Checking In On Teh Crazie

World Net Daily's posted a shreiking jeremiad about the danger of radical Islam and they don't see the irony of what they've written.

Take a look:

Muslim extremists are using a relatively new tool in their attempt to intimidate and bully Christians, with death threats sent by text-messaging to Christian church leaders, a new report confirms.

The report comes from Compass Direct, which monitors and reports on Christian issues around the globe. The situation has developed in Sudan.

"We want this country to be purely an Islamic state, so we must kill the infidels and destroy their churches all over Sudan," Compass Direct sources in the African nation have reported that one text message said.

Assuming all that is accurate, what is WND missing?

Let me rewrite the text message and I'll show you:

We want this country to be purely an Christian Nation, so we must kill the infidels and destroy their churches all over America.

How outlandish does THAT sound? No one ever said that here, right? As recently as 2004 the Texas Republican Party Platform read:

The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation, and the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history.

Then there was Operation Rescue's Randall Terry in 1993:

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism.

More recently, there's Pam Geller and the non-Mosque at not-Ground Zero.

See? Not so different, is it?

They're Taking Credit Already

Just watched a few minutes of Fox And Friends this morning and they're already taking credit for the death of Osama bin-Laden.

Steve Doocey, Brian Kilmeade and Gretchen Carlson interviewed retired New York City firefighter Tim Brown on this story. And in case you're wondering, Brown's been on Fox before. Here he is arguing against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque (which, let's all remember, wasn't a Mosque and it wasn't at Ground Zero - but who cares about facts when you're smearing on Fox?):



Given his position on the (non) Mosque (not) at Ground Zero, perhaps we can guess Brown's general position here. And of course this is Fox and we know that they're up to.

And he and Fox and Friends certainly delivered this morning. Here's their story: Given that the intelligence regarding the courier that eventually led the intelligence community to bin Laden's compound was initially learned 4 years ago, credit has to be given to the previous administration for it (meaning Bush and not Obama) for it. Kilmeade further went on to say that that intelligence was gathered during the "enhanced interrogations" that some have complained about (meaning the illegal waterboarding).

The bottom line from Fox and Friends: The Bush Administration (through its brave use of torture) is ultimately responsible for finally bringing Osama bin Laden to justice.

The Bastards.

No One Ever Accused Them Of Being Geniuses

It's been a while since I wrote about the (Non)Ground Zero (Non)Mosque figuring the story about the religious intolerance of those opposing the Park51 Project had mercifully faded into a well deserved obscurity.

Never underestimate the power of the righteous intolerant however, especially those who don't track down their facts.

Take a look at this from December 14, 2010:

One of the people promoting the movie is Andy Sullivan, a former professional karate fighter who's worked in the construction business for 30 years. He's even helped build two mosques, he said.

"I got plenty of Muslim friends," he said. "My kids grow up half a block from a mosque in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. That's a very, very huge populace of Muslims, in Bay Ridge. As a matter of fact, they call it Bay-root, now," he said, with a laugh.

But he was outraged at the proposed location for Park51 and said many Muslims he knows are also against the project. In recent months he organized a boycott by construction workers, who said they wouldn't work on the site. He also organized a boycott of celebrities who've endorsed the project, including John Cusack, Mayor Bloomberg, Stephen Colbert and Justin Bieber, who Sullivan claims gave the go-ahead to Park 51 in an interview with Tiger Beat magazine. Sullivan sayid regardless of Bieber's not-so-advanced age, his children will no longer attend Bieber's concerts.

"Are my two kids going to derail the Bieber machine?" asked Sullivan. "I don't think so. But it hurts. He said something that clearly hurt my kids, and hurt me. So, if you're gonna say statements that hurt, be prepared. There's gonna be fallout.

JUSTIN BIEBER?? TIGER BEAT?? What did the little Cah-NAYD-jen say about the NGZ NM?

Salon.com has the story from here:

Intrigued by the idea that Bieber would weigh in on one of the most polarizing political issues of the day, I began looking for his interview with Tiger Beat.

