Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Pelosi clarifies call for look at funding of anti-mosque critics

Nancy Pelosi kicked off a bit of controversy on the right this morning when the news broke that she had told a local San Francisco radio station that she agreed with those calling for a look at how the groups opposing the "Ground Zero mosque" are being funded.

It was a bit unclear what she was referring to, and now her office sends over a statement from her clarifying what she meant and sort of standing by what she said:

"The freedom of religion is a Constitutional right. Where a place of worship is located is a local decision.

"I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that 'We agree with the ADL that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.'

"For all of those expressing concern about the 9/11 families, we call upon them to join us in support of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act when Congress returns in September."

So Pelosi wants "transparency" about who is funding the center, too. As for a look at the opposition, "we should also ask who is funding the attacks" is a bit of a walkback, but not much of one. It's unclear, to me at least, exactly what this means. The attacks on the center are coming from various quarters. There are outside groups like Liz Cheney's Keep America Safe, who presumably do get their funding from somewhere, though it doesn't take much money to blast out Liz Cheney statements and to cut ominous sounding Web videos.

There are the GOP party committees, I suppose, but while they may be offering general guidance, it seems unlikely that they're directly choreographing these attacks in any meaningful sense.

Either way, Pelosi doesn't seem to be calling for some kind of government investigation into the mosque's critics, as thrilling as that would be to some on the right.

By Greg Sargent  |  August 18, 2010; 12:21 PM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The White House's case to voters on the economy
Next: Open Thread

Comments

CalD and others -- it's my last post on the mosque, unless something important happens.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 18, 2010 10:44 AM

........................

Greg to Mosque Obsession:

"I wish I could quit you"

Posted by: Liam-still | August 18, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

It is called DNC propaganda and coverup, bought to you by the WaPo.

Truly, an elected official suggesting she will investigate the families of those murdered on 9/11.

Very creepy.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | August 18, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Liam, this is news, like it or not.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 18, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to take a guess and say the Republican Party is funding the attacks as part of a strategy to inject racial/xenophobic tension into the political debate.

But is funding even needed? According to some fly-by-night online media presence called the Washington Post this story has been pushed by rightwing bloggers like Pam Geller.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081802582.html?sid=ST2010081802595

Posted by: nisleib | August 18, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi wants the government to INVESTIGATE people on the other side of strictly political issue. Then she realizes that it that just does not sound good in a free country so she sends out Jurnolist prigs to try it make the story sound better.

I was always a little confused about the REAL purpose of the Journolist. Now, I know. They are butt boys for Pelosi and other like minded pols.

Posted by: TECWRITE | August 18, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I heard the Speaker Pelosi has a list of "anti-mosguers" and will share it with us at a later time.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | August 18, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Liam, this is news, like it or not.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 18, 2010 12:32 PM

...................

Well in that case, I am glad that you have finally decided to bring the Mosque debate to our attention. I was wondering why you had been completely ignoring it.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 18, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

When I read Liam's comment I laughed, and when I read Greg's reply, I thought "Yes, that's the problem, it's big news, and has been for a while, and will continue to be" through no fault of Greg as an individual reporter but because how the story has captured the news cycle.

In fact, Greg does more actual reporting by asking the right questions of the right people rather than just repeating what others have said without verifying it. Words like Mosque, instead of community center and prayer room; ground zero instead of 51 Park.

If anyone is going to report all of the ways the story was ginned and framed inaccurately (dishonestly) it's Greg.

Posted by: NeilSagan | August 18, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"CalD and others -- it's my last post on the mosque, unless something important happens."

BY DEFINITION, it won't. You have been sucked in to nationalizing a hyper-local issue. Please do stop.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 18, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Another of Greg's favorite topics (not that there's anything wrong with that):

Here's a fun a flashback, amidst all the current talk from Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle that she doesn't want to "phase out" Social Security -- as she used to say -- but wants to protect it. Seventeen years ago, she wrote an angry letter to Harry Reid in which she called upon Congress to "STOP FUNDING THE WASTEFUL SOCIAL AND ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS." (All-caps in the original.)

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/flashback-angle-told-reid-in-1993-to-stop-funding-entitlement-programs.php?ref=fpb

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 18, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

C and L notes this brilliant tweet from Jason Mustian:

"In fairness, we've been building 'ground zeros' near Iraqi mosques since March 2003"

Posted by: bernielatham | August 18, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Fun facts I just learned today:

1. The wife of Grover Norquist (insane rightwinger head of Club for Growth) is Samah Alrayyes, a Kuwaiti PR specialist who was formerly a director of the Islamic Free Market Institute.

2. Arab Americans gave Dubya 80% of their vote in 2000.

Questions:

1. has CFG said anything about restricting a private purchaser from purchasing private land?

2. what does Norquist or his wife (bigtime Republican fundraiser) have to say about the Republicans making it clear that they hate 25% of the world's population?

Posted by: AjaxtheGreater | August 18, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

It is interesting that Mr Sargent includes the walkback by Ms Pelosi, but not the original, and very offensive, statement. To get to that one must follow a link. Or visit a more broad minded website.

This is more ammunition for those who claim that our government is out of control.

Now a prominent member of the ruling party wants to know about the money used by those with whom she disagrees? Is she going to demand that waxman the taxman hold hearings?

When ordinary Americans face retribution for speaking their minds, our liberty is slipping away.

We are being used by these people and the sooner we fire the lot of them, the better off we will be. Pelosi's arrogance and spendthrift ways are clear illustrations of what's gone wrong in America.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 18, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

And another, from John Oliver on Jon Stewart:

"There is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. For instance, you can build a Catholic church near a playground. Should you?"

Posted by: bernielatham | August 18, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Not a Congressional "investigation" anymore?

Now it's just "transparency"?

Moving the goalposts much, Quislings?

These facile denials are delusional.

Where are all the 1st amendment hotheads now that Pelosi wants to abuse the authority of the State to selectively probe the free speech of patriotic Americans?

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 18, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

OK, let me get this straight: The 1st Amendment rights of Muslims have to be defended no matter how absurd of a stretch their claim might be, but ordinary American citizens cannot exercise their 1st Amendment right of free speech without the Speaker of the US House of Representatives calling for them to be investigated? Isn't this what is called tyranny? What about the "CONGRESS shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..."?

Posted by: LaLydia | August 18, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I've been waiting patiently all morning for the ACLU to denounce the “chilling effect” on the 1st Amendment exerted by this obvious attempt by one of the most powerful members of the US Government to intimidate the citizenry and inhibit them from freely expressing their dissent.

But it’s August, maybe they’re all on vacation over at ACLU-HQ?

I’m sure they’ll all be chiming in on this any time now, you betcha.

*crickets chirp*

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 18, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Another O/T but can Chris Dodd become any more despicable before he finally takes his million dollar job on K Street?

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd has for weeks called into doubt whether Elizabeth Warren can be confirmed to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But for the first time this week, Dodd has called into question whether she's qualified for the job, reversing his earlier position.

"It isn't just a question of being a consumer advocate. I want to see that she can manage something, too," Dodd told the Hartford Courant.

That's a far cry from what he told TPM and other reporters just weeks ago, when his only stated concern, based on his conversations with colleagues, was that Democrats may have a hard time rounding up 60 votes to confirm her.

"She's qualified, no question about that," Dodd said. "The question is whether she's confirmable."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/dodd-reverses-position-suggests-warren-may-not-be-qualified-to-head-consumer-bureau.php?ref=dcblt

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 18, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28

It's interesting that you wouldn't note that the post is mostly devoted to pointing out that her statement doesn't make any sense, and would instead note that I didn't reprint a statement that I linked to.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 18, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Patrick says, "You have been sucked in to nationalizing a hyper-local issue."

No he hasn't. Rightwingers like Pam Gellar and Sarah Palin nationalized this issue. Greg Sargent is just pushing back against their xenophobic nonsense.

And here is why Mr. Sargent is correct to "refudiate" this garbage: The rightwing knows there is no legal way to stop the project from being built so instead they are trying to bully and intimidate the builders into abandoning the project. To me, that is wrong and needs to be pushed back against.

Also, if we want to, "Win the hearts and minds of Muslims," this gross display of intolerance and religious bigotry is one of the worst defeats we have had since September 11th.

The terrorists that attacked us say that America is at war with Islam. They say this because it helps them win recruits and, therefore, win the very "hearts and minds" that America needs to win the “war on terror”. The rightwing is, literally, giving those terrorists that attacked us exactly what they want.

Posted by: nisleib | August 18, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Nancy there are many of us who do not agree with this insensitive act. Many of us would and will donate to stop this Mosque so start your investigation Nancy....we, the people, are now the enemy..is that what you are saying ? I never thought Id see the day when our govenrment views its own concerned citizens as enemies.....Ok america you are no longer allowed to voice your concerns...Nancy has spoken..stand by for your investigation.... Sowhats the punishment Nancy ? Throw us into one of your illegal sanctuary cities ??

