Tag Archives: islam

When Muslims Make Fun of the Amish

So last night on the show, Andy Levy pointed out that the person representing the Ground Zero mosque on Twitter made a few jabs at the Amish. This is what the Tweeter tweeted: Amish saying stop Muslims?1. What are you doing on the computer? 2. That’s not very Amish 3. Shouldn’t you be making butter? Later, that tweet was deleted. Which is a shame, because it didn’t have to go. See, the Mosque folks don’t understand that here in America you can make fun of any religion – yes, even the Amish – and angry followers won’t throw acid in your face or behead you in front of a tripod. And, as primitive as the Amish are, they won’t even stone you to death for adultery. But the tweeting Park51 can be forgiven: maybe they thought the Amish might head out from Lancaster County and fly a buggy straight into their building. Don’t worry, “Parky:” they wouldn’t get the horses through the Lincoln Tunnel. Anyhoo, that’s my point. We all make Amish jokes, because we can. They are nice people. The worst thing they ever did was deal meth – and in parts of rural PA, that’s almost considered a civic duty (I kid the rural PA-ers). Meanwhile, after I made my proposal to open a gay Muslim bar next to the mosque – I was warned by friends, coworkers and deli managers that I’d end up dead. Who knew so many people hated the Pet Shop Boys? But it is certainly rich for the folks behind the mosque to poke fun of a religion for eschewing modern convenience. After all, the Amish are beyond advanced when compared to the most ardent followers of Islam. Remember, the Amish do not demand that the world to return to a period when its prophet lived – a time when more people died during childbirth than from old age. But hey – at least these Mosque-eteers at Park51 can make fun of the Amish. Maybe later, they can make fun of themselves. And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobe who stole my pants. Crossposted at Big Hollywood  

Continue reading here:
When Muslims Make Fun of the Amish

Thomas Frank, Posterboy for Liberal Media Elitism, Ends Wall Street Journal Column

With the media elite once again reminding the unsophisticated rubes in flyover country of their intellectual and cultural inferiority as it pertains to sensitivities regarding Islam, it seems a good time to review the recent movements of one of the most condescending liberal elitists of the contemporary commentariat: Thomas Frank. The columnist recently left the Wall Street Journal for Harper’s Magazine. Frank, you may remember, penned the 2004 book “What’s the Matter with Kansas,” which explored the baffling (for Frank) tendencies of rural populations between the two coasts to vote Republican. By Frank’s account, their political views ran directly against the grain of their own interests. (Never mind that a very similar book could easily be written about wealthy professionals who, against their own interests, vote for Democrats seeking to raise their taxes and increase regulations on their employers.) Always teeming with a patronizing sense of moral superiority, Frank has characterized conservatism as “institutionally opposed to those baseline good intentions we learned about in elementary school.” Charles Krauthammer once said that conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil. Well Thomas Frank thinks the conservative elites are evil, and the conservative masses are stupid. Frank has dubbed ” demented logic ” the notion that Barack Obama – not George W. Bush – is responsible for the state of the economy, and has bemoaned the fact that, in his words “half our political system is dedicated to the destruction of the government.” That’s right. He fails to meaningfully distinguish between constitutional constraints on federal power and “the destruction of the government.” Frank’s seemingly willful ignorance on the intricacies of conservatism have irked a number of commentators, who note that he simply makes no effort to offer a nuanced argument. His ham-handed approach came under a good deal of fire after he released his book “The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule”. Reason’s Jesse Walker wrote of the book: Frank, formerly the editor of the radical journal The Baffler and currently the token lefty on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, doesn’t just fail to distinguish between crony capitalism and free markets. He actively refuses to recognize the difference. “Laissez-faire,” he admits, “has never described political reality all that well, since conservative governments have intervened in the economy with some regularity.” Yet that doesn’t prevent him from declaring a little later that “what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of government; it is the capture of government by business interests.” If you relied on Frank for your information, you would never dream that the idea of laissez faire initially emerged not as a defense against left-wing regulators, who were scarce in the 18th century, but as a critique of subsidies, government-imposed monopolies, and what Adam Smith called the “mean and malignant expedients of the mercantile system.” In other words, the “free-market paradise” was supposed to be an alternative to “the capture of government by business interests.” In other words, for all his pontificating on the horrors of the absence of government intervention in the economy, Frank seems to be quite confused about what exactly constitutes a free market. This is a fairly representative sample of the intellectual caliber of his arguments. Given all this blather and his consistently derisive – if often erroneous – criticisms of conservatives, it should not have been surprising when the Huffington Post penned a short piece on Frank’s move to Harper’s devoid of any ideological labels. That fact should also tell you pretty much all you need to know.