The magazine does cover Bieber obsessively ("Justin Bieber Dodges Dating Selena Gomez Question!" and "Did Justin Bieber Grow a Mustache?" are two recent features). But I couldn't find any sign of an interview on Park51.

So nothing from Tiger beat. So where did Bieber offend Andy the builder?

Here. It's a parody site called Celebjihad:

Justin Bieber has weighed on the controversy surrounding the so-called “Ground Zero” Mosque. In an interview with Tiger Beat, the pop sensation stressed that freedom of religion is what makes America great, and went on to say that those who oppose the Mosque are motivated by bigotry.

“Muslims should be allowed to build a mosque anywhere they want,” the singer said. “Coming from Canada, I’m not used to this level of intolerance, eh.”

Bieber went on to say that Muslims are “super cool,” Christians are “lame-o-rama,” and that the mosque will help “start a dialogue” with all religions about which Justin Bieber song is the most awesome.

“I was like seven when September 11th went down, and frankly I’m surprised people are still going on about it. Move on, already!”

Added the singer, “Everyone needs to just chillax and dance!”

It was posted in August. And how do we know it's a joke? As if the "- eh." at the end of one quotation didn't give it away (or the "chillax and dance" for that matter), Salon has the the site's disclaimer:

CelebJihad.com is a satirical website containing published rumors, speculation, assumptions, opinions, fiction as well as factual information

As well as a confirmation from the the proprietor of Celebjihad.

Didn't Andy ("I got plenty of Muslim friends") Sullivan even bother to track down the "source" of his being offended?

A level-headed rational person would have. But then again, no one ever accused the religiously intolerant of being level-headed or rational.

Let's just move on and chillax and dance already!

Happy New Year, everyone.

Jack Kelly Sunday

In this week's column, Jack Kelly weaves a number of different threads of anecdotal evidence to prove, well I am not sure what - that we live in a land of religious freedom where one religion shouldn't be as free as everyone else? Maybe. I honestly don't know.

Oh yea, he's talking about the "Ground Zero Mosque" (which, again, isn't exactly a mosque and it definitely isn't at Ground Zero - but why let clarity get in the way of demagoguery?)

Jack begins with a constructed polarity:

Writing in National Review in July 2009, Angelo Codevilla said traditional distinctions between Republicans and Democrats were being overshadowed by the split between the "Court Party," which he defined as "the well-connected ... who see themselves as potters of the great American clay," and the " 'Country Party,' the many more who are tired of being treated as clay."

It's certainly interesting that Jack would cite this piece in the NRO in that it begins with:

Far be it from me to suggest that Sarah Palin should be or is likely to be our next president. She has not shown the excellence of cognition or of judgment that would recommend her ahead of other possible candidates, nor does her path to the presidency look easy.

Being that Jack is a Sarah fan from way back.

But back to Jack. While he restates the NRO's definitions of "Court" and "Country" parties, he more or less projects his own content into them from the get go. The "Courts" are the liberal Democrat elites he's looking to ridicule and the "Countrys" are, of course, the Tea Partiers.

With no evidence whatsoever connecting either of of the NRO's year old definitions (from the Summer of 2009, remember) to the events of this summer, Jack asserts:

According to the Court Party, those Americans -- more than two thirds of us, polls indicate -- who oppose construction of a mosque near Ground Zero are motivated chiefly by religious bigotry.

According to the Court Party? Who says that? Is there a quotation I missed somewhere? A source from anywhere to support Jack's point? No. He's projecting what he thinks one dated fabricated abstraction thinks about a recent real event.

And even then, what he's projecting is partial and misleading. From a FoxNews poll taken August 10-11 of this year, when asked this question:

A group of Muslims plans to build a mosque and Islamic cultural center a few blocks from the site of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City. Do you think it is appropriate to build a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero, or do you think it would be wrong to do so?

64% of those polled said it was "wrong" while only 30% said it was appropriate. But when asked this question:

Regardless of whether you think it is appropriate to build a mosque near Ground Zero, do you think the Muslim group has the right to build a mosque there, or don't they have that right?

