeing him in a more favorable light.