Tag Archives: constitution

50th Anniversary This Weekend of the Seminal ‘Sharon Statement’

Before this weekend ends, I thought it worth a reminder that this weekend marks the 50th anniversary of a key milestone in the creation of the modern conservative political movement – the “Sharon Statement.” On Friday, the Fund for American Studies and the Young America’s Foundation sponsored a “ Tribute Sharon: Celebrating 50 Years of Advancing Liberty ” daytime conference followed by a dinner commemorating the 1960 founding of the Young Americans for Freedom . C-SPAN carried the afternoon speakers live from DC’s Mayflower hotel. (The image here is from a photo I took of a screen during the dinner.) For the American Spectator online, Quin Hillyer, one of the speakers, wrote an informative piece on what he described as “the single best compendium of American conservative movement beliefs” and its adoption at a gathering of about 90 college students and a few others at William F. Buckley Jr.’s home in Sharon, Connecticut. In a piece in Friday’s Investor’s Business Daily, “ The Magnificent Legacy of the YAF ,” K.E. Grubbs Jr. recalled “M. Stanton Evans was charged with drafting a statement of principles” and observed: “The Sharon Statement would last as the late 20th century’s single most elegant distillation of conservative principles.” A new book, by Wayne Thorburn, provides a history of the Young Americans for Freedom and a look at its impact and the influence of those who were once members, ‘A Generation Awakes: Young Americans for Freedom and the Creation of the Conservative Movement.’ ( Amazon’s page ) Dinner attendees got a free copy and I discovered that I earned a sentence (on page 493, yes, it’s a long book). (C-SPAN’s video camera caught me a few times in the audience and in this jpg you can see me, from the back, talking to a conservative media figure with whom you may be familiar: Scripps-Howard nationally-syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock .) Sharon Statement “Adopted in Conference, at Sharon, Connecticut, in conference September 10 – 13, 1960.” IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths. WE, as young conservatives believe: THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force; THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom; THAT the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice; THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty; THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power; THAT the genius of the Constitution – the division of powers – is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government; THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs; THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both; THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies… THAT the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties; THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace; and THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?

Link:
50th Anniversary This Weekend of the Seminal ‘Sharon Statement’

CBS’s Schieffer Hits Miller for ‘Extreme Positions,’ Ridicules GOP Field as ‘Kind of an Exotic Crew’