61% said the group "has the right" to build and only 34% said it doesn't. This is at the heart of tolerance and religious freedom. While we may not agree with a particular religion's tenets, those who practice that religion are absolutely free to do so.

Jack, however, uses some anecdotal evidence to try to prove that there's no religious bigotry in the heartland, so therefore there's no bigotry in his newly embraced "Country Party."

He goes with:

Aman Ali and Bassam Tariq drove 13,000 miles across America during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan with the intention of attending services at 30 mosques within those 30 days. They didn't encounter any of the religious bigotry the Court Party says is endemic.

"Ali and Tariq were embraced nearly everywhere they went, from a Confederate souvenir shop in Georgia, to the streets of Las Vegas, Nevada, to the hills of North Dakota where the nation's first mosque was constructed in 1929," CNN reported Sept. 10.

Mr. Tariq, 23, an American citizen of Pakistani descent, told CNN the reception they received "really made America feel like home to me in a way that I've never felt before."

It is interesting to note that their second blog post (the one they wrote after attending the "Ground Zero Mosque") begins like this:

Dude, it’s just a mosque.

Bassam and I walked into Park 51, the site of the so called “Ground Zero Mosque,” expecting to feel transformed, knowing the fact that I was praying inside the place that’s practically been mentioned in the news every 20 minutes.

But all it felt like – was praying inside a mosque.

Wait, wait, wait. The terrorists are already praying there? My god, they need to be stopped! Muslim prayers at Ground Zero are an insult to the memory of those 4,000 God-fearing Americans killed by Islam on 9/11!

If you missed the satire in the previous paragraph, you're reading the wrong blog. Let's get back to reality.

They're already praying at the Park51 site. So the real question is whether a new building will be built for them. Should the state be given that authority? Should the local (or regional or nation's) population be given that authority?

I think not.

Jack continues his anecdotal ways. Take a look:

And if it's religious bigotry that fuels opposition to the mosque near ground zero, why do most Arabs, most of whom are Muslim, object to its construction?

That was the startling finding of a poll by Elaph, which John Hopkins Prof. Fouad Ajami described as "the most respected electronic daily in the Arab world." According to that poll, 58 percent of its readers oppose building the mosque.

Too bad that when you look at the "poll" you find it's not a poll at all. It's a survey. From the Wall Street Journal:

A survey by Elaph, the most respected electronic daily in the Arab world, gave a decided edge to those who objected to the building of this mosque—58% saw it as a project of folly.

Elaph was at it again in the aftermath of Pastor Terry Jones's threat to burn copies of the Quran: It queried its readers as to whether America was a "tolerant" or a "bigoted" society. The split was 63% to 37% in favor of those who accepted the good faith and pluralism of this country.

See that? The journal "was at it again" when it "queried its readers" about Terry Jones - so what it did there, it also did with the mosque "survey." Do I need to point out how unreliable surveys like this are? They don't tell you much if anything about the general population - only about those self-selected readers of a journal who in another act of self-selection decide to respond to the survey. As solid information, surveys like this are more or less useless.

They're anecdotal. As is most of Jack's column.

Anecdotal evidence built on a fabricated polarity.

And that's not much at all.

The Trib Conveniently Forgets Our History

I don't have much time - but that's OK because this won't take much time.

From today's Thursday Wrap:

What a guy: As you know, U.S. taxpayers have sent controversial Ground Zero imam Feisal Abdul Rauf on a "religious tolerance" tour of the Mideast. This would be the same imam who, according to Human Events, told an audience at the University of Australia in 2005 that the United States is worse than al-Qaida. Specifically: "(T)he United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims." It takes all kinds, doesn't it?

What they left out is the key to their mendacity.

From mediamatters this is, in fact, the entire paragraph from which they snipped that one sentence:

The complexity arises, sir, from the fact that - from political problems and the history of the politics between the West and the Muslim world. We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the U.S.-led sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over a half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.

Yea, remember the sanctions? Remember the sanctions that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children? Iraqi children? Muslim children?

Unicef:

[I]f the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998.

Reason Magazine (even after substantial skepticism of Unicef's numbers):

It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has been ineffective (especially since 1998) and that it has, at the least, contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990.