Visit link:
Thomas Frank, Posterboy for Liberal Media Elitism, Ends Wall Street Journal Column

-Ground Zero: NY Says No to Rebuilding a Church Destroyed on 9/11 but Yes to the Mosque?

The ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ controversy keeps on going. President Obama weighed in over the weekend with a few comments that hit the fan so to speak. One observation he made is that Islam should be treated just like any other religion in America and I totally agree. In a previous post I commented that I believed that NY was giving preferential treatment to the Cordoba Mosque project and that I really doubted that a church would ever approved by the city to be built at the same location as the so-called ‘Ground Zero Mosque’. Turns out that I was entirely correct. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church which stood across the street from the World Trade center was reduced to dust on September 11, 2001. For 9 years the NY Port Authority has refused to let them rebuild their church—a church that was actually destroyed in the attack but plans for a new mosque are approved by the city? It is my view that St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church should be rebuilt. The President talked about private property rights and that the Muslims should be allowed to build on their own property near ‘Ground Zero’. Well, what about the property rights of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church? The church had been there since 1922 but their rights are being totally disregarded. The church that was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks should be rebuilt first before any new project like the Cordoba Mosque is considered. It is obvious to me that the Muslims in this case are receiving better treatment from the city than the church. Here’s an article written by George Demos who is running for Congress in that very area about the Church and the Mosque: “Rebuild the Church at Ground Zero, Not the Mosque” http://answersforthefaith.com/2010/08/17/ground-zero-ny-says-no-to-rebuilding-a-… added by: congoboy

Absurd Media Meme: Ground Zero Mosque Is Fine Because There Are Strip Clubs Nearby

There is a new media meme rearing it’s ugly head in the many discussions of the Ground Zero Mosque. A number of journalists seem to be suggesting that if critics oppose the construction of the Mosque, they should also be incensed by the presence of strip clubs, bars, and an off-track betting location in the area. ” Just How ‘Hallowed’ is the Ground Near Ground Zero? ” asks Time Magazine’s Madison Gray. “New York Doll’s Gentleman’s Club, and the Pussycat Lounge are two strip clubs that sit within a block of Ground Zero, but are not seen as a threat to the land’s hallowed nature,” Gray added. “So it seems to some, freedom of religion might be a problem, but a $10 lap dance is not.” Gee, could it have anything to do with the fact that pole dancers didn’t fly planes into the twin towers? For some, the right to build a mosque and the move’s moral implications are two distinct issues, and $10 lap dances have exactly nothing to do with either. Gray goes on: Then there’s Off Track Betting, where visitors to the sacred neighborhood are able to place bets on the horses without even breaking their solemn focus on the dump trucks and cranes that sit where the Twin Towers once stood. Think about it: where else can you show your reverence while at the same time putting all your faith in Fat Chance Cinnamon or Poco’s Black Charger? Let’s not forget Thunder Lingerie and More, where you can pay your respects to the 9/11 tragedy, then take in a peep show, or pick up a few naughty items for that trip back to the hotel. And most noticeable of anything you could see around this untouchable area are the dozens of street vendors who sit a stone’s throw away from Ground Zero capitalizing on the fact that it is one of New York’s most visited tourist attractions. Possibly millions of dollars change hands every weekend all in the name of capitalist gain and certainly not any reverence for the 2,700 who died in the space right behind them. So deciding exactly how “hallowed” the area near Ground Zero is might be up to the individual visitor. But one thing’s true: those who have already deemed it as such don’t seem to mind the seedy stuff nearby as much as they do a quiet, private house of worship. Surely Gray forgot to add that this particular “private house of worship” is devoted to the same religion in whose name those 2,700 Americans were killed, built where landing gear from one of the planes that hit the towers fell, scheduled to be opened on September 11 of next year, and named after the Islamic Caliphate who conquered much of Medieval (Christian) Spain. I say he must have forgotten to add those details since they would accurately frame the argument against the Ground Zero mosque, and surely he was not trying to intentionally distort that argument. Of course if he were, he would also have to explain why strip clubs have any bearing whatsoever on the sanctity of an historic or prestigious location. There are three strip clubs within a few blocks of the White House . Is Gray suggesting that the White House is not a sacred location? Gray cited a blogger at History Eraser Button, who posted photos of the various locations, and wrote, Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric. The Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher handily dismantles that line of argument: Which will come as a shock to the millions of Americans who assumed lower Manhattan was now an open pasture, populated solely by a handful of tonsured monks wandering around solemnly whispering, “Remember… Remember…” This stunning insight into the nature of modern American cities has impressed everyone from Charles Johnson to Roger Ebert. Don’t you see? People are selling stuff. People are buying stuff. People are taking their clothes off for money. Dude, that building they’re turning into a mosque? (Or not-a-mosque, depending on which one helps your argument.) That place was a Burlington Coat Factory! Sure, it shut down for good on the morning of September 11, 2001, when it was hit by wreckage from a plane flown into the World Trade Center, but up until then it was a Burlington Coat Factory. “Hallowed ground”? Ha! Humor aside, even given the astounding irrelevance of establishments at Ground Zero that don’t bear ideological similarity to perhaps the most infamous mass murderers in American history, journalists continue to peddle this nonsense. As Scott Whitlock reported yesterday , ABC’s Dan Harris parroted the line on “Good Morning America,” noting that “Defenders [of the Mosque] point out that also close to Ground Zero are two strip clubs, an adult/lingerie store and an off-track betting parlor.” And as Doug Powers succinctly put it , “This would be a logical rebuttal to Ground Zero mosque critics, provided the Twin Towers had been taken down by nine poll dancers, seven pairs of edible underwear and three bookies.” As it is, the line of argument has no bearing on the moral validity of the project. “It may be sacred ground,” writes Erin Einhorn for the New York Daily News, “but the streets surrounding Ground Zero are also a place where New Yorkers work, eat and buy shampoo.” Stop the presses. New Yorkers buy shampoo near Ground Zero? Amazing. Not that they buy shampoo in the general vicinity of where they live. Amazing that for much of the media, apparently this can actually pass for a valid argument in favor of the Mosque, or at least in opposition to its critics.