Republicans are “exotic” and “extreme,” and against science too, CBS’s Bob Schieffer contended on Sunday’s Face the Nation. “You have also taken some fairly controversial, some would say very extreme, positions,” Schieffer lectured Alaska Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller , citing “you want to phase out Medicare, you want to privatize Social Security.” Miller countered: “I would suggest to you that if one thinks that the Constitution is extreme then you’d also think that the founders are extreme.” Next, picking up on Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s claim Democrats are “are centrist” while Republicans “are really off on the right wing fringe,” Schieffer pressed Republican Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour “about that,” highlighting Miller’s “controversial stands” before asserting:  Isn’t that going to make it harder for some of these Republican candidates to get elected because down in Kentucky you have Rand Paul, who’s got the nomination for the Senate there, talking about, well, maybe we ought to rethink the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’65. You’ve got Joe Buck, who won the nomination up in Colorado, who’s talking about bicycle paths being a, might lead to UN control or something other. It seems to me that you do have kind of an exotic crew out there this time. Barbour shot back: “Well Bob, the administration and the Democratic Congress have taken the biggest lurch to the left in policy in American history.” As for bicycles and the UN, Schieffer was apparently referring to an early August comment by Dan Maes, Colorado’s Republican gubernatorial candidate who is running against Denver’s Mayor, not Ken Buck the Senate candidate. According to an August 4 Denver Post article, “ Bike agenda spins cities toward U.N. control, Maes warns ,” he was making an argument about “Denver’s membership in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.” The CBSNews.com summary post, on this edition of Face the Nation, also pivoted from Wasserman Schultz’s perspective: “ Tea Party Making It Harder for GOP: Fla. Dem .” Schieffer ended the show with a commentary decrying a federal judge for issuing an “injunction placing limits on stem cell research, an area that holds the greatest possibilities for medical breakthroughs since penicillin.” Without regard for the moral issues or how the latest breakthroughs have come from unimpeded research using adult stem cells (the ruling blocked only federal funding of embryonic stem cell research), Schieffer insisted “putting restraints on stem cell research is not far from those who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because they believed their doctrines and tradition had already told them what they would see.” He painted opponents as being against gaining knowledge: “As we again try to untangle the arguments over stem cells, let us also consider this: No civilization, no society, has survived if its people came to believe they knew enough and needed to know nothing more.” After Schieffer repeatedly marveled about Miller’s pledge to work to cut federal payments to Alaska, in return for the federal government turning land over to the state, this exchange took place: BOB SCHIEFFER: You have also taken some fairly controversial, some would say very extreme, positions. First you say you want to phase out Medicare. You want to privatize Social Security. I have to say there are a lot of people in Alaska who are on Medicare and are getting Social Security. Isn’t that position going to be a problem for you in the election, in this general election? JOE MILLER: I would suggest to you that if one thinks that the Constitution is extreme then you’d also think that the founders are extreme… Later: DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: …Americans really are going to have a very clear choice set up in November between moderate Democrats who are centrist, where the country is, and Republicans who are really off on the right wing fringe. And there’s countless examples of that across the country. SCHIEFFER: Well, let me ask Governor Barbour about that. What about that, Governor Barbour? Because you just heard Joe Miller, who may wind up as the nominee for the Republicans up in Alaska, saying he’s go out and campaign on less money for Alaska, less federal dollars coming in. He has taken several controversial stands like that and, I must say, to his credit he didn’t back off of them when I asked him about it this morning. But isn’t that going to make it harder for some of these Republican candidates to get elected because down in Kentucky you have Rand Paul, who’s got the nomination for the Senate there, talking about, well, maybe we ought to rethink the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’65. You’ve got Joe Buck, who won the nomination up in Colorado, who’s talking about bicycle paths being a, might lead to UN control or something other. It seems to me that you do have kind of an exotic crew out there this time. HALEY BARBOUR: Well Bob, the administration and the Democratic Congress have taken the biggest lurch to the left in policy in American history… Schieffer’s commentary at the end of the August 29 program: Finally today, last week two people I know were diagnosed with colon cancer, one of the deadliest of all cancers. Because my wife and I are cancer survivors, because my mother died of cancer because she was afraid to go to the doctor, I’ve come to know a little about the disease. My friends have a serious illness, but there is a path to recovery that was not there not so long ago. As I talked to them last week, I was again struck by the remarkable progress science is making to give them that path. Being told we have cancer no longer means we’ve been given the death penalty. Like all scientific breakthroughs, advances in cancer research began and depend on basic research — science’s ability to go not where doctrine or tradition dictates, but where research takes it. Ironically, my friends were diagnosed about the time a federal judge issued the injunction placing limits on stem cell research, an area that holds the greatest possibilities for medical breakthroughs since penicillin. I have the greatest respect for those who disagree, but to me putting restraints on stem cell research is not far from those who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because they believed their doctrines and tradition had already told them what they would see. Their beliefs, too, were deeply held, but where would the store of knowledge be had their view prevailed? As we again try to untangle the arguments over stem cells, let us also consider this: No civilization, no society, has survived if its people came to believe they knew enough and needed to know nothing more.

See more here:
CBS’s Schieffer Hits Miller for ‘Extreme Positions,’ Ridicules GOP Field as ‘Kind of an Exotic Crew’

Republicans Support Strip Clubs on Ground Zero Sacred Ground

While the Constitution forbids prohibiting a mosque from being built blocks away from ground zero (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”), Republicans are salivating at the prospect of ignoring the constitution (again) and using this for political hay. Apparently, the Family Values Party is not concerned with the strip clubs (like New York Dolls) that surround hallowed ground (after all, we all know that Hooters is a family restaurant and Fox News is not conservative day time porn), because nothing says Christian Values and Apple Pie like a strip club. Yes, we will fight for our rights to strip but you can take your religious freedom, the very thing this country was founded on, and shove it! Hey, if you don’t like strip clubs, we have the Ground Zero Trashy Lingerie store. Or if you’re really feeling crummy about your inability to stir up religious hate, you can wander over to the Pussycat Lounge, described as “the place strippers go to die” and just blocks from so called Hallowed Ground, we can call this Ground Zero-Ish Strip Club. You can Google map the area and find the strip clubs the same distance from Ground Zero as the proposed community center (and – cue scary music- MOSQUE) named the Cordoba House. added by: toyotabedzrock

YouTube – China’s Present/Future Military Technology

This video features many advanced/prototype military technologies. China is now thinking smart and is trying to develop smart weapons like UAVs with the help from its great ally Russia and other countries. If China's UAV is succesful and goes in production…casualties would be lowered…. This video shows : Advanced Guided Missiles Prototypes of UAV's China's Future Generation Fighter Jet, The Stealth J-XX fighter… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXRa5IGmVto&NR=1 added by: DogBoy

ACTA bill unconstitutional?