Um - now go back and look at the Trib-spittle. They're trying to invalidate the imam's words by pointing out how ridiculous that sentence is.

But what happens when it turns out to be true?

Takes all kinds.

It's a joke

That would be much of public discourse now (and some of the policy proposals out there).

The War Against the Poor
It's not enough to give the ultra rich huge tax breaks, you must actively punish the poor:

Carl Paladino, Tea-Party-backed Republican candidate for governor of New York (who has showed up on these pages before for is racist and hardcore porn emails), advocates for the creation of prison dorms for welfare recipients where they can receive training including lessons in "personal hygiene" (because everyone knows that the poor are stinky).

Utah state Sen. Dan Liljenquist wants to cut all elective epidurals and elective C-sections for women on Medicaid (I'm going to take a wild guess here that he's also "pro life" in addition to being pro pain).

The War Against US Muslims

What does it say when the voice of sanity in the Republican party on the Ground Zero Mosque Burlington Coat Factory Non-Mosque is Ron Paul? '...Paul argues that the opposition to the mosque “is all about hate and Islamaphobia,” stoked by “neo-conservatives” who “never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars."'

And, just in case you think it isn't all about "hate and Islamaphobia," you can view a video here of "a person of color wearing a skull cap and wandering through the crowd was targeted with insults and nearly attacked by protesters for the offense of looking vaguely Muslim" at an anti Burlington Coat Factory Non-Mosque protest. You can also hear a person chanting "Mohammad is a pig."

The War Against President Obama
Last week I spent some time in my old stomping grounds (Jeannette, Hempfield, Greensburg -- or as I like to refer to it -- The Heart of Darkness). While there, the following marred the lovely landscape:

A group of four billboards. One said "Obama Care Shovel Ready" over a picture of a cemetery. Another announced a 9/11 T.E.A. Party at Bushy Run Battlefield. Right under that, was one with a graphic of the US Capitol dome with the words "Throw the bums out" (I'm guessing based on the other two signs that "bums" referred to Dems). A little further down Route 30 was a billboard which proclaimed "Marriage...God's plan for Safe Sex" (you can be sure that the picture was of one man and one woman). There were also more yard-size T.E.A. Party signs on the back roads of Greensburg than I cared to count.

A man I met who, while telling me that he didn't follow politics, was absolutely certain that Obama didn't have a US birth certificate. When I told him that a copy has been available online for two years, he looked like I told him his parents were really Santa Claus.

.

Jack Kelly Sunday

I guess I am not surprised that Post-Gazette Columnist Jack Kelly would wander, this week, into the hall of smoke and mirrors constructed by his fellow conservative voices. The spin is obvious from the opening gesture:

We got an indication of how deeply President Barack Obama has stepped in it Wednesday when New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd compared him unfavorably to George W. Bush. Any day now Hell will freeze over (global warming alarmists be warned).

When Mr. Obama jumped unbidden into the controversy over the proposed mosque and community center two blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood, he committed, arguably, the greatest unforced error in the history of our politics.

Thousands of American troops (and countless Iraqi citizens) dead due one (republican) president's lies and this (democratic) president's defense of religious freedom is the greatest unforced error in American politcs.

Yea, I know. I don't understand that either.

But let's take a look at what Maureen Dowd actually said. Dowd takes Obama to task for "skittering back" from a stand on first principle and then "tak[ing] it back the next day."

Which, of course, isn't exactly true. As I wrote here, when you look at what the president actually said at the iftar and then compare that to what he said the next day, there's little, if any, conflict.

It's only when you project "endorsement" onto the first statement does the second look like a backtrack - something Dowd and a large chunk of the so-called liberal media does.

And something Jack actually seems to recognize:

But at a White House dinner to celebrate the Muslim feast of iftar, Mr. Obama gave remarks which both supporters and opponents of the ground zero mosque interpreted as a ringing endorsement of the project.

The president's speech nationalized the issue, and turned "a brushfire into a prairie fire," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.