Originally posted here:
Absurd Media Meme: Ground Zero Mosque Is Fine Because There Are Strip Clubs Nearby

CBS: Despite Unpopularity, Obama Still ‘Raking in Millions’ for Dems

While teasing an upcoming report on President Obama campaigning for Democrats on Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, fill-in co-host Chris Wragge touted: “…plunging poll numbers haven’t stopped the President from raking in millions at fund raisers across the country.” Later, White House correspondent Chip Reid observed: “You know, the President’s approval rating is only 44%, but he is still quite popular with the party’s base and he’s using that clout to raise millions of dollars for fellow Democrats.” Reid went on to declare: “President Obama and the Democratic Party are managing to raise big bucks in the hope of retaining control of Congress. The Democratic National Committee is committing $50 million to help candidates in 2010, $20 million in cash, and $30 million to get out the vote.” A campaign sound bite was played of the President attacking Republicans: “We do not fear the future. We shape the future. That’s part of what this election’s about. The other side wants you to be afraid of the future.” Reid concluded: “President Obama is doing six fund-raisers over three days in five states. By week’s end, he’ll have raised over $56 million this campaign season.” Only at the end of his report did Reid briefly notice the money raised by the GOP: “Now, Republicans are also raking in the cash this campaign season. The Republican Governors Association, for example, has brought in $58 million since President Obama came into office.” In addition to the President’s fundraising efforts, the segment also focused on political fallout from the Ground Zero mosque controversy, though only in terms of how the issue would impact the elections. Reid explained how Obama was “now dealing with a split in the party over the issue of religious freedom.” Reid continued: “President Obama’s support of the right to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero is causing a rift within the party.” He noted how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid disagreed with the President’s position and added: “Some in the party fear the controversy will carry over into the midterm campaigns.” Following Reid’s report, fill-in co-host Erica Hill asked Democratic strategist Tanya Acker and Republican strategist Bay Buchanan about the issue. Speaking to Acker, Hill wondered: “President Obama made these remarks and now it’s really forcing a lot of Democrats to choose sides. So moving forward, what’s the best message for Democratic candidates as they tackle this – what’s now become a national issue?” Acker argued: “I think this is an issue about religious freedom and the Constitution….Democrats, and frankly Americans generally, need to understand what this issue is about.” Hill then turned to Buchanan: “Bay, how much of an issue should Republicans make this? Because at the end of the day, for most voters, the real issue here is still the economy.” Buchanan challenged Acker’s assertion: “This has nothing to do with religious freedom. There’s 100 mosques or so in New York City. Nobody’s suggesting we tear them all down. What we’re saying is Americans respect hallowed ground. This is hallowed ground, 9/11 is – Ground Zero is hallowed ground.” Acker shot back at Buchanan: “I’m pleased to know that Bay is not in support of tearing down mosques in the United States of America. I’m glad that that issue is off the table….to suggest that Islam – a faith that billions of people around the world adhere to – is endemically somehow compared to terrorism is just wrong.” Here is a full transcript of the August 17 segment:  7:00AM TEASE CHRIS WRAGGE: In-fighting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid breaks with President Obama over the proposed Ground Zero mosque. HARRY REID: I think that it’s very obvious that the mosque should be built someplace else. WRAGGE: But the controversy and plunging poll numbers haven’t stopped the President from raking in millions at fund raisers across the country. We’ll have a live report. 7:01AM SEGMENT ERICA HILL: We want to take a look at politics now. It is day two of President Obama’s cross-country campaign-style fund-raisers. Today he will be in Seattle for the first time since he was a candidate. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid is traveling with the President. He joins us this morning from Los Angeles before heading north. Chip, good morning. CHIP REID: Well good morning, Erica. You know, the President’s approval rating is only 44%, but he is still quite popular with the party’s base and he’s using that clout to raise millions of dollars for fellow Democrats. But at the same time, he’s now dealing with a split in the party over the issue of religious freedom. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Mosque Controversy; Top Dem Breaks Ranks With Obama] President Obama’s support of the right to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero is causing a rift within the party. The latest, the Senate’s top Democrat, Majority Leader Harry Reid, breaking ranks with the President. HARRY REID: The Constitution gives us freedom of religion. I think that it’s very obvious that the mosque should be built someplace else. CHIP REID: Reid’s comments come after the President’s speech Friday night. BARACK OBAMA: But let me be clear. As a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. REID: Some in the party fear the controversy will carry over into the midterm campaigns. But so far, President Obama and the Democratic Party are managing to raise big bucks in the hope of retaining control of Congress. The Democratic National Committee is committing $50 million to help candidates in 2010, $20 million in cash, and $30 million to get out the vote. OBAMA: We do not fear the future. We shape the future. That’s part of what this election’s about. The other side wants you to be afraid of the future. REID: President Obama is doing six fund-raisers over three days in five states. By week’s end, he’ll have raised over $56 million this campaign season. UNIDENTIFIED MAN [POLITICAL ANALYST]: People want access to the President. They’re excited to be in the room with the President and if they can get a couple minutes to whisper in his ear, they’ll pay a lot of money for it. REID: Now, Republicans are also raking in the cash this campaign season. The Republican Governors Association, for example, has brought in $58 million since President Obama came into office. Erica. HILL: Chip, thanks. CBS’s Chip Reid in Los Angeles this morning. Also joining us from Los Angeles this morning, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker and in Washington, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan. Good to have both of you with us this morning. BAY BUCHANAN: Thanks, Erica. TANYA ACKER: Good to see you. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Countdown to Midterms; Assessing the Impact of Obama’s Mosque Comments] HILL: Tanya, I want to start with you. Forget the should he, shouldn’t he have said it. It’s been established, President Obama made these remarks and now it’s really forcing a lot of Democrats to choose sides. So moving forward, what’s the best message for Democratic candidates as they tackle this – what’s now become a national issue? ACKER: I think that it’s very important for Democrats, frankly, and look, I would expect – I don’t think this should simply be a partisan issue, I think this is an issue about religious freedom and the Constitution. And I think that whether or not the President should have stepped into this fray – I think he should have – Democrats, and frankly Americans generally, need to understand what this issue is about. And if Democrats lose seats because they took a stance for religious freedom, then we’ve got far bigger problems than simply winning elections, frankly. HILL: Bay, how much of an issue should Republicans make this? Because at the end of the day, for most voters, the real issue here is still the economy.              BUCHANAN: There – well, it’s going to be hard to beat the economy when it comes to the election, but I got to tell you, this is an important issue because it just shows a complete lack of understanding of what is happening here. This has nothing to do with religious freedom. There’s 100 mosques or so in New York City. Nobody’s suggesting we tear them all down. What we’re saying is Americans respect hallowed ground. This is hallowed ground, 9/11 is – Ground Zero is hallowed ground. We don’t want malls built next to Manassas, we don’t want casinos built next to Gettysburg. It has nothing to do with us being against development. What we want is this hallowed ground to be respected. And it does not respect or honor those that died to build a mosque, the very kind of statement to those who died, it’s an insult to them. HILL: But – but how much- ACKER: Well, I’m pleased to know that- HILL: Go ahead, Tanya. ACKER: I’m sorry. HILL: Go ahead. ACKER: I was just going to say, I’m pleased to know that Bay is not in support of tearing down mosques in the United States of America. I’m glad that that issue is off the table. But talking about what this issue really means, of course it’s hallowed ground, but to suggest that Islam – a faith that billions of people around the world adhere to – is endemically somehow compared to terrorism is just wrong. And as Americans, we should not be, we should not be propounding that message. It’s just wrong. So, of course it’s hallowed ground- HILL: Well, we know that this is a debate that will continue, but I do have to move on to this, ladies, before we let you go. We’ve seen so much this primary season, there’s been so much talk about the fact that what Americans really want is a change, that the incumbents are going to be on their way out. Bay, I’ll start with you. Can either party or any one candidate really change the way things are done in Washington? BUCHANAN: One person can change a lot. By just speaking out, being bold. In representing the millions of Americans that are expecting that. But what we’re going to find in November is it’s not just going to be one. We’re going to have dozens upon dozens of new fresh faces coming to Washington with one intent and that is to represent the will of the American people, to be there to fight for them, to stop this outrageous spending and to try to turn the country back to a safe and sound course. That’s where you’ll find real change. HILL: We’re going to have to leave it there. Bay Buchanan, Tanya Acker, always good to have your perspective. Don’t worry, Tanya, I promise you’ll be back. You both will. Thank you.