Posted by: JUNGLEJIM123 | August 18, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

It's also funny that the hate mongers question why their first amendment rights to protest the mosque are being questioned. From what I see, no one is saying that they have no right to spread their hate, we're just questioning whether they should.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 18, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

If anyone needs to have an investigation opened into them, it’s Pelosi.

After the GOP takes over in November, they need to appoint a special investigator to look into such things as;

* her apparently fraudulent claims against the CIA and their harsh interrogation techniques;

* her misappropriation of government property by using military assets as personal taxis for her misbegotten family;

* potential fraud (she probably lied in any paperwork, pertaining to the use of those assets);

* and now her public attempt to harass those who oppose Islamo-supremacists erecting a 13-story 9/11 snuff porn emporium and jihad recruiting station at Ground Zero.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 18, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Anyone seen any strong news coverage recently of how things are going in Haiti?

Lest we forget what is truly important.


Anyone seen any strong news coverage recently of how things are going in Darfur?

Lest we forget what is truly important.


I haven't seen any news reports of an urgent international conference being called, to organize massive urgent relief efforts, for to help the desperate people of flood ravaged Pakistan.

Has any such meeting being called, and is anyone organizing a relief telethon. It looks like those desperate people need massive foreign relief, and rescue efforts now.

I assume that those steps are in the works, and they are probably just not getting much attention, because of the need to cover the far more important story of a proposed building facade in New York, provided funds can be raised for it.


Posted by: Liam-still | August 18, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

nisleib -- totally agree. one thing that seems to be missing from the discussion is that it's still possible that the developers could abandon the project -- and if that happened, it would send an awful message abroad.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 18, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

quote, " At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center."

I'm funding them. Come investigate me, you arrogant b!tch.

Posted by: liberty_rocks | August 18, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure why liberals would want to stop discussing the Not Ground Zero Not Mosque issue; I don't think it reflects particularly well on Republicans or the Tea Partiers. At best, it's a wash.

That being said, you know what this made me think of? The Dubai Ports deal. While a lot of grass roots conservatives objected, Bush supported it, and so did many of the conservative pundits--like Rush Limbaugh--who are in opposition to Cordova House.

The folks objecting to letting scary Middle Easterners "control our ports" included (from Wikipedia): The New York Times, Michael Savage, Lindsey Graham, The New Republic, The John Birch Society, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Laura Ingraham; Bill Frist and Hillary Clinton, prominent politicians from two different parties; Bob Menendez, John Gibson, Jon Corzine, and Peter King. Senator Barack Obama stated his opposition to the deal. So did Senators Carl Levin and John Kerry.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 18, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

*Cordoba* house. Not Cordova house. Sorry.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 18, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Quislings have already politicized this issue. They've trotted out smears of patriotic Americans as racists, fascists, Islamophobes, xenophobes, Neanderthals-- the whole Star Wars cantina of boogeymen and cranks standing opposed to poor, innocent Imam Rauf.

Now Pelosi shrieks full-throated about (*gasp*) "a concerted effort to make this a political issue". Does that "concerted effort" include Muslim-Americans opposed to sharia vendors of Cordoba House?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080603006.html

But when patriotic Americans object to stealth jihadists-- and (yes) that accurately describes the Cordoba House cabal-- opening a 9/11 snuff porn vendor emporium (and jihadi recruitment center) on the hallowed graves of Ground Zero-- Pelosi demands investigations!

American Muslims may be the very soul of moderation. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Americans to ask for more from (allegedly) “peaceful” Cordoba House jihadists than insincere bromides and disingenuous whitewashing of uncomfortable elements of Islamic sharia law, as practiced by the Cordoba House cabal and their financial sponsors.

A genuine tiny minority of anti-jihadist Muslims may be found @
http://secularislam.org/blog/post/SI_Blog/21/The-St-Petersburg-Declaration

Americans remain breathless in anticipation of the sharia law vendors of Cordoba House supporting this genuinely tiny minority of their co-religionists-- but don’t hold your breath.

When will these Speaker Pelosi support Secular Islam advocates' right to live free from the sharia law intimidation of Cordoba House Islamo-supremacists?

"Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!" [Matthew 23:24]

Pelosi (and her ObaMedia toadies) created this delusional demonization campaign against patriotic Americans opposed to the mosque-- yet now they have the temerity to climb up on their hind legs and howl for investigations of Americans?

Patriotic Americans can always tell when you're hitting all the right notes-- when the Quislings in Congress threaten political harrassment of voters.

Booga-Booga!

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 18, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Yglesias commented on the Dubai Ports deal this morning (apparently regretting his opposition) but it seems to me that equating a government contract turning over the operation of major port facilities to ANY foreign entity is not analogous in any way to allowing anyone to build anything on private property they already own.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 18, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse


C and L notes this brilliant tweet from Jason Mustian:

"In fairness, we've been building 'ground zeros' near Iraqi mosques since March 2003"

Posted by: bernielatham | August 18, 2010 12:49 PM
...........


Bernie,

I like that one.

I pointed out yesterday, how the USA announced the construction of the Largest Embassy Compound, any where in the world, right after they invaded Iraq.

They did not wait to find out how the people of Iraq would feel about it, or wait until there was a government stood up, that could rule on the proposed site, or if it would appear to be too insensitive toward the feeling of those Muslims who just had their country and invaded by a foreign army.

Fortunately; they were wise enough to not bring along any Christian Chaplains, and conduct Christian prayer services, during the occupation. That was truly sensitive of them.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 18, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Mr Sargent, I first encountered the quote at a prominent conservative web site. I was curious about whether or not you would take on this subject and if so how you would portray it.

I don't see how you've explained that Ms Pelosi's statement makes no sense. In fact, with all due respect Mr Sargent, it seems to me that you've written an apology for her. I base this on these words:
"Either way, Pelosi doesn't seem to be calling for some kind of government investigation into the mosque's critics, as thrilling as that would be to some on the right."

You use the "seem" word quite a bit. It is your opinion, to be sure, but it certainly seems to many that a powerful, and willful government official is asking for an investigation.

For example the statement from Ms Pelosi's office said, in part:
"At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center"

Whom do you think she means by the word "we" Mr Sargent?

To conclude that she didn't mean that the government should do this is just being obtuse. There is no evidence to support your conclusion. If you have some, why by all means, do share.


Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 18, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Greg - You are darn right it would!

I'm guessing you are like me in that you don't give two squirts about the Park51 project. You don't (I'm guessing) live in NY and are not in any way affected by what gets built at Park51. The project, in and of itself, is not the issue.

The issue is this: Are we going to allow the rightwing to validate the negative things our enemies say about us?

Terrorism is a tactic. The only way to win a "war on terror" is to stop people from using that tactic. How do you do that? By removing, or ameliorating, their motivation to use that tactic.

This whole dust up strengthens the motivation of those inclined to use terrorism against us. For that reason alone we should push back against the rightwing with all we have.

Posted by: nisleib | August 18, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, I thought about the Dubai Port thing, too, and agree there was a lot of hyperventilating at that time. But, turning over the running of and security of ports to a non-US agent and opening a community center in Manhattan are just not the same. Not even apples/oranges...more like steak/dandelions.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 18, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Robert Spencer is defiant.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/pelosi-wants-investigation-of-ground-zero-mega-mosque-opponents.html

"She doesn't seem to care about where the $100 million to build the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero is coming from, despite the fact that the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has lied about whether he will be receiving foreign funding. No, that's all just fine. What Pelosi wants to know is where Pamela Geller and I got $9,000 to run an ad against the mosque on New York City buses. (In reality, we scraped it together from $10 and $20 donations from free citizens, as we have with all our initiatives.)

"Welcome to Obama's America, in which political opposition to the pet projects of the elites can get you investigated and who knows what else. Well, come and get me, Nancy. Do your worst."

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 18, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Breaking News:

In a effort to meet protesters half way; the owners of the proposed Muslim center have decided to change the name of it to: The Jerry Falwell Memorial Muslim Center.

Fox Cable set to announce a new show;

It is to be called:

Pamela Geller's Mosqueketeers.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 18, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing, that's just dumb. If she wanted some kind of House probe, however such a thing would work, there would be one. There's your proof.

When she or her allies in the House launch a government investigation, then you can conclude that she wants a government investigation.

It's also odd that you are not taking note of her demand for transparency on the part of the builders of the project.

All that said, I think her statement makes little sense, and if you can't divine that from the post, I'm not sure how much clearer I could have been.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 18, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

[Liam subject changed: "Haiti... Darfur... Pakistan... Lest we forget what is truly important."]

Instead of spending $100 million on a mega-mosque at Ground Zero, why doesn't the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and financier Sharif El-Gamal take the $100 million and donate it to Haiti, Darfur or the Pakistani victims?