The next day, after a torrent of criticism, Mr. Obama "clarified" his remarks. He was only defending the right of its backers to build the mosque, not expressing an opinion on the wisdom of doing so. [emphasis added.]

He doesn't say Obama endorsed. He says Obama's words were "interpreted" as an endorsement. When that turned out to be less than accurate (and promting the "clarification" the next day) suddenly we see the president "skittering" back. It's all a media construct.

Jack completely steps in it with this attempted rewrite of history:

But the right to build the mosque was not in controversy...

Really? So Jack must've missed that part of the Dowd column when she wrote :

Yet here is Gingrich attempting to out-Palin Palin on Fox News: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington.” There is no more demagogic analogy than that.

I'll help Jack out with this one. When Gingrich compares the Park51 folks to Nazis, he's saying that they have is no right to build the community center. Did Jack miss that part? Here's Politico on Gingrich's remarks:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Monday compared the mosque planned to go up blocks away from ground zero in New York to Nazis protesting next to the Holocaust museum.

Gingrich highlighted the fact that New York Democratic Gov. David Paterson and numerous others have proposed alternative locations for the mosque in arguing that the leaders of the cultural center are “radical Islamists” who want to prove that “they can build a mosque next to a place where 3,000 Americans were killed by Islamists.”

“That's why they won't accept any other offer,” he said during an interview on Fox News's "Fox & Friends."

Gingrich then declared that if the mosque is indeed being built as a symbol, which its leaders have repeatedly denied, New York authorities have every right to prevent it from being built.

Yea, I guess Jack missed this - how else could he assert that the right to build the mosque is not a controversy?

Like a lot of other wingnuts, he's pretending conservatives never ever attacked religious freedom.

It's all a diversion. And this is a big enough diversion that the fabric of most of the rest of the column is left in tatters.

This Morning In The Trib (A Quickie)

They spin on the Ground Zero Mosque*:

The imam at the center of the Ground Zero mosque controversy is being sent on a 15-day goodwill tour of the Middle East -- by the U.S. State Department. And American taxpayers are picking up the $16,000 tab for Feisal Abdul Rauf. This is the fella who said America essentially brought upon itself the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He also refuses to call Hamas the terrorist group that it is.

And this isn't the imam's first tour "to promote religious tolerance." It's his fourth on the public dime. [emphasis added]

Where to begin? Let's take a look at that last sentence. The fourth time, huh? I can hear everyone wondering: when were the previous three?

Take a look:

[State Department spokesman P.J.] Crowley said this will be Rauf's fourth U.S.-government sponsored trip under a program run by the State Department's Bureau of International Information Programs. Earlier, the State Department had said it was his third trip.

Crowley said Rauf had traveled twice to the Middle East in 2007 during the Bush administration and once earlier this year.

On the public's dime?? The outrage!

Funny how the Trib didn't mention that a full half of the trips "on the public's dime" occurred during the Bush Administration. Especially in an op-ed calling it an example "of pure idiocy being sold as 'good public policy.'"

Some context. On how the US "essentially brought upon itself the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11" let's take a look at actually what the Imam said. He was being interviewed by Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes:

Bradley: Are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?

Faisal: I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but united states policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.

Bradley: You say that we're an accessory? How?

Faisal: Because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.

But is this a radical idea? Hardly. Take a look at this from the LA Times in 1998. Graham Fuller is looking to explain the terrorist mindset and after asking, "What do the terrorists perceive? He gives this answer:

U.S. support for almost any ruler willing to protect U.S. interests--routinely identified in Washington as oil and Israel. They see a Washington unwilling to act evenhandedly in the Arab-Israeli peace process and infinitely tolerant of a hard-line government in Israel that denies Palestinians land, dignity and statehood. They perceive double standards that allow Israel to violate U.N. resolutions, but not Iraq; that Israeli nukes are OK, but not nukes in Muslim hands. They see routine use of U.S. unilateral military power against Muslim targets that is unparalleled elsewhere in the world. They see themselves routinely humbled by use of overwhelming Israeli military power. They see U.S. military forces in the Gulf as being there to protect ruling families and not populations--the essence of Osama bin Laden's charge.