The rest is here:
CBS: Despite Unpopularity, Obama Still ‘Raking in Millions’ for Dems

Norah: Mosque Opponents Acting Like 9-11 Terrorists

Harry Reid may have deserted Pres. Obama over the Ground Zero mosque, but PBO can count on at least one stalwart defender: Norah O’Donnell.   On today’s Morning Joe, the MSNBC “correspondent” today declared that the prez is deserving of praise for his position.  Then, dancing a quantum leap further, O’Donnell accused mosque opponents of acting “like the people who attacked America and killed 3,000 people.” Ironically, just minutes earlier Mike Barnicle and Joe Scarborough were heaping scorn on Newt Gingrich for having said that the mosque has no more right to be built near Ground Zero than would a Nazi site near the Holocaust Museum or a Japanese one next to Pearl Harbor. The pair were horrified by Newt’s analogy.  But when Norah compared mosque opponents to the 9-11 murderers, Mike and Joe were peep-less. NORAH O’DONNELL: I think this makes Democrats uncomfortable to talk about it.  But they may be, the President and Bloomberg, may be–I say may be–standing in political concrete, as Pat [Buchanan] suggests, with some independent voters who may be key in this election. But I think there’s a question about whether what Pres. Obama said and President [sic] Bloomberg said were at least the right thing to do. And when do we stop praising politicians for doing what is right just because it’s not politically expedient? I thought the reason everybody’s groaning all the time about our politicians is because they’re such hacks and nobody stands up for what’s right.  Who cares about the concrete?  Somebody’s got to say that we’re not going to act like the people who stole freedom from Americans, the people who attacked America and killed 3,000 people.

Read more here:
Norah: Mosque Opponents Acting Like 9-11 Terrorists

Olbermann Hints Moral Equivalence Between U.S. & Islamic Empire, Blocking Mosque May Be First Step to New Holocaust