[What is ACTA?] The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (also known as ACTA) raises significant concerns for consumer privacy, civil liberties, innovation, the free flow of information on the Internet, commerce, and developing countries' ability to choose policy options that best suit them. Doesn't the Constitution say a warrant is needed to search my computer? It does! But because ACTA is a treaty, it circumvents the Constitution and takes away our rights! Internet service providers (ISPs) will be forced to monitor what you do online and report to the government anything that is seen as suspicious. How are they going to pay for this? They aren't; instead they will raise our Internet bills. tl;dr rich d-bags around the world are going to take our right to internet privacy and control our browsing, taking money from us in the process, via an international treaty ******************** [Why should I care?] Throughout your life, the internets have helped you in many ways. Many a lonely Friday night have you used the internet to type away your problems. When you think about it, you can't imagine what your life would be like without the internet. Well, too bad. ACTA's about to destroy your human rights. They're going to end piracy, but go against the constitution in the process. This means it's time to say bye bye to your right to privacy. So, why should you be worried about ACTA? -It allows them to censor the internet. -It allows them to search your iPods and computers randomly without giving a reason. -It allows them to confiscate your iPods and computers without giving a reason -It allows them to monitor what you do online -It allows them to block websites deemed “unacceptable”, without limit -It will ban p2p technology, like uTorrent -It will allow ISPs to PERMANENTLY Ban you from using the internet, without a trial. -It will allow arrests based on the content you search. -In a nutshell, they're basically taking your freedom and raping it hard. Our internets will be controlled and monitored, bent to the will of the rich corporations. Think about everything the internet has done for you. Are you going to stick up for it? Are you going to stop these greedy bastards from getting their way? Defend the internet, defend your rights, and fight back, don't be a pussy and just sit there saying it'll never get passed. Take action! ******************** [What can I do to help?] Well, we've got some good news. With enough help from awesome people like you, we have a chance of stopping this treaty from going into play. Currently, our strategy is to bring as much publicity to the ACTA as possible. Keep in mind that ACTA is not a bill. It's a secretive treaty that nobody is supposed to know about in the first place. ACTA's advantage is the fact that the general public is oblivious of it. They know what they're doing is unconstitutional, so they are forced to hide it. Why else would it be so secretive? Why is it that all we know is whatever leaked information we can get our hands on? If it's as innocent as they're trying to make themselves out to be, then they would make everything public. This is why we need to take away one of their primary defenses, and reveal ACTA to the public for what it really is. So how, you may ask, can we go about doing this? Well, it's as obvious as you think it is. Tell your friends, spread the word, and do what you can to bring all the publicity you can to ACTA. Below are some fliers that you can print out. http://ifm-store.deviantart.com/gallery/# /d2tndwq http://ifm-store.deviantart.com/gallery/# /d2tne2q http://ifm-store.deviantart.com/gallery/# /d2tne45 http://ifm-store.deviantart.com/gallery/# /d2tneo5 There are some other ways you can help prevent ACTA, listed below. -Sign an anti-ACTA petition ( http://bit.ly/bQeWeO ) -Email the news press about it. ( http://bit.ly/bSUcHH ) *Be sure to write a thoughtful email, point out ACTA's disregards of the constitution, provide ample information, and use good grammar -Find your congressman [Americans] ( http://bit.ly/4ACu1w ) -Find your senator [Americans] ( http://bit.ly/3UAs ) -Find your labour MP [Britons] ( http://bit.ly/aDoyoe ) -Find your conservative MP [Britons] ( http://bit.ly/PwuQl ) -Find your MP [Canadians] ( http://bit.ly/d2f2cm ) -Find your MP [New Zealand] ( http://bit.ly/9XHvzW ) added by: Andre_Rosario

IS GOVT SEIZING CONTROL?

Look at various aspects of American life and asks a simple question: Who is in control? The individual or the government? Where liberals have already had their way, government is in control. Where liberals are still moving to advance their agenda, their success would mean an increase in government intrusion into the lives of individuals. As they attempt to move the country on a trajectory toward greater government control of our lives, liberals are also pushing the country away from two great constants consistently advocated by the Founding Fathers: the principles of limited government chartered in the Constitution and the natural moral law enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. The greatest fiscal danger the nation faces as a result of the liberal agenda is the coming crisis of the welfare state. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation's analysis of Treasury Department figures, the federal government now faces $61.9 trillion in unfunded liabilities. That astounding number is comprised of the federal debt plus the cost of entitlements — such as Medicare and Social Security benefits — promised to people now alive that is not covered by the revenue the current tax structure is expected to yield. This $61.9 trillion in unfunded liabilities, by the way, equals $200,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States — not counting embryos. Where is the government going to find that kind of cash? The Control Freaks know where to look for it: Wherever you put your money. added by: ahiguy

