61% of New Yorkers Oppose Ground Zero Mosque

A new poll from Siena finds that 61 percent of New York residents and 56 percent of New York City residents oppose the proposed Ground Zero mosque. Only 33 percent of NYC residents support it. Here’s the breakdown:

By a margin of 61 to 26 percent, New Yorkers oppose the proposal to build the Cordoba House, a multi-story Muslim Cultural Center in lower Manhattan two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center according to a new survey released today from the Siena College Research Institute (SRI). New Yorkers have been following the new Arizona immigration law very closely and 52 percent support passing a similar law here in the Empire State. Seventy percent of New York residents say that the presence of 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants poses a somewhat (30%) or very significant (40%) problem to the U.S., and large majorities call for comprehensive immigration reform that would include enhanced border security (79%), the creation of a process for admitting legal temporary workers (70%), and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here (65%).

DoJ steers money to favored groups to fund lawsuits

The Justice Department continues its path towards race-based policymaking. The latest revelation? The Department’s Civil Rights Division is using its power “to not just win compensation for victims of alleged discrimination but also to direct large sums of money to activist groups” to undo other lawsuits alleging discrimination.

Byron York reports over at the Washington Examiner:

In the past, when the Civil Rights Division filed suit against, say, a bank or a landlord, alleging discrimination in lending or rentals, the cases were often settled by the defendant paying a fine to the U.S. Treasury and agreeing to put aside a sum of money to compensate the alleged discrimination victims. There was then a search for those victims — people who were actually denied a loan or an apartment — who stood to be compensated. After everyone who could be found was paid, there was often money left over. That money was returned to the defendant.

Now, Attorney General Eric Holder and Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez have a new plan. Any unspent money will not go back to the defendant but will instead go to a “qualified organization” approved by the Justice Department. And if there is not enough unspent money — that will be determined by the Department — then the defendant might be required to come up with more money to give to the “qualified organization.”

To me, this sounds like a modern twist on the disgraceful practice of champerty and maintenance: the intermeddling of a party to encourage a lawsuit. Justice is throwing around its weight to wring more money from defendants to fund groups that Justice – using its own discretion – feels are deserving of money. This money will be used to fund other lawsuits: a perpetual suing machine that will no doubt gladden the hearts and fill the pocketbooks of these activist groups but also those of trial lawyers (a key Democratic support group), as well.

Of course, the potential for this money to flow towards groups such as ACORN is clear. What is not clear is why this change in policy occurred. Where is the promised transparency and the pledge to run a post-racial Presidency, to be the President of all Americans (“there is no white America, there is no black America”)? Who actually sees a black America and a white America? Is it Eric Holder and the political appointees at Justice(or Just-Us as some wags write)?

Eric Holder slurred Americans by saying we were a “nation of cowards” when it came to discussing race. Meanwhile, in his own bailiwick, he and his minions refuse to discuss their own raced-based policies (stonewalling inquiries regarding the dropping of charges against the New Black Panther Party, for example). But there are other issues that show Holder and Obama’s hand-picked employees following policies that do seem to divide us into favored and disfavored groups .(See also, “Justice Department Continues to Act in Non-Race-Neutral Fashion”).

If Holder wants us not to be a nation of cowards when it comes to race how about starting with himself and his department? How about answering subpoenas regarding policies put in place by him that may strike people as being discriminatory?

Change begins at the top.

Something to keep in mind in November 2010 and November 2012.


The debate over the Bush tax cuts are looming. Harry Reid has decided that he wants to take up legislation on the tax cuts in September … which would be before the November elections. Now the fact of the matter is that most Democrats want the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthy. They know better than to have them expire for all Americans. But they figured that the wealthy could stand to pay more of their “fair share.” But the problem is that many of these Democrats who want to increase taxes on the rich also hail from high-income districts. So they have come up with a solution to this “problem”: Tax the rich people, just not the rich people in my district. Seriously! From the Wall Street Journal:

One irony of the tax increase that arrives on January 1 is that it will hit residents of high-income, Democratic-leaning states like California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York the hardest. This is a problem for pro-tax Democrats.

Enter New York Representative Jerrold Nadler, who wants to exempt his own six-figure constituents from the tax hike he supports. Mr. Nadler’s bill would “require the IRS to adjust tax brackets proportionally in regions where the average cost of living is higher than the national average.”

In other words, the various tax brackets would apply to residents in certain regions at higher income levels versus other parts of the country. A family with an income of $50,000 or even $1 million in Manhattan would pay less federal income tax than a family with the same earnings in Omaha. The bill is called the Tax Equity Act, but a more accurate title would be the Blue State Tax Preference Act.

This is incredible. Let’s make the income tax system more complicated than it already is. Right now we spend from $300 to $500 billion a year in tax compliance costs. Let’s add to that the cost of dealing with different tax rates in different areas of the country based on cost of living figures.