On Monday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann delivered a “Special Comment” in which he invoked Nazi Germany and suggested that blocking construction of a mosque near Ground Zero could be the first of a “thousand steps” toward another holocaust. He also suggested a moral equivalence between the Islamic Empire’s conquests and America’s expansion into the lands of Native Americans as he attempted to discredit former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s concerns about the choice of “Cordoba House” as the original name planned for the mosque as being intentionally symbolic of a Muslim victory at Ground Zero. After starting his “Special Comment” by quoting Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous words about the Holocaust of World War II, he at first tried to make his rant sound more moderate and not really a comparison to the Holocaust: “I make no direct comparison between the attempts to suppress the building of a Muslim religious center in downtown Manhattan and the unimaginable nightmare of the Holocaust.” He added: “Such a comparison is ludicrous – at least, it is now.” But the Countdown host was still alarmist enough to fear the mosque controversy could lead in that horrific direction: “Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust. He was warning of the thousand steps before a holocaust became inevitable. If we are at merely the first of those steps again today, it is one step too close.” Citing Gingrich’s contention that members of the Islamic Empire historically engaged in a practice of building large mosques on the holy sites of their conquests as monuments to their victories – citing the mosque that was built in Cordoba, Spain, as an example – Olbermann at first argued that, because Cordoba was eventually recaptured by Christians, Gingrich’s concerns are somehow undermined. The MSNBC host even sounded as if he were defending the Muslim expansion into Spain as he recounted that Christians continued to fight even though the Muslim conquerors built “multicultural, nondenominational institutions of learning.” Olbermann: Those Muslim conquerors are a figment of Gingrich’s lurid imagination. In Spain, in Cordoba, though the Muslims established multicultural, nondenominational institutions of learning, they were under constant attack from Christian armies and from a series of internal all-Muslim civil wars. The Muslims lost Cordoba and the Christian church they transformed into the world’s third largest mosque complex, that was turned back into a Christian cathedral in the 13th century, and it has been one ever since. But moments later, Olbermann seemed to contradict himself by acknowledging that Gingrich was correct in his reasoning about the historical significance of the name “Cordoba” being provocative, as the MSNBC host gave the Muslim group credit for changing the name in response to the former House Speaker’s criticism. Olbermann: “When the historical implications of Cordoba were made clear to the backers of this project, the property developer, Sharif Gamal, changed the name. They’ve already compromised.” Olbermann did not theorize about why the Muslim group was motivated to choose this provocative name in the first place. The Countdown host also suggested a moral equivalence between America’s history of confiscating land from Native Americans and the Islamic Empire’s conquests. Olbermann: “And is there not a logical extension to Mr. Gingrich’s conclusions about Cordoba and triumphalism? Virtually every church, virtually every synagogue, every mosque built on this continent stands where a Native American lived or died or was buried or saw his world – his religions included – wiped out, by us. What are we, then, Mr. Gingrich?” But, unlike many predominantly Muslim countries, the United States provides full citizenship rights to Native Americans, who are now even greater in number than when Christopher Columbus first visited the New World. By contrast, not only do many countries that are successors to the Islamic Empire sharply restrict the rights of their citizens, but, as recently as the period between 1948 and 1975, in many predominantly Muslim nations, Jewish residents faced so much persecution in the form of violence and confiscation of property that the number of Jewish refugees who fled Muslim countries is estimated to be greater than the number of Palestinian refugees who fled Israel after the Arab states invaded the tiny nation in 1948. Some estimate that the land confiscated from Jewish residents by governments in Muslim countries amounts to several times the total area of the state of Israel. After recounting the story of a mosque that was bombed in Jacksonville, Florida, Olbermann also declared that Muslims in America are more likely to be targeted by terrorism than non-Muslims: “As the Jacksonville mosque bombing shows, since 9/11, Muslims have been at far greater risk of being victims of terrorism in the United States than have non-Muslims.” Below is a complete transcript of the “Special Comment” portion of the Monday, August 16, Countdown show on MSNBC, with critical portions in bold : KEITH OLBERMANN: Finally, tonight, as promised, a “Special Comment” on the inaccurately described “Ground Zero mosque.” “They came first for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. And then they came for me and by that time, no one was left to speak up.” Pastor Martin Niemoller’s words are well known, but their context is not well understood. Niemoller was not speaking abstractly. He witnessed persecution; he acquiesced to it. He ultimately fell victim to it. He had been a German World War I hero, then a conservative who welcomed the fall of German democracy and the rise of Hitler, and he had few qualms about the beginning of the Holocaust until he himself was arrested for supporting it insufficiently. Niemoller’s confessional warning came first in a speech in Frankfurt in January 1946 – eight months after he had been liberated by American troops. He had been detained at Tyrol, Sachsen-hausen, and Dachau for seven years. He survived the death camps. In quoting him, I make no direct comparison between the attempts to suppress the building of a Muslim religious center in downtown Manhattan and the unimaginable nightmare of the Holocaust. Such a comparison is ludicrous – at least, it is now. But Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust, he was warning of the willingness of a seemingly rational society to condone the gradual stoking of enmity towards an ethnic or religious group or more than one, warning of the building up of a collective pool of fear and hate, warning of the moment in which the need to purge outstrips the parameters of the original scapegoating, when new victims are needed because a country has begun to run on a horrible field of hatred – magnified, amplified and multiplied by politicians and zealots within government and without. Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust. He was warning of the thousand steps before a holocaust became inevitable. If we are at merely the first of those steps again today, it is one step too close. Yet in a country dedicated to freedom, forces have gathered to blow out of all proportion the construction of a minor community center to transform it into a training ground for terrorists and an insult to the victims of 9/11 and a tribute to Medieval Muslim subjugation of the West. There is no training ground for terrorists. There is no insult to the victims of 9/11. There is no tribute to Medieval Muslim subjugation of the West. There is, in fact, no “Ground Zero mosque.” It is not mosque. A mosque, technically, is a Muslim holy place in which only worship can be conducted. What is planned for 45 Park Place, New York City, is a community center. It’s supposed to include a basketball court and a culinary school. It is to be 13 stories tall, and the top two stories will be a Muslim prayer space. What a cauldron of terrorism that will be. Terrorist chefs and terrorist point guards. And truly those who will use the center have more to fear from us than us from them, for there has been terrorism connected to a mosque in this country, in this year. May 10, Jacksonville, Florida, a pipe bomb at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida. The FBI thinks the man in this surveillance video could be the bomber. The bomb went off during evening prayers and it was powerful enough to send shrapnel flying 100 yards. Fortunately, the bomber didn’t know where to place it, so the 60 Muslim worshipers were uninjured. If he had put it inside and not outside, they had been dead and you probably would have heard about it on the news. Or maybe not. Maybe those exploiting 45 Park Place would still shake their fists and decry terrorism by extremists who happen to be Muslim and never faced the shameful truth about our country. As the Jacksonville mosque bombing shows, since 9/11, Muslims have been at far greater risk of being victims of terrorism in the United States than have non-Muslims . But back to this Islamic center. Its name, Cordoba House, is not a tribute to the Medieval Muslim subjugation of Spain. Newt Gingrich has been pushing that nonsense that Cordoba is dog whistle for triumphalism : “It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third largest mosque complex. Today, some of the mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to ‘symbolize interfaith cooperation’ when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.” Those Muslim conquerors are a figment of Gingrich’s lurid imagination. In Spain, in Cordoba, though the Muslims established multicultural, nondenominational institutions of learning, they were under constant attack from Christian armies and from a series of internal all-Muslim civil wars. The Muslims lost Cordoba and the Christian church they transformed into the world’s third largest mosque complex, that was turned back into a Christian cathedral in the 13th century, and it has been one ever since. And is there not a logical extension to Mr. Gingrich’s conclusions about Cordoba and triumphalism? Virtually every church, virtually every synagogue, every mosque built on this continent stands where a Native American lived or died or was buried or saw his world – his religions included – wiped out, by us. What are we, then, Mr. Gingrich? And by the way, a point Mr. Gingrich has not even whispered as he has shouted fire in a crowded theater: When the historical implications of Cordoba were made clear to the backers of this project, the property developer, Sharif Gamal, changed the name. They’re already compromised. “We are calling it Park 51 because of the backlash to the name Cordoba House,” he told the Financial Times. “It will be a place open to all New Yorkers, and that is a very New York name.” A very New York name. Like Ground Zero. Except that this place, Park 51, is not even at Ground Zero. Not even right across the street. Even the description of it being two blocks away is generous. It is two blocks away from the Northeast corner of the World Trade Center site. From the planned location of the 9/11 memorial, it’s more like four or five blocks, even. You know what is right across the street, though? I went there yesterday to refresh my sense of the World Trade Center, in which I worked nearly 30 years ago. At Church and Veezy Street so close that the barbed wire of Ground Zero obscures its spire is St. Paul’s Chapel. Been there since 1766, where Washington went the day he was inaugurated, where the first responders came for relief nine years ago. You know what’s also closer to Ground Zero than this Muslim community center will be? Church of St. Peter, at Church and Barclay Streets. As the sign says, “New York’s Oldest Catholic parish.” People hear “Ground Zero mosque” and they think Mecca in the backyard and the loud call to prayer and they take umbrage. “We’ve got no more than a few inches of skin and a couple pieces of bone. Ground Zero is the burial place of my son,” said Joyce Boland at the public hearing about this center. “I don’t want to go there and see an overwhelming mosque looking down at me.” I honor her pain and her fear, but Mrs. Boland has nothing to worry about. Unless she walks directly over to it, several blocks away, she’ll never see the thing. This is what you see from where the center will be. Another nondescript building is across the street. This building and others like it would block views of the Trade Center and views from the Trade Center. The community center certainly will stand out on the north side of Park Place, but amid the canyons of lower Manhattan, it will just be a distinctive building that, if you happen to wander down a side street near the Trade Center, you might see it. You know what you’ll see there now? This. The Burlington coat factory, abandoned since 2001, when the landing gear from one of the planes fell 90 stories and went through the roof. For nine years, nobody’s been willing to buy that building, just to knock it down and build a new one. It sold for $4,850,000. In New York City real estate, that is spare change. And you know why it’s spare change? Because walk around Ground Zero any day of the week and it’s packed with tourists and our version of pilgrims. But walk two and three blocks away, and not so packed. Not packed at all. Empty stores, boarded up windows, nine years later, and two and three blocks from the action, it’s a ghost town. What was that about government not getting in the way of private business? What was that about letting the private sector spur new jobs in blighted areas? Oh, and what was that about Iraq? Why did we go into Iraq again? I don’t mean the real versions or the naked vengeful blindness that enabled the forging of a nonexistent connection between Iraq and 9/11, I mean, the official explanation. To free the world, and especially Iraq’s citizens, of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. That’s its supporters’ defense of the Iraq invasion to this hour. Well, who lives in Iraq? Muslims. I hate to reveal this to anybody on the right who did not know this, but when they say Iraq is 65 percent Shia and 32 percent Sunni, you do know that Shia and Sunni are both forms of the Muslim religion, right? We sacrificed 4,415 of our military personnel in Iraq to save Muslims, and there are thousands of us still here tonight to protect Muslims, but we don’t want Muslims to open a combination culinary school and prayer space in Manhattan? From the beginning of this nation, we have fought prejudice and religious intolerance and our greatest enemy, stupidity, exploited by rapacious politicians. It is only 50 years now, this month, since Americans publicly and urgently warned their countrymen not to support a presidential candidate because he was a Roman Catholic. He would bow to the will, not of the American people, but of the Pope. He would be a papist. He would be the agent of a foreign state! His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