In doing so, they'd make up for the Umma's gross indifference to those victims' plight AND create a great deal of good will -- which is what they keep claiming they're trying to do. And they'd be aiding their fellow Muslims.

It's a win/win/win situation!

But don't hold your breath.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 18, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Kevin, also there is nothing in the Constituion guaranteeing the right to operate a port. ;o) LOL

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 18, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I never will hold my breath, but I sure wish someone would hold yours!

Posted by: Liam-still | August 18, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

nisleib says: "The rightwing is, literally, giving those terrorists that attacked us exactly what they want."

I completely agree with your analysis, but the fact remains that the right wing's nationalization of this issue is wholly dependent upon media coverage. The media is necessarily complicit in achieving the goal.

I recognize that the issue, once nationalized, deserves ~some~ commentary. But to treat it as the overwhelming issue of the day, and to give it the sort of continuing primary coverage it is getting here, is simply wrong, and such over-attention plays directly into the hands of those who launched the wedge issue.

As commenters we learn that it is wise to follow the advice of "Do Not Feed The Trolls." This "issue" presents exactly the same challenge to the media itself. How much should you allow yourself to get sucked in to publicizing a politically manufactured wedge issue?

How much oxygen do you give the story, even when trying to point out that it is entirely bogus, when you place it front and center?

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 18, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Contrary to his claims of moderation, the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, leader of the mega-mosque initiative, is an open advocate for Sharia, and calls for restrictions on the freedom of speech in his book "What's Right with Islam." He has (like the Justice Department listed unindicted co-conspirators in the WTC bombing, CAIR) refused to denounce Hamas. He has lied about his commitment to religious dialogue. He has lied about whether the Islamic center planned for the Ground Zero site will contain a mosque or not. And he has lied about whether or not the project is getting foreign funding. He is part of a group that helped fund the jihad flotilla against Israel.

It will be interesting to learn whether Pelosi's calls for "transparency" will EVER include these very serious indictments of the Cordoba House Islamo-supremacists.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 18, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Cordoba House Developers: 'Hamas Does Not and Will Not Speak For Us'

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36965_Cordoba_House_Developers-_Hamas_Does_Not_and_Will_Not_Speak_For_Us

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 18, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh I see. The proof that she doesn't want a government investigation is that there is not, at the moment I write this, a government investigation?

After all, if Ms Pelosi wants it, she gets it, and instantly too it seems.

You wrote an apology. I'll stand by that assessment.

As for the smokescreen a demand for transparency, it is to laugh. She's on record now. Her political opposition (and she has some) will, rightly, pound away at this.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 18, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

skip, good. They can go after Pelosi all they want. Please. Waste tons of effort on her. You're bound to defeat her!

Don't you think they purposely put her out there to be a lighting rod for conservative criticism knowing no matter what she says, she'll never be vulnerable.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 18, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Patrick asks, "How much oxygen do you give the story, even when trying to point out that it is entirely bogus, when you place it front and center?"

Good question.

This "issue" depresses me. It is so anti-American I have trouble believing we are even talking about it.

But Greg and the posters on this blog are not the ones pushing this story. We are the ones trying to push back on the story. That is a very large difference.

Do you think that if we remained silent that the rightwing would drop it? Keep in mind that while we've been discussing this for a few days, the rightwing blogs have been on it for a few weeks. Our previous silence didn't stop them, why would our future silence?

If we (and people like us) don't point out, loudly and repetitively, that America is not at war with Islam and that in America people have religious freedom, then the rightwing's message will be the only message that gets out.

Posted by: nisleib | August 18, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

skippy, you keep demonstrating your lack of ability to read and comprehend English. Just sayin....Debate 101 (since that is one of your stated reasons for coming here)...facts matter, and you don't get to invent your own.

(Yesterday, you construed my saying that an engineering group in my company is being moved with the whole damn company moving out of Michigan. I left you a reply on that, btw...you were so far off the mark, it was actually kinda humorous...)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 18, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Hey Kadaffi,

So, when the Cordoba House comes out with the statement from the article I posted saying:

Hamas does not speak for Park51. Our mission is one of peace, understanding, tolerance and faith.

Wouldn't you have to agree that's taking a shot at Hamas' politics?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 18, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

I think that those Muslim Center Protest Groups are probably being funded by Al-Qaeda, since they are preaching the same message as Bin-Laden, and calling for a holy war between Muslims and Christians.

If you removed Bin Laden's beard, he would have the very same facial features as Pamela Geller. Hmmmm. Perhaps that is why we have not been able to locate him.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 18, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Liam, I think you're onto something....

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 18, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

@nisleib:

"Do you think that if we remained silent that the rightwing would drop it? Keep in mind that while we've been discussing this for a few days, the rightwing blogs have been on it for a few weeks. Our previous silence didn't stop them, why would our future silence?"

As I said previously, if Newt & Fox & Palin's tweets try to turn a molehill into a mountain, there is reason for ~some~ commentary. But the molehill can only become a mountain if the mainstream and progressive media outlets decide to make it so.

The bait has been taken (hook, line & sinker), and that's a damned shame.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 18, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

@sue: "Kevin, I thought about the Dubai Port thing, too, and agree there was a lot of hyperventilating at that time. But, turning over the running of and security of ports to a non-US agent and opening a community center in Manhattan are just not the same."

Could be. However, it seems similar to me, in that we do that kind of thing a lot (allow non-US companies to contract and do work, including work that involves security), and the only real objection was that the foreign power in this case was largely Muslim, so here was a good issue to drive a wedge between grass roots conservatives and George W. Bush, and other conservatives who supported him. It seemed to me (and I could be mistaken) that much of the opposition was politically cynical, rather than sincerely concerned about security.

In any case, it seems strangely familiar to me, including the odd bedfellows--Nancy Pelosi and Grover Norquist, on the same side of an issue now, Jimmy Carter siding with Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly back then.

I am not saying the situations are identical, but my sense is that they are more similar than others here may think. Even though, of course, there is a particular constitutional issue of freedom of religion here that wasn't at play with the Dubai Ports deal.

Oh, I see you already said that: "Kevin, also there is nothing in the Constituion guaranteeing the right to operate a port."

No, indeed. I'm not saying they are equal in degree, just in type. I also thought the objections to the Dubai Ports deal were very shallow. And most of them, I thought, were political strategies, rather than concern about port security.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 18, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

The only reason KaddafiDelendaEst and Skippy are here is because the extremist bigoted Republican Party is losing control of the debate they started.

That's the only reason.

They're not here to prove anyone right or wrong on the facts.

They are simply here because they are following unspoken instructions that invective is good for them politically and because the Republican Party of extremists has lost ALL CONTROL... of this issue particularly, but really they have lost all control on every issue.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 18, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington: "Wouldn't you have to agree that's taking a shot at Hamas' politics?"]

Imam Rauf is a demonstrated liar. He speaks from both sides of his mouth. He says one thing in English; and the opposite in Arabic. This is standard Islamo-supremacist tactic known as "taqiya."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2462

If I were you, I'd believe his every disingenuous bromide, Quisling.

Thankfully, I'm not you.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 18, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

All, I'm taking off for some of the afternoon, so here's an open thread for you all:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/open_thread.html

Please let me know what I'm missing...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 18, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

That is what ends up happening when you stir up massive fear of Muslims in general. Then you end up having to refuse to let Muslim run any our ports. Bush/Cheney got hoisted by their own petard.

On that same note; Pamela Geller better let her beard start to grow back soon, since The Taliban are soon going to capture New York City.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 18, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

[Liam sneered: "If you removed Bin Laden's beard, he would have the very same facial features as Pamela Geller."]

Leftists support this Islamo-fascist desecration of Ground Zero because they hate America and have formed an Unholy Alliance with Islamo-supremacists.
http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/089526076X

In contrast, authentic (traditional) liberals fight against sharia law advocates. For that reason, The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), which is representing a New York City firefighter who survived the 9-11 terrorist attacks, said today's vote by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission is deeply offensive to many of the victims and families of the 9-11 tragedy. The ACLJ is planning to file an Article 78 petition in state court to challenge the city's actions. The ACLJ will allege that there's been an abuse of discretion in the Commission's decision and the filing is expected to occur tomorrow.
http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/Executed-LPC-Submission_20100720.pdf

Sharia law advocacy is un-Constitutional, and Americans understand that. No wonder Leftist-fascists support it.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 18, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

As an example that the Republican Extremists have lost ALL control, even the WSJ is covering the fact that Financial Reform has ECONOMIC BENEFITS for the country.

----------

The global economy won't suffer if banks are forced to adopt tighter standards on capital and liquidity, the Financial Stability Board and Basel Committee for Banking Supervision said in a joint statement Wednesday.

The statement summarizes an interim report on the long-term effects on the economy of forcing banks to hold more capital and more liquid assets, relative to their overall balance sheet. The findings rebut banking sector complaints that such requirements would crimp lending to the real economy.