WaPo’s Eugene Robinson: Obama Is On A ‘Winning Streak’

What kind of shameless shill do you have to be to claim the President is on a winning streak as his poll numbers plummet, the economy teeters on a double-dip recession, and his Party is facing historic losses in both chambers of Congress? A Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and former managing editor of the Washington Post, that’s who. Consider that just days after numerous polls were released showing America’s confidence in Barack Obama at an all-time low, and stallwart supporters such as CNN and the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd claimed that even George W. Bush was better at delivering a coherent message to the American people, Eugene Robinson wrote the following Friday: This is a radical break from journalistic convention, I realize, but today I’d like to give credit where it’s due — specifically, to President Obama. Quiet as it’s kept, he’s on a genuine winning streak. Robinson then listed the following items by way of recent headlines: “Last U.S. combat troops leave Iraq” “General Motors to launch stock offering” “Gulf oil spill contained” But here was the best one. In fact, it’s so good it requires a serious warning to remove all fluids, combustibles, and sharp objects from proximity to your computer: And finally, “President wades into mosque controversy”: Yes, I’m serious. Supporting the mosque in Lower Manhattan didn’t score any political points. But Obama saw his duty to uphold the values of our Constitution and make clear that our fight is against the terrorists, not against Islam itself. Instead of doing what was popular, he did what was right. He still hasn’t walked on water, though. What’s wrong with the man? Yep. Robinson is so captivated by this President that he even believes Obama has handled the Ground Zero mosque situation well. Now THAT’S some impressive shilling, wouldn’t you agree? This is sooooo good it requires what Hillary Clinton would call a willing suspension of disbelief. For instance, here are some recent headlines one would have to ignore to come to the conclusion Obama is on a winning streak: Jobless claims hit 500K, a nine-month high New jobs numbers: Bad for economy, worse for Democrats US unemployment figures increase fears of double-dip recession Critics say Obama’s message becoming ‘ incoherent ‘ If polls are any indication, GOP can expect big gains in the fall Even the Poor Are Abandoning Obama , According to Gallup Poll Data ‎ Obama Sees New Lows in Job Approval Obama Receives Low Marks in Economic Poll ‎ Poll: Majority now disapprove of Obama’s job performance 1 in 5 Americans Thinks Obama Is Muslim If this is what Robinson thinks is a winning streak, I can’t imagine what losing looks like to him.

View post:
WaPo’s Eugene Robinson: Obama Is On A ‘Winning Streak’

Cenk Suggests The 70% Of Americans Who Oppose Ground Zero Mosque Are ‘Ignorant’

Different host, same liberal bias . . . Subbing for Ed Schultz on MSNBC this evening, Cenk Ugyur suggested that the roughly 70% of Americans who oppose the Ground Zero mosque are “ignorant.”  Ugyur was debating the mosque matter with Republican strategist and former Newt staffer David Winston.  Winston suggested that the people behind the mosque could, in light of the overwhelming oppposition of Americans to the plan, show sensitivity by agreeing to site it elsewhere. That provoked Cenk’s snide insult, which, as you’ll see, actually revealed his own lack of knowledge on the subject . . . DAVID WINSTON: What I’m saying is, 70% of this country doesn’t like this idea. There’s a unique opportunity for Muslims to show, look, we understand Americans have difficulty with this, and we’re willing to have, to move somewhere else.  There’s just a sense of like, look, if we’re going to cooperate and get along, and things are going to work, people are going to have to understand the concerns that other folks have — CENK UGYUR: So you’re saying, you’re saying two things from what I’m hearing. One is, if 70% of the country is ignorant, we should back that up. If they don’t know the Constitution or they think Muslims are the same as al Qaeda, we should back that up.  Cenk suggests that those “ignorant” Americans “don’t know the Constitution.”  But if he had taken the time to inform himself of the poll question that CNN had put to people, and which generated the overwhelming response, he would have found that it read [emphasis added]: “As you may know, a group of Muslims in the U.S. plan to build a mosque two blocks from the site in New York City where the World Trade Center used to stand. Do you favor or oppose this plan? ” So that 70% [68% to be precise] weren’t asked, and weren’t opining, that they thought Muslims didn’t have a right to build the mosque. They were simply expressing their personal opinion to the effect that they “oppose the plan.”  And that is their constitutional right.  So who’s ignorant now?