So of course when essentially the same idea comes out of an Islamic Imam, he's so radical he's almost a terrorist himself.

* Again, it's not at Ground Zero and it's not a mosque - but other than that, the label is completely accurate.

"Is Fox News a terrorist command center?"

The Mosque*, Religious Liberty, and Some Local Pols

Mike Wereschagin of the Trib (yes, I don't only read Scaife's editorial page!) has a good rundown of some local politicians' reactions to the unfolding Mosque story. He begins:

What started as a local zoning dispute over a proposed mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site has spread into a dispute over First Amendment protections, religion in public life and the campaigns of Pennsylvania politicians.

But the real story is in who (locally) said what. Ask yourself, who's brave and stands up for religious liberty and who, well, doesn't.

Jason Altmire is the first local politician mentioned in the piece:

Rep. Jason Altmire of McCandless was among the first congressional Democrats to come out against the project, and Keith Rothfus of Edgeworth, his Republican opponent in November's election, joined him Wednesday in opposing it.

"The folks who attacked us on September 11 were attacking us in the name of a religion," Rothfus said.

"It's an attack that was generated by Islamic extremists," Altmire said. "As a country, we are offended by this. This gets right back to the heart of what happened September 11."

However, while disappointing to read that Almire came out against the project, this is not the only thing he's said about Park51. When he was on Rob Pratt's KDKA radio show, he said they have a constitutional right to build the center - but he questioned whether it was "morally" the right thing to do. More from pa2010.com:

Count Congressman Jason Altmire (D-4) among the politicians who doesn’t think a mosque should be built two blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood.

Altmire said over the weekend that he is “offended” by the idea of building the mosque and Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero, where the worst of the Sept. 11, 200 terrorist attacks occurred. Acknowledging the project’s backers have a legal and constitutional freedom to do so, Altmire said “there should be some discussion about what is right morally, as well as just what you’re allowed to do.”

The issue of being offended, however, has little or no bearing. Who's offended at the Catholic Church's pedophile priests? Can we discuss banning churches from being within walking distance to a school? Didn't think so.

While it's nice to see Altmire at least acknowledges Park51 project's rights, it would be nicer to see some backbone here. Seems to me his response is trying to have it both ways: Yes they have a right to build it but considering how offensive some people think it is, should they? And as always, there's a call for a "discussion" on the topic.

Rothfus, on the other hand, is frightening. He's opposed because the terrorists attacked "us" in the name of religion. Therefore this community center, to be built by other members of another sect of that religion, should be rejected. If his quotation is accurate, the logical conclusion to his position is little different from the AFA's Bryan Fischer: No more Mosques. Ever.

Luckily, up in Erie, there's a Democrat with a spine. Wereschagin again:

"While I understand that emotions are running strong in regard to the Muslim community center in New York City, it's neither the government's nor an elected official's place to tell any religious group where they can or cannot practice their faith," [Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Erie] said. "Our Founding Fathers came to America to escape religious persecution.

"I believe very strongly in the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom, and I will not throw our Constitution or core values aside simply because it is an election year."

Nice to see some backbone. Maybe Jason Altmire can borrow it sometime.

Kathleen Parker had some good things to say on Park51:

The mosque should be built precisely because we don't like the idea very much. We don't need constitutional protections to be agreeable, after all.

This point surpasses even all the obvious reasons for allowing the mosque, principally that there's no law against it. Precluding any such law, we let people worship when and where they please. That it hurts some people's feelings is, well, irrelevant in a nation of laws. And, really, don't we want to keep it that way?

And finally:

Ultimately, when sensitivity becomes a cudgel against lawful expressions of speech or religious belief -- or disbelief -- we all lose.

Land of the free, home of the brave.

*Again, it's really not really a mosque. It's a community center with a prayer room in it. It's also not at Ground Zero but a few blocks away. And before you say, "Oy! Again with the Mosque!" All I can say is, "Pittgirl has her pigeons, I have this."

The Trib On The Mosque*

Before I begin, I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to my friend Maria on her father's passing.

Death is always very sad.