"The Basel Committee's assessment of the long-term economic impact finds that there are clear net long-term economic benefits from increasing the minimum capital and liquidity requirements from their current levels in order to raise the safety and soundness of the global banking system," the statement said.

"The analysis shows that the macroeconomic costs of implementing stronger standards are manageable, especially with appropriate phase-in arrangements, while the longer-term benefits to financial stability and more stable economic growth are substantial," FSB head Mario Draghi said in an accompanying press release.

----------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575436950880560936.html

SEE THAT REPUBLICAN EXTREMISTS?

"there are clear net long-term economic benefits"

CLEAR ECONOMIC BENEFITS!

and

"the longer-term benefits to financial stability and more stable economic growth are substantial"

LONG TERM BENEFITS ARE "SUBSTANTIAL"!

And your party OPPOSED Financial Reform!

Heckuva Job Extremists! Way to try to prevent the Democrats from substantially benefiting the economy. Heckuva job. But you FAILED. The economy will be substantially better because of President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama and NOTHING you do or say will change that.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 18, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Kaddafi, you're fighting fantasy characters that exist only in your mind.

I think you need to take a deep breath and relax a bit. You're no longer making sense.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 18, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Suzie: whatever

Ethan there is, in the final analysis, no right or wrong on this. It is a question of policy, not fact. Facts may impact one's position, but ultimately facts can't resolve a policy difference.

Oh and Ethan, neither can name calling and bombast. But I'm sure suzie finds you amusing. Why not ask her out?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 18, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

This should be looked into:

I think that those Muslim Center Protest Groups are probably being funded by Al-Qaeda, since they are preaching the same message as Bin-Laden, and calling for a holy war between Muslims and Christians.

If you removed Bin Laden's beard, he would have the very same facial features as Pamela Geller. Hmmmm. Perhaps that is why we have not been able to locate him.

She better start growing her beard back now, before The Taliban get here.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 18, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Skippy,

You're not here for any "final analysis." You don't even know what that means. You're just following unwritten, unspoken instructions that you must control the argument. But you have lost. You have failed. You have been exposed.

"Oh and Ethan, neither can name calling and bombast."

Oh and Skippy:

"How can you think of saying, 'Friend, let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye."

~ Luke 6:42 (New Living Translation 2007)

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 18, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

How many terrorists were on the two planes that struck the twin towers?

What weapons did they carry on board with them.

You Right Wingers are such a bunch of cowards.

Name one terrorist or rebel group that used suicide attacks, as a tactic, that ended up winning.

Not one of them ever has. Suicide attacks are used by the very weak, and not the strong.

Japan used them, and lost.

The Tamil Tigers used them and lost.

The Palestinians have used them, and ended up hurting their own cause for to get rid of the occupation.

Suicide Attacks are for losers, and only Right Wing Losers keep wetting their pants in fear of such addled piss ants.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 18, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

From noted socialist, Conor Friedersdorf, this lengthy quote that speaks to the ignorance we often see here:

(In two posts)

Apropos my earlier post about conservative elites and the Park 51 controversy, I want to address the general relationship between certain influential figures in the conservative movement -- Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Andrew Breitbart, Sean Hannity, and others -- and the rank-and-file conservatives who make up their audience.

As a frequent critics of those particular coastal media elites, I am often presumed to be antagonistic to rank-and-file members of the American right who listen to them. Actually, that is not the case. Within the conservative movement, there is an unspoken belief at places like National Review and The Claremont Institute that while certain intellectual standards are important parts of their own institution, it's necessary to look past intellectually dishonest propaganda and extremes in ugly rhetoric when it emanates from sufficiently popular entertainers on the right. The idea is that public discourse is a big game -- or sometimes an ongoing war -- and winning it requires behavior that can't be defended on the merits, but should be excused or at least ignored because it's popular, or the other side does it, or you can't attract a Rush Limbaugh sized audience without the kinds of tactics that he employs, or certain people are too important to the ideological coalition to forcefully criticize.


One problem with this approach is that it treats the conservative rank-and-file as means to an end. They're the base, and they need riling up, and yeah, some of what they're fed can't really stand up to scrutiny, but politics is a dirty business. People who take this view tend to be sophisticated elites, and too often they forget that a lot of talk radio listeners aren't in on the joke -- that is to say, when Rush Limbaugh says that in Barack Obama's America it's okay for black kids to beat up white kids on buses, their reaction isn't to roll their eyes, or to cheer the hyperbolic zinger, it's to worry about their grandkids.

It isn't that these people are stupid.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/conservative-elites-contd-being-in-on-the-joke.html#more

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 18, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Part Two

It isn't that these people are stupid. They just aren't media savvy or cynical in the same way as Washington DC based magazine writers or Los Angeles County based think tank staffers. It is their quaint belief that radio hosts aren't breezily misleading them on a daily basis, or that their favorite television personality isn't willfully profiting by selling them gold at outrageous markups, or that videos they're shown aren't egregiously stripped of context, or that the conservative author whose book they're buying to better understand American politics does a fair job when offering a summary of its debates. Some of them, when they read The Claremont Review of Books, an exceptionally written and edited publication, get the wrong idea when The Claremont Institute fetes Rush Limbaugh with a statesmanship award, despite the fact that the talk radio host has made all sorts of remarks well beneath the intellectual and moral standards of that think tank. Does anyone imagine that a less highly rated talk show host who said all the same things as Limbaugh would receive a statesmanship award? He's lauded by conservative elites because he is effective. But that fact, so obvious to everyone "in the know," isn't transparent to the average person who doesn't pay close attention to political discourse, is it?

I don't mean to suggest that people who put unwarranted trust in certain media personalities are beyond reproach. When someone has a long record of regularly misleading their audience, whether deliberately or through intellectual negligence, the audience has a responsibility to seek information elsewhere. But I must dissent from the argument I've heard in some quarters that any attempt to engage the talk radio audience or the hard-core member of the conservative movement's rank-and-file is doomed. The vast majority of these people are decent Americans who want what's best for their country, and would be perfectly pleasant company if you met them in an airport lounge or a neighborhood bar. This is true even of some people whose worst impulses are played upon by the media elites they've chosen, as I'll demonstrate in a subsequent post.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/08/conservative-elites-contd-being-in-on-the-joke.html#more

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 18, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"Nancy Pelosi kicked off a bit of controversy on the right this morning when the news broke..."


That a call for an investigation into opposition to this mosque didn't also cause "controversy" on the left as well is pretty pathetic. Evidently protesting the building of a mosque next a site where 3000 Americans were murdered by Muslims is an offense that shakes this country to its core, but calling for an investigation into those protests? Why, that's only a controversy amongst a bunch of nutty right-wing bloggers. Pathetic.

Posted by: Bob65 | August 18, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Not one of them ever has. Suicide attacks are used by the very weak, and not the strong.

Japan used them, and lost.

"The Tamil Tigers used them and lost.

The Palestinians have used them, and ended up hurting their own cause for to get rid of the occupation.

Suicide Attacks are for losers, and only Right Wing Losers keep wetting their pants in fear of such addled piss ants."


The above quote is one of the stupidest things I have ever read in my entire life. Not a single mention, NOT ONE, is made of the thousands of innocent people who were killed by those suicide attacks.


Only on the left.

Posted by: Bob65 | August 18, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Thanks Bob65 ... I rest my case.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 18, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Pelosi, your party's position has been separation OF church and state. Except mooslims.

Posted by: Kansasgirl | August 18, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

in response to this:
=================
skip, good. They can go after Pelosi all they want. Please. Waste tons of effort on her. You're bound to defeat her!

Don't you think they purposely put her out there to be a lighting rod for conservative criticism knowing no matter what she says, she'll never be vulnerable
========================

It is not a question of defeating Ms Pelosi. It is a question of using her as a tool in other elections. Look for something like a "Pelosi index" that measures the percentage of the time a given rep votes with Ms Pelosi. I can see this being used across the country.

Her quote simply cements the image that many in America have: an out of control, autocratic, self serving elite who view citizens as a source of funds to be controlled by their betters.

So the people in her district can certainly re elect her. but as a national figure she's providing good ammunition for those who oppose the Democrats.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 18, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

skippy: "It is a question of policy, not fact. Facts may impact one's position, but ultimately facts can't resolve a policy difference.


Uh...usually fact-gathering and vetting comes before policy formulation. It's one of those "cart & horse" things.

skippy: "But I'm sure suzie finds you amusing. Why not ask her out?"

WOW! How perfectly junior high! LOL

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 18, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

@Laim-still: "That is what ends up happening when you stir up massive fear of Muslims in general. Then you end up having to refuse to let Muslim run any our ports. Bush/Cheney got hoisted by their own petard."

Perhaps, although Bush wasn't exactly big on stirring up massive fear of Muslims. He couldn't say the word "Islam" without appending "a religion of peace". Which is not a bad thing.