Read the original post:
Cenk Suggests The 70% Of Americans Who Oppose Ground Zero Mosque Are ‘Ignorant’

Daily Kos: Exposing Our Dumbest Quotes Ensures There’s ‘No Meaningful Dialogue’ of Right and Left

It’s bad enough that the Daily Kos posts outrageous claims like “the 9/11 attacks were horrific, but they were more about optics than actual harm .” When bizarre sentences like these are exposed, then the exposers are accused of being enemies of “meaningful dialogue.” What is meaningful in telling the families of the victims of 9/11 that their losses were more “optics” than “actual harm”? But that’s how the blogger “Something the Dog Said” tried to defend himself against my post on NewsBusters: Mr. Graham is using the quotes from my posts that are most likely to confirm his readers prejudice against the Left and Daily Kos. By doing so he makes sure there can be no meaningful dialog between the Right and Left. The Radical Right has been told [told us?] for 9 years that we, their fellow citizens, are the enemy along with Islam. We are somehow less American because we don’t agree with the jingoistic “Clashes of Civilizations” crap. The very crap that Osama Bin Laden has been purveying; they fail to realize that by giving credence to this terrorist asshat’s idea we help him build up his forces and make it more likely that some city, here or in Europe or Asia sees another horrific attack. It’s also puzzling how this Kosmonaut thinks he or she is conducting a “meaningful dialogue” by accusing his critics of purveying the same propaganda lines as Osama bin Laden. It’s never a good idea for someone at the Daily Kos to suggest someone else has been more uncivil than they have been. This person says conservatives make the bone-headed error of blurring them together with the terrorists — and then blurs conservatives together with the terrorists. But there was more attempts at self-defense against right-wing radicals: Those on the Radical Right are making a big deal about the fact that polls are finding that majorities of Americans are not in favor of the community center being built two blocks from the site of a terrorist attack that was nine years ago. To me that is a sad fact, one which until I saw the polling I would not have believed. Still it does not matter. You do not have rights in this country because the majority says so. You have rights because we all have them and they are written into our Constitution and supported by 200 years of case law. I expect that I am in for some interesting times. I will not back down from my position that the mosque associated with the community center has ever right to build where they please, just as a Catholic church or a Buddhist temple would. I will also not back down from calling out the hysterical fear the Radical Right is stoking against our fellow citizens who are practitioners of Islam. In the end I find this really kind of sad. I had a five e-mail back and forth with TJ [a conservative commenter] and we could not find a smidge of common ground. I listened to his points, but they were based on fear and skewed news sources, like National Review Online, Fox and Newsbusters. They were based on false memes that the Radical Right has been pushing all along and the macho attitude that we are going to kick some ass. Now one of the asses they want to kick is mine. I wish I had any confidence that the folks who commented on these posts read all of both of my articles. There’s several mistakes here: first, that anyone would find the Dog-Said articles more persuasive by reading them from beginning to end. Second, that my post in any way encouraged brutality against Dog-Said. My point in replaying these quotes is the same point we at NewsBusters continue to make when he highlight the Daily Kos. We don’t expect them to be anything less than full-throated leftists. But we do think that liberal pundits (like Bill Press) who claim that liberals don’t say vicious and hateful things need don’t seem to be reading or listening to the arguments of their friends and colleagues.

Obama throws support behind controversial Islamic center

Washington (CNN) — President Obama threw his support behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic center and mosque near New York's ground zero, saying Friday that “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,” according to remarks distributed by the White House. “Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,” Obama said, according to prepared remarks released before a speech. “That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said. Obama was speaking at a White House Iftar dinner celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The president's remarks drew praise from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who announced his support for the Islamic center last week. Bloomberg compared Obama's speech to a letter President George Washington wrote in support of a Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. “President Obama's words tonight evoked President Washington's own August reminder that 'all possess alike liberty,' ” Bloomberg said in a statement. “I applaud President Obama's clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight,” he said. The president invoked the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which critics of the Islamic center cite as the main reason for preventing its construction. “We must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan,” Obama said, according to his prepared remarks. “The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country.” “The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable,” he continued. “So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.” But Obama argued that American ideals and the Constitution demanded that the project proceed. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable,” he said. “The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.” The proposed Islamic center has provoked vocal opposition from some families of 9/11 victims and other groups. Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose the plan, according to CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Wednesday. The project's leaders say they plan to build the $100 million, 13-story facility called Cordoba House three blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks. The developer, Sharif El-Gamal, describes the project as an “Islamic community center” that will include a 500-seat performing arts center, a lecture hall, a swimming pool, a gym, a culinary school, a restaurant and a prayer space for Muslims. On Wednesday, the project's developers declined an offer by New York Gov. David Paterson to relocate the project to a state-owned site. Earlier this month, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously denied landmark status for the building where the proposed Islamic center would stand, allowing the project to move forward. added by: TimALoftis