============================

The Trib, this morning, quoted that level-headed, got to where she is on her own and NOT by family connections, Liz Cheney:

President Obama was for the Islamic community center/mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero in New York City before he was against it. We think. Or was he against it before he was for it? Or was he for it on constitutional grounds or ag'in it on its wisdom before he was for it on constitutional grounds and was forced to backtrack on its wisdom. Whew! How about simply calling the whole thing off?

Here's what Cheney tweeted (by way of Mike Allen at The Politico):

“I guess President Obama was for the mosque before he was against it. You can quote me. Sent from my iPhone.”

Thing is, this is all a right wing media smoke screen. No back tracking no flip flopping, though lots of misrepresentation on the media's (right wing and "mainstream").

Let's take a look at what the President actually said.

Point one. Just after pointing out that the "Constitution established the freedom of religion as the law of the land." He said:

Now, that's not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities -– particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. (Applause.) And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

That's all he said about the Mosque*

A day or so later he said:

Well, my intention was to simply let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country, we treat everybody equally, in accordance with the law. Regardless of race, regardless of religion.

I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there.

I was commenting very specifically on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about. And I think it's very important that as difficult as some of the issues are, we stay focussed on who we are as a people and what our values are all about.

Someone please show me the "back track"? It's only when you (misleadingly) project an "endorsement" onto his first statement that the second looks like "walking back."

Let me say it outright - the building is private property. They've gone through all the proper channels to build the community center and the state (either local or state or federal) has no authority to step in to veto the project merely because lots of people don't like it or don't like the faith of those who want to do it.

I would have figured this was an easy point.

So of course Dick Cheney's daughter got it wrong.

As did the Trib.

Of course.

*It's really not really a mosque - it's a community center with a prayer room in it. It's also not a Ground Zero. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good smear.

The President Gets It Right

Some highlights from the text:

Our Founders understood that the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of our people was to protect their freedom to practice religion. In the Virginia Act for Establishing Religion Freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion." The First Amendment of our Constitution established the freedom of religion as the law of the land. And that right has been upheld ever since.

Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose - including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious - a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in contrast to the religious conflict that persists around the globe.

And now onto that mosque in Manhattan. After calling Ground Zero "hallowed ground" Obama says:

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

Exactly.

Did You Know?

Now THIS is interesting!

From Talkingpointsmemo:

Tuesday, Reps. Peter King (R-NY) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) called Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf -- best known for his work with multicultural Cordoba Initiative to build a mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan -- a "radical" and criticized the Obama Administration for including him on a Middle East speaking tour. That tour, which includes stops in Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, is designed by the public diplomacy office to explain to Muslims abroad what it's like to be a Muslim in America.

Outside of how getting constantly called a radical by American politicians busy flacking the proposed "Ground Zero mosque" for political purposes might affect Rauf's view of what it's like to be a Muslim in America, there's one other big problem with King's and Ros-Lehtinen's accusation: Rauf already represented America in this way, under the Bush Administration.

That's right. That hater of Amurika, George W Bush, that appeaser to the evil-doers, George W Bush - HE actually talked to the enemy that wants to kills us all!!

If one were to hearken back to the halcyon days of the Bush Administration, one would remember that, when Bush adviser Karen Hughes was appointed Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, the Bush Administration saw improving America's standing among Muslims abroad as a part of its national security strategy. And, as such, Hughes set up listening tours, attended meetings and worked with interfaith groups that -- shocking, by today's Republican standards -- included actual Muslims.

One of those people was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

Something to remember the next time you hear that he's going on a "tax-payer funded" trip to the middle east to raise funds for the mosque (or whatever).

That's a talking point coming out of the right wing media. And of course, it's completely wrong.

From Mediamatters.org:

The right-wing media is attacking Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's upcoming State Department trip to the Middle East to "discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance," by falsely claiming he will use the trip as a "taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt" to finance construction of his Islamic cultural center in New York City. In fact, the State Department has made clear that fundraising of any kind is prohibited during the trip, and Rauf has previously participated in this program, first under President Bush.

But no point in letting reality get in the way of a good religiously bigoted smear, is it?