Also, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry and even Barack Obama were opposed to the Dubai ports deal, while Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Rielly supported it. So the "usual suspects" regarding fear-mongering of Islam were, in fact, supporting the Dubai ports deal.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 18, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The president was right about what he said about our rights as Americans to practice our faith but when ideas about our faith interferes with our constitutional rights then there is a clash. Islam teaches Jihad to spread Sharia law which is in direct conflict with our democracy and freedom as Americans. If Islam wants to exist in peace in western society it must reject Jihad and Sharia law and I'm afraid that may never happen. If you doubt this just read the Koran yourself.

www.citizenwarrior.com

Posted by: joego | August 18, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Short and sweet. Two Constitutional rights are involved, not one. The 1st Amendment protects both the right to build, AND the right to protest against it. End of story.

Posted by: 54465446 | August 18, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

While I really do not believe either side should be investigated without being suspected of criminal behavior, if its okay to investigate the funding of religious group because we do not like their religion, its certainly okay to investigate the other side.

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | August 18, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"There is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. For instance, you can build a Catholic church near a playground. Should you?"

John Oliver would have been very well served by the traditional a$$kicking all pee-streaked-drawers punks eventually receive at 14 or 15. Perhaps it's not too late.

Thanks for showing your true colors Bernie.
Again.

Posted by: tao9 | August 18, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

i'm so glad this guy is here to be a spokesman for pelosi and obama as well as a villianizer of sarah palin and newt gingrich. if he ever defended a conservative christian we could call him "fair and balanced." good luck

Posted by: harbinger317 | August 18, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Poor Greg. You best get back to JournOlist to coordinate your talking points. Taranto over at the WSJ is tearing you a new one daily.

Posted by: luca_20009 | August 18, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi's anti contitution stance on using the federal government to investigate anyone protesting The 9/11 Obama Victory Mosque kind ruins the leftists new found love of the constitution.

I guess leftist were for the constitution before they were against it.

Posted by: robtr | August 18, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi also wanted "investigations" into opposition to Obamacare.

In the twisted mind of this socialist witch, nothing happens because of the collective opinion and opposition of common people -- rather its all orchestrated and funded by some elites somewhere. She and Stalin would get along very well.

Posted by: pgr88 | August 18, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

It is not like Pelosi asked for an investigation into "anti American" feelings in the US Congress. Only a total nut sack would do that.

Bachman did what?

Then again, if there is anything more anti American than denying people the freedom of religion...

Posted by: nisleib | August 18, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

The left is screaming about "pushing against the right." I hope we win in November 2010 so we can "push against" the left!! The left is pushing us over a cliff and burning our Constitution. Listen to Pelosi and other dems and you will hear exactly why we need to get rid of these radicals in November 2010. They are taking our liberties away from us as well as our well being. These elite are out only for themselves and Pelosi is a prime example!!!

No where does our Constitution say we have to coddle those who seek to destroy us. I wonder how many of these muslims have snuck into this country and want our liberties but are not legal citizens. Deport them!!! Send Pelosi with them!

Posted by: annnort | August 18, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

EVIL shows no remorse and has NO conscious. Enough of the POLITICALLY CORRECT crap. This is what is wrong with career politicians. It is an ISLAM thing like it or not. This shows just how EVIL MUSLIMS can be. They hear OUR voices but still are going to build. It is time for MUSLIMS to get rid of the JIHADIST and Sharia law NUTS.
The "Government Stupid has NO problem taking PRIVATE CITIZENS land for PUBLIC DOMAIN!! Only SICK people would show NO RESPECT for our dead and their families.
For years America stood by and was TOLERANT with Muslims blowing us up in buildings, planes and ships. It took Sept. 11,2001 and Bush to finally say ENOUGH!!!

Hey this could be a new tactic SUICIDE BUILDINGS !!

TERM LIMITS NOW !!

FAIR TAX NOW !!

DEATH TO JIHADISTS !!

DEATH TO TRAITORS !!

SECURE THE BORDER !!

Posted by: 79USMC83 | August 18, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

As any internet-savvy, literate person can freely download the proof that Bush and Cheney committed 9/11, "The New Pearl Harbor," Griffin, Ph.D., one of whom, at least claims to be a Methodist, and the other, father of anti-mosque Liz Cheney, this assault on the Constitution should be rebuffed most strenuously: Death for Treason.

Posted by: iamerican | August 18, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center."

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

And in the same logic, ask who is funding the attacks against all those who are attacking against the construction....etc, etc.

Hey, this means all you folks posting comments on WaPo that are either attacking the construction, or attacking those who are attacking...please submit where your money comes from when you post!

Posted by: eeterrific | August 18, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Silly Nancy Pelosi.

Doesn't she know?

We have to BUILD the mosque first....so that we can find out who's in it.

Posted by: etpietro | August 18, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi's remarks, and clarification, were wrong. They sound as though they were more a response to people like the caps-locked posters above than to the central reason why the Federal government should not be involved in the issue at all.

The building, which is NOT A MOSQUE (sorry, but that detail has disappeared in the flood of criticism), has been through all the regulatory processes that would apply if it were a YMCA center. It will be, in fact, as much like a mosque as a YMCA building resembles a cathedral or a Texas megachurch. It is a building project being done as part of the structure of the city. It is not on public land, or in the area devastated nine years ago.

Given these basic facts, the Federal government should have no jurisdiction in the matter. Especially the smaller, less intrusive Federal government the Republican Party says it wants to create.

Opponents of the construction say that its association with Islam overrides this argument. To read the vitriol in this thread alone, it would seem that allowing a Muslim anywhere within miles of Ground Zero is inviting more destruction, as well as offending everyone who lost family or friends (I am in that group, by the way) that day. Any building "tainted" by Islamic influence would be even worse.

How do these people feel about the families and friends of the Muslims who were killed in the Towers that day? They were victims of insanity too. Are they also required to be offended by this construction?

The opponents declare that Islam is EVIL. As proof, they point to intolerance aimed at other religions and cultures in Saudi Arabia, where there are no laws promising freedom of religion. To respond by demonstrating the same or worse intolerance here, despite a Constitution that protects religious diversity, would make the US as bad as anything found in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

At one time or another, all of the "Judeo-Christian" groups that are described as the core of our society were minority religions suffering active discrimination, and the ideals of our Founding Fathers made their strength today possible.

The critics are making lots of noise for the wrong reasons. The Federal government should not be involved in any way, especially including investigations into opposition to the construction. The civic center should be built.

Posted by: AndrewfromNH | August 18, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

To nisleib, you are one fine nut job. Do you really believe your own words? How do you explain the Democrats and Independents who are voicing their opposition to this Mosque. You are nothing more than a left-wing, race bater that just comments to satisfy your own unhappy life and twisted mind. How on God's green earth could you think the Republicans are funding this opposition. If so, I wish they would send money my way. What a idiot you are. It's amazing that you are so blind to the truth. This includes the cronies in the Washington. Now that Pelosi has discovered she's not quite as popular as she thought, she is back peddling just like every stinking Democrat who kneels to Obama. What a class reject. I hope the House calls for her resignation for questioning and attempting to halt our 1st Amendment Rights. The very nerve of that woman after all she and Obama and his communist, marxist buddies have done to America. In addition, the very nerve of any of the comments listed to side with the supporters of this Mosque and not question who and where their money is coming from is unbelievable at best. Who are you people? Are you Americans? Are you immigrants? Do you believe in God? I can answer that one for you. No, you do not. You can't and dog honest, hard working Americans who love their Country and just want to remain free. I hope that each one of you who voted for Hope and Change find out before it's too late to help stop the socialism grab of our liberties and freedoms. It's already happening. If this Mosque is built, it will be a target for another bombing. To support this Mosque and spit in the faces of those people who lost relatives on 9/11, makes you no better than the terrorists that did it. I'm sick of you people and your lies, your twisted brain that can only create negative words. I feel sorry for you that your lives are so miserable that you must destroy others. Go ahead and help destroy America, but don't come asking for food or help from those of us who tried to stop you.

Posted by: Republichic | August 18, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

May I ask who the h--- this woman thinks she is to be investigating any American citizen because they happen to express an opinion differing from hers? The fact that the press would even try to defend this nitwit just shows how low you have all sunk.

Posted by: LadyChurchillUSA | August 18, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

in response to:
==================
skippy: "It is a question of policy, not fact. Facts may impact one's position, but ultimately facts can't resolve a policy difference.


Uh...usually fact-gathering and vetting comes before policy formulation. It's one of those "cart & horse" things.

skippy: "But I'm sure suzie finds you amusing. Why not ask her out?"

WOW! How perfectly junior high! LOL

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

Once again, you missed what I wrote. Tell me darling, is it intentional? Because you missed this dearie, and it says exactly what you said:
"Facts may impact one's position, but ultimately facts can't resolve a policy difference."

Is it just too subtle for you? I think so. And further, there are policies that disregard facts altogether. And policies which chose between two viable alternatives. Facts just can't resolve these. Yes we want to manage by fact, but ultimately policy decisions can't be resolved with them. The cordoba house is a perfect example. We're dealing with emotion on all sides. The facts are understood.

And yeah, something other than writing angry comment here would, perhaps, help Ethan. He seems a bit, well, high strung lately. It was just a suggestion, after all. I'm not Neal Clark Warren, but when it comes to the 29 dimensions of compatibility the two of you have liberalism going for you!

Posted by: skipsailing28 | August 18, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

All this talk and what I heard Nancy doing as much as anything is call attention to the congressional members upset about this cultural center to return to the House prepared to vote for the bill to provide health care for 9/11 responders and clean up workers - which for some inexplicable reason they did not think was important the first time.

Since certain folks keep repeating the misinformation.

The facility is more cultural/community center than mosque. It is extensively similar to a YMCA with additional focus on sharing the Islamic faith and culture. Being as how practicing Muslims pray 5 times a day, it wisely includes some prayer rooms, I think on the top two floors of a 15 story building.

It is two blocks from the actual ground zero site. NYC block of fast food joints, Off track betting, a 'Gentlemans' club with ladies, lots of tourist/cheap merchandise on the streets and stores. This is the kind of construction that consists of buildings essentially wall to wall. Advertising is mostly on the first floor level with a few signs that may go to the third floor.I saw a picture of the building but could not quite tell the width but I doubt it is as much as 50ft wide.

The building had debris from 9/11 damage the roof. The property had become a steal for the area (4 million) and therefore attractive to this group.

Islam is still considered one of the worlds' Great religions. Their zenith 750 to ~1250 AD included the father of modern science and the scientific method, citation in written works,university education and degrees, among other things. The capital for most of that period was Baghdad.

We are having a lot of nasty campaigns surface and we have learned from experience that this kind of thing can be funded by one to a few individuals or groups that have not disclosed their participation and funding. Figuring out if there are only a few people or a group for transparency does not hinder anyone's free speech. Listening to private communications with out a warrant is far more of a problem.

As far as Sharia law. There is no way it can be put into American law. This group has no ties to that system. Keep in mind, Islam has as many subsects as Christianity.

As far as the Taliban or Al Qaeda using the location, they may be dumb in some ways, but operating where US National Security would be able to track just about anything they want to (and no problem with those warrants) is even dumber than they are.

Posted by: GinnyCinCO | August 18, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Is Nancy going to investigate how much the mosque donated to the Democrats who are supporting this build?

Posted by: jaclk | August 18, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Remember the seven Christian Crusades that occurred between 1095 and 1291 against Muslims (and to some extent Jews)? The first one was started by Pope Urban II after his [in]famous speech of November 27, 1095 in which he called on Christian princes in Europe to embark on a crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the Turks. Like the right-wing “Christian puritans” of today, Pope Urban II conjured up a bunch of lies about what “Muslims” [Turks] were doing to Christians in the Holy Land in order to fire up the Princes of Europe to take up arms (swords) and go on the first Crusade.

Those Crusades are still going on to this day, just in a different format and form, like the one we are talking about now. It is American Christianity against all of Islam. It is ineffectual and inconsequential to argue that of the 1.57 billion Muslims that inhabit this earth the 19 barbaric terrorists of 9/11 and their supporters are so infinitesimal that you can barely mathematically calculate their percentage vis-a-vis the world Muslim population. You cannot and will not convince American Christians that the 9/11 terrorists and other radicals who falsely refer to themselves as Muslims do not represent Islam. Why? Because American Christians believe that one Muslim terrorist is 110% representative of all 1.57 billion Muslims. And that makes one wonder if Timothy McVeigh’s barbaric bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK, on April 19, 1995 in which 168 people perished (including 19 children at a daycare in the building) also makes all Christians terrorists. After all, McVeigh, we have been told, was a devout Catholic.

Posted by: erickaba | August 18, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Is she nuts?!! Are freaking Democrats so disconnected and aloof in their leftist-elitism that their leader feels it more important to investigate opposition to this monument to Islamic victory at the site of their cowardly attack on this country than funding for the victory mosque itself? I've had it with these stinking commies almost as much as I've had it with our less covert enemies.

Posted by: cwejohnson | August 18, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

The freedom of religion is a constitutional right. However, where does it say they can build anywhere they want? The federal gov't owns millions of acres of land, can they build on anu of that?(NO). Can they build in areas that have zoning restrictions for this type structure?(NO). Imagine having a Japanese cuultural center built at Pearl Harbor! They have a constitutional right to but is it REALLY RIGHT?

Posted by: baz987 | August 18, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

". . .After all, McVeigh, we have been told, was a devout Catholic.

Posted by: erickaba | August 18, 2010 4:46 PM |"

Your whole post is a load of bs, but I'm not letting this one go by without comment. McVeigh was not a devout Catholic, he was not a Catholic at all, and in interviews he stated he was an agnostic. An agnostic is not a Christian, in case you weren't aware of that. Also, he never claimed to be on some mission from God when he blew up the Murrah building. His act was purely political and he said so repeatedly. For scum like you to try to equate his actions with Christianity is just reprehensible. Go crawl back under your rock.

Posted by: mbs235 | August 18, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

If anyone is curious, the first organized opposition to the mosque came from a group called 911 Familes For Amnerica. Have fun investigating the 911 families, Nancy.

http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/

Posted by: tbagnal | August 18, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

You mean Pelosi has no idea what she's talking about? What a surprise!

What needs investigating is how such a vulgar, ignorant and grotesque creature could be installed two heartbeats from the presidency.

Posted by: thebump | August 18, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Progressive Democrats the friend of Islam since September 11, 2001

Posted by: PennyWisetheClown | August 18, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

You said "that it's still possible that the developers could abandon the project --and if that happened, it would send an awful message abroad."

Well, if the parts of the world that disagree with it are the same ones that want to see our destruction (no matter how much some folks want to kow-tow or concede everything in the name of temporary peace), then most Americans and visitors here (along with our friends and allies overseas) will have no problem with that.

I wonder, will the Taliban and Al-Qaeda really care? Will they behave themselves if the mosque is built at its current location or if its moved?

Will the secularists and peace-loving citizens in France, Turkey, Sweden, Britain, and elsewhere who see creeping Islamic fundamentalism in their societies be as upset as you think they will be? Nope. See, the world is more diverse than you give it credit for. Liberal tunnel vision doesn't serve anyone except apologists and Quinslings.

Posted by: jmcewan29 | August 18, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

["Either way, Pelosi doesn't seem to be calling for some kind of government investigation into the mosque's critics, as thrilling as that would be to some on the right."]

Dear Mr. Sargent,

News flash: Pelosi is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. When she says she joins in the call for an investigation, one could be forgiven if they believe that it would be a government investigation.

Stop defending her stupid comments.

Posted by: pararanger22 | August 18, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Wow! On Friday Obama strongly backed the mosque at Ground Zero, then after he saw the nation's reaction, he lied and try to say he wasn't actually backing the site of this mosque. Nancy said what she meant this morning, and when the backlash from the nation was heard, she lied and tried to make it something else....two democrats-two liars-two people becoming laughingstocks in the USA and around the world. The midterms have gone from a gain for the Republicans to a total massacre of the Democrats thanks to Pelosi, Reid, Obama, high unemployment, and a spending spree unrpecendented in US history.

Posted by: Realist201 | August 18, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi has been brainwashed. All she can think about is money. Is it private money or tax money? Is it any of your business? Read comment for substance of contents. How much did it cost the Nazi Germany?

The Auschwitz analogies are useful in better understanding why people come to different conclusion. The Hitler Nazi’s killed Jewish people by throwing them in ovens and burning them to death at Auschwitz. The Osama bin Laden holy warriors of Islam killed Americans by hijacking commercial flights and crashing them into high rise office buildings and government institutions. Auschwitz is the site of death and Ground Zero is a site of death.

The deaths were caused by hate towards a group of people. In one case, the Jewish people were hated by the German Nazi who thought getting rid of the Jews; they were cleansing their superior race of a morally corrupt people. In the Osama case, religious fervor was brought against the Western morally corrupt world of infidels to the Muslim world community of the Islam religion.

The outcomes are very different. The Nazi régime in German was destroyed by the Allied war efforts and Hitler killed himself. The outcome was a clear defeat of the Nazi and a clear victory for U.S. The U.S. war on terrorism has been downgraded and relegated by the Obama Democrat administration to an ambiguous terrorism war that deserves only civil criminal prosecution. The Mosque at Ground Zero will declare victory for the Islam jihad faction of the Muslim world. It will represent a win for them and no respect for American victims. Islam taught them a lesson and those killed got what they deserved. Hear anything different from the Muslims?

Posted by: klausdmk | August 18, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

"Either way, Pelosi doesn't seem to be calling for some kind of government investigation into the mosque's critics, as thrilling as that would be to some on the right."
==========================================

Actually, that is exactly what Pelosi is calling for! And I am sure even if some liberal newspaper, such as the Washington Post, did her bidding, she would then hold some sort of congressional hearing on the matter, ala the Steroid Hearings. (how that is relevant to american politics is beyond me!)

But what is more humorous is Pelosi's call for transparency. We should remember her desire for openness when it comes to her campaing contributions, her husband's investments, etc. It is just laughable the idea that Democrats cry for transparency of anything given their recent track record!

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | August 18, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

What about investigating the White voters the Black Panthers intimidated? Asking who funded these White Voters to go vote.

Eric Holder investigate these White Bigots. What were White people doing even living in Philadelphia? Who funded White people living in Philadelphia? Nancy Pelosi wants to know.

Posted by: OldAtlantic | August 18, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

CalD and others -- it's my last post on the mosque, unless something important happens.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | August 18, 2010 10:44 AM
------------------------------------------

Apparently the call by Pelosi for transparency in funding all sides means that Comrade Sargent's funding has to be cut off. The Communist Party is going to be disappointed.

Posted by: PS7900 | August 18, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

After she became Speaker Pelosi stuck it to the 9/11 victims donning the headscarf in Damascus ... where it's not necessary to wear it, so this current dismissal of the victims and their families should come as no surprise.

Posted by: phvr38 | August 18, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

" At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center."

Well I'm against it, so go ahead and start with me. Explain how using the power of the government to investigate private citizens for expressing their free speech rights in an effort to silence them is appropriate.

Yes I see you wiping with the Constitution; all I can hope is everyone sees it, and that you get infected paper cuts.

Posted by: gekkobear1 | August 18, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Bob65 wrote about Liam's post that included the following: "...Suicide Attacks are for losers, and only Right Wing Losers keep wetting their pants in fear of such addled piss ants."

Bob wrote: "The above quote is one of the stupidest things I have ever read in my entire life. Not a single mention, NOT ONE, is made of the thousands of innocent people who were killed by those suicide attacks. Only on the left."
__________________________

Bob: you should read more than just comic books. Liam was noting historical facts that get ignored by many...actually, on the "left" and "right." His "right-wing losers" reference might have been overkill, but he wasn't ignoring the victims, just making a significant point...clearly over your head:

So many Americans have allowed a few fanatics to completely panic this country. (Guessimates I've seen put al-Qai'da numbers in the low thousands.) My advice to people like you: get a backbone. Other countries have suffered significant acts of terror...the UK, Spain, Jordan, Indonesia...and not one of them has responded with the abject cowardice that so many Americans have shown, cowering and whining when someone even attempts an act of terror.

No one has ever stopped all acts of terror...and we won't either. Not the Brits, Israelis, Chinese, Russians...no one. But spineless Americans, aided and abetted by our even more spineless politicians, go into spasms of panic whenever a terrorist act is even attempted, assuming that anyone even contemplating such a thing should be stopped in advance, or someone must be at fault. If enough people want to give up their lives in a suicide bombing, no one will stop them all.

But we're letting our politicans spend us into bankruptcy chasing our tails around the world trying vainly to "win" the so-called "war on terror"...the most airheaded, meaningless soundbite known to mankind (OK, my opinion). And, left to their own devices, they will surely continue to undermine the most basic American values to try vainly to "keep us safe."

Think about it, dumbo: if radical fanatics were strong enough to get their way with tanks and troops etc, they wouldn't resort to suicide bombings. The Japanese only resorted to Kamikazi attacks when the war started going seriously against them...according to histories of WWII, they didn't want to lose so many trained pilots, but felt they had no choice (I know something about it since my father died fighting the Japanese in the Philippines). Didn't work out too well for them.

Actually, Liam is sorta wrong in one regard: Jews used terrorist acts against the Brits in the 1940s to "encourage" the British Government to give up its Palestine Mandate; Israel probably wouldn't have been established as soon as it was without the terrorist acts by Jewish groups (Irgun, Stern Gang, ect). But those were particular circumstances.

A few thousand fanatics now against a country of 300 million: I think I'll take our chances...without panic.

Posted by: Rigged | August 18, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

miss P is the government.The victims of 9/11 are and were funded by her she voted to fund their loss.Now the first responders as far as the left is concerned racest hate mongers.Harry Reid is a hate monger. I would say this is a democratic mess. Not one tea party group has said a word.No main stream republicans Silent as the cowards they play in real life.The Zoo Yorkers can now join the club the one where Pilosi calls you names and wants to investigate voters as they did that poor sap plumber that ask Obama a simple but reavealing question you know that transfer of wealth thingie..

Posted by: jmounday | August 18, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi is a statist, she should do two things:

1) Pay for the air fares her family has abused

2) Prepare to hand her gavel to the GOP after November

A bit of koranic discipline and a burka would be ok too......

Posted by: georgedixon1 | August 18, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

@ Liam-still | August 18, 2010 12:27 PM:

LOL! Oh, bless his heart. At least we know it's in the right place.

But enough about the mosque, let's talk about the mosque! Shall we?

Posted by: CalD | August 18, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Nancy Pelosi demands transparency into the transheresy hate speech against the Mosque de Triomphe. After all she approved Obama without checking his birth certificate or college records or Indonesian records or Passport to Pakistan.

Pelosi has to put fear into House members and DOJ/DHS employees. Not to mention Hawaii and the colleges Obama went to. No free ride for them if they expose the truth. They face the Pelosi Panels.

Posted by: OldAtlantic | August 18, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I posed the following question in the Open Thread and got no takers, so I will try it again here in the hope that some anti-Park 51 commenter will provide an answer:

If we must suspend the First Amendment within a certain perimeter surrounding "hallowed ground," what (exactly) is the correct distance beyond which the US Constitution shall again pertain?

I would like to know the precise distance, and I'd also like to understand the means by which such a distance is computed.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 18, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi Panels can investigate:

1) Who is financing the use of Barack Hussein Obama's middle name, Hussein, which is obviously Islamophobia?

2) Who is financing the Birth Certificate litigation on the right?

3) Who said there would be Pelosi Health Cost Control Panels aka Pelosi Death Panels? Who is funding the Death Panels talk?

4) Who is funding the Tea Party movement?

5) Who is funding the opposition to race replacement immigration?

6) Who is funding opposition to H-1b's?

7) Who is funding opposition to know-how transfer to China?

8) Who is funding opposition to transfer of manufacturing to China?

9) Who is funding the opposition to bailouts?

10) Who is funding the Red Neck Bigot Racist White Supremacist Ku Klux Klan Nazi White Christian Supremacist Conspiracy?

Nancy Pelosi wants to know. Now. Because the complacent American people who go along with race replacement immigration, affirmative action, and loss of civil rights of association and speech would never speak up against Nancy Pelosi unless some evil White Racist Hate Crime Hate Speech Nazi Redneck conspiracy was funding it.

Posted by: OldAtlantic | August 18, 2010 8:24 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of choreographing, you recall a few years back when it was oh so fashionable to speak of G.W. Bush's 'lack of gravitas'? It was 'gravitas this, and gravitas that' all over the news pages and the Internet and the airwaves. Don't know if it was a JournOlista kind of thing, or a TP memo. It was just fashionably hip, dontchaknow? anybody who was anybody was saying 'gravitas, dahling'. Well guess who the literati are calling for, beggin for now? "GW needs to weigh in on this! Remember how good ol' GW was our champion?" It's in several Post articles, on TV and the Net. Delicious.

Posted by: chatard | August 18, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

On Tuesday, Pelosi said:

"There is no question that there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some," she said in remarks posted Tuesday in a video on the San Francisco Chronicle website. "And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque (is) being funded."

On Wednesday (today), Pelosi's spin machine is trying to "explain" what she "really meant".

What Pelosi said on Tuesday is explanation enough.

No need to tell us what we heard from Pelosi's mouth isn't what we heard.

Posted by: bob59 | August 18, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

I find it quite amusing that liberals are so up in arms about the rights of Muslims to build a mosque, yet they are aghast that Dr. Laura used the "n-word" -- not as an epithet directed at someone, but to comment on the unfortunate use of the word.

So if I got this right...

Freedom of Religion? Check.
Freedom of Speech? Eh...

So, Greg: I assume your next article will be in support of Dr. Laura, yes?

Posted by: diehardlib | August 18, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Most everyone I know is opposed to this atrocity. None of us are receiving any funding.

Can we drain Pelosi from her own swamp?

Posted by: NoWayNotNow | August 18, 2010 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Sargent says:

"What Pelosi's mosque remarks meant"

I'll tell you what it means, it means that the jokes about Nancy being drunk all the time may turn out to be true after all.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | August 18, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

"I would like to know the precise distance, and I'd also like to understand the means by which such a distance is computed."

I'll answer that question if you think it would be okay to set up a tavern & strip club right next to the mosque.

Posted by: Ombudsman1 | August 18, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Pelosi doesn't seem to be calling for some kind of government investigation into the mosque's critics, as thrilling as that would be to some on the right.
====================================
Oooh. Pelosi is avoiding an investigation of a religious body doing as it wishes because she is involved in something very similar to Church and State separation, and in a very negative way.
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2010/05/pelosi-tells-catholic-leaders-to-promote-immigration-reform-from-the-pulpit.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65513

Pelosi Urges Catholic Church to Play 'Major Role' in Immigration Overhau
March 4, 2010. (AP)

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/04/audio-of-michael-savage-power-hungry.html
=====================

Forget about the right bubba.. think about the constitution and the nature of Pelosi's effort to include religious instructions in our current government.

Posted by: joelwisch | August 18, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

"I'll answer that question if you think it would be okay to set up a tavern & strip club right next to the mosque."

I personally would have no problem with that (given that many such establishments are already present in the neighborhood), and I assume that people who do (for example the parents of children that might be visitors to the community center) would have the same amount of citizen input in the decision, which is correctly to be made by the appropriate authorities in lower Manhattan.

Now I look forward to your direct answer to my question, as promised.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 18, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

The issue is this: Are we going to allow the rightwing to validate the negative things our enemies say about us?
Posted by: nisleib
----------------------------
If Muslims world wide are angry with the US it is NOT because of the absence of a mosque at WTC. It is about the blind support which the US gives Israel. It is about the way that the US uses Muslim nations to satisfy its oil thirst. One of Osama's complaints against the US was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia.

And if the US and Israel carry out their dumb plan of bombing Iran, that too will make Muslims angry.

By comparison, the mosque or non-mosque is small potatoes. It has only been made into a bigger potato by the stubborn liberal refusal to move the site of the mosque. Bloomberg could have said to the Imam, "Not here please!" and we would not be having this discussion at all.

So think about it. If you were an Arab father, and your family was blown to smithereens by a US supplied Israeli warplane, would you then think about the mosque and say, "Thank Allah for the US"?

Do you really think Muslims are dumb?

Posted by: rohit57 | August 18, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

Nobody can stop the mosque from being built. Our Constitution gives the Muslim that right,l and if they're forced not to build it here, this will go to the Supreme Court and the anti-Muslims will lose.

Posted by: kingsbridge77 | August 18, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

You're wasting your breath. The Right is never slowed by facts.

Posted by: FormerRepublicant | August 18, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey Liam, you said:

"If you removed Bin Laden's beard, he would have the very same facial features as Pamela Geller. Hmmmm. Perhaps that is why we have not been able to locate him."

Well, "Liam" -- if that is your real name -- Ms. Geller might resemble Obama, er, ah, Osama, from the neck up to someone lame, but certainly not from the neck down:

http://fatjewishguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/picture-6.png

Nice!

Posted by: nickthimmeschearthlinknet | August 18, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Greg, post her original statement for people to make up their own minds as to whether she's initially called for an investigation. Speaker Pelosi initially called for "looking into how is this opposition being funded." That, in layman's terms and for those of us who are endless shills for the Democratic Party, means an investigation. As for who would undertake such "looking into," one can only image...and shudder. As for her "clarification" (my there seems to be a lot of that going on these days), are you seriously such a hack that you take it at face value with barely a criticism and nary a follow-on inquiry as to what her motives might be? AB-SURD.

Posted by: squid1 | August 18, 2010 11:36 PM | Report abuse

This mosque thing reminds me, as a sports fan, of Bret Favre. It's the biggest overblown non-story the media can chew on like ravenous, mindless hyenas.

Grow up America!

Posted by: dmblum | August 18, 2010 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Please give this wacky political hack enough rope.

Thank you, God.

Posted by: logicprevails | August 18, 2010 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that the donkeycrats always seem to backtrack to explain what what they meant to say. And they say they want transparency on this issue. Where the heck is their promised transparency and a drained swamp?

The donkeycrats should put their house in order when it comes to speaking out on issues. Simple, yet well nigh impossible for that braindead group.

Posted by: apdseal | August 19, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

"Nobody can stop the mosque from being built"

Eminent domain can. No one has mentioned this.

Posted by: JDB1 | August 19, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Wow. You can hardly tell that Nancy's right arm has travelled completely up Greg's digestive tract and is making his lips move and his fingers type. UFB! And all the way from San Fran to boot. Hope she trims her nails, Greg!

Posted by: MDDem1 | August 19, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

"Eminent domain can. No one has mentioned this."

There is a reason why.

If New York State or the US government were to seize control of the Burlington Coat Factory building solely in order to prevent people from holding religious pratices in that space after having receiving the necessary permits and approvals, the resulting inevitable lawsuit and complete loss by the government on constitutional grounds would be automatic.

The government's right to assert eminent domain is not unconditional, and it certainly does not trump the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 19, 2010 2:12 AM | Report abuse

PELOSI, JUST VIOLATED THE 1ST AMMENDMENT
RIGHT OF 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH' OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!
we should ALL file a civil rights class
action lawsuit against PELOSI AND CONGRESS
WE MUST DEMAND CONGRESS, TO SEND PELOSI FOR
A 'FIT FOR DUTY ' EXAM NOW, IF THEY DONT THEY ARE LIABLE FOR HER ACTIONS AS WELL

Posted by: debraNJ | August 19, 2010 8:05 AM | Report abuse

AHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! I love the smell of slow, democratic suicide in the morning!

Posted by: nogard | August 19, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

[Patrick_M sneered: "If we must suspend the First Amendment within a certain perimeter surrounding "hallowed ground," what (exactly) is the correct distance beyond which the US Constitution shall again pertain? I would like to know the precise distance, and I'd also like to understand the means by which such a distance is computed.]

Patrick asks without a hint of irony?

Sharia law enforcement authorities in Dearbornistan are working these details out precisely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEPod-hxD7g

Don't be a sneering apologist for Islamo-supremacism your whole life, Pat.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | August 19, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

So, Madam Speaker, will you investigate Harry Reid and Howard Dean? I'm sure it was Freudian slip on your part and instead of "investigate" you meant to say "intimidate."

Fortunately, Madam Speaker, your regrettably prolonged 15-minutes are just about over. Your tenure has done incalculable damage to this country. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that after November you will go to a well-deserved political oblivion.

Posted by: RozarSmacco | August 19, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Don't evade an answer to my simple question your whole life, KaddafiDelendaEs.

Posted by: Patrick_M | August 19, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

By any normal means, legal acts, fair rules and all relevant criticizam, I can't find anything wrong with this mosque, actualy with this Islamic Community Centre.
Conservatives make it sound like this mosque is exactly at Ground Zero and with 13 story high minarets; NOT TRUE AT ALL, so I will ignore that lie. Mosque is not even moraly wrong from any aspect. I do find moraly wrong when goverenment takes half of my paycheck and gives it away to these idiots:
- Bear Stearns $30 Billion
- Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac $400 Billion
- A.I.G. - $180 Billion
- General Motors, Chrysler - $25 Billion
- T.A.R.P. FUNDING for Crooks - $700 Billion
- Citigroup - $280 Billion
- Bank of America - $142 Billion

DO ANY OF YOU MORRONS COMPLAIN OR TALK ABOUT THIS MORALY WRONG ACT OR YOU ARE ALSO JUST PAID TO MAKE SOME NOISE AND DISTRACT NORMAL PEOPLE FROM THEIR REAL PROBLEMS WHILE SOMEBODY IS RIPPING THEM OFF.

SO, WHOEVER HELL BUILDS THIS MOSQUE, AT LEAST THEY ARE BUILDING IT OUT OF THEIR OWN MONEY, SO I REALLY DON'T CARE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT MORALY WRONG AT ALL TO ANY OF US.
And if you think to make some connection of Islam and Muslims to all Muslims who would use this mosque, then you got some other problems.

Posted by: BOBSTERII | August 19, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

I think it's pretty obvious that Osama Bin Laden is funding the attacks on the Mosque project: http://blog.hired-mind.com/2010/08/19/ground-zero-mosque-osama-bin-laden-weighs-in/

Posted by: hiredmind | August 19, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Of course the neo-fascists (the ones in our government, not the Islamo-type) are all for the 9/11 Islamist Victory Memorial. Both the Democrat and Islamist ideologies are based upon conquest and subservience to their wills.

Posted by: scottm1207 | August 20, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I don't remember so many "clarifications" from Republican leaders when Bush was President.

Posted by: dumbreddown | August 22, 2010 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Would Pelosi open a gun store three minutes from Columbine HS?

Posted by: dumbreddown | August 22, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company