N.Y. Times: Obama’s Mosque Tolerance Upsets Those Who Want a ‘White and Largely Christian’ America

As President Obama struggled to step back from what the New York Times called a “strong defense” of the Ground Zero Mosque proposal, Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg felt the president’s pain in a Sunday “Political Memo” article , arguing that his shifting stands on the issue betray that this debate “is riskier for him than for his predecessors.” Stolberg wrote this is because his enemies want to live in a white, Christian-dominated country: From the moment he took the oath of office, using his entire name, Barack Hussein Obama, as he swore to protect and defend the Constitution, Mr. Obama has personified the hopes of many Americans about tolerance and inclusion. He has devoted himself to reaching out to the Muslim world, vowing, as he did in Cairo last year, “a new beginning.” But his “new beginning” has aroused nervousness in some, especially those who disagree with his counterterrorism policies, or those more comfortable with a vision of America as a white and largely Christian nation , and not the pluralistic melting pot Mr. Obama represents. It’s riskier for Obama because people perceived the last president as staunchly Christian, unlike Obama, the president who often golfs on Sunday and claims a few e-mails of religious quotations on his BlackBerry qualifies as quality religion time: Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, also held annual Ramadan celebrations and frequently took pains to draw a distinction between Al Qaeda and Islam, as Mr. Obama did Friday night. But Mr. Obama, unlike Mr. Bush, has been accused of being a closet Muslim (he is Christian) and faced attacks from the right that he is soft on terrorists. She did follow up by letting former Dennis Hastert aide John Feehery suggest it was “a blunder,” and noted “Few national Democrats rushed” to his defense. She also found that in Florida, Democrat gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink distanced himself from it, while former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist supported Obama. In a front-page article in Saturday’s paper , before Obama backed off his “strong defense” of the mosque proposal, Stolberg found: “Aides to Mr. Obama say privately that he has always felt strongly about the proposed community center and mosque, but the White House did not want to weigh in until local authorities made a decision on the proposal, planned for two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center.” He “always felt strongly,” and then backed off within hours. In the Saturday story, Stolberg included critiques from Republican Rick Lazio, but also disappointment from a radical-left Muslim voice: Mr. Obama ran for office promising to improve relations with the Muslim world, by taking steps like closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and more generally reaching out. In a speech in Cairo last year, he vowed “a new beginning.” But Ali Abunimah, an Arab-American journalist and author, said the president has since left many Muslims disappointed. “There has been no follow-through; Guantánamo is still open and so forth, so all you have left for him to show is in the symbolic field,” Mr. Abunimah said, adding that it was imperative for Mr. Obama to “stand up to Islamophobia.” Stolberg did not explain that Ali Abunimah is a co-founder of the website Electronic Intifada , where he has argued that Hamas and Hezbollah are hardly terrorist groups: Nothing could be easier in the present atmosphere than to accuse anyone who calls for recognition of and dialogue with Hamas, Hizballah and other Islamist movements of being closet supporters of reactionary “extremism” or naive fellow travelers of “terrorists.” This tactic is not surprising coming from neoconservatives and Zionists. What is novel is to see it expressed in supposedly progressive quarters… Hamas and Hizballah emerged in the context of brutal Israeli invasions and military occupations. Their popular support and legitimacy have increased as they demonstrated their ability to present a credible veto on the unrestrained exercise of Israeli power where state actors, international bodies, the peace process industry and secular nationalist resistance movements notably failed. If the Times thinks President Obama really needs to make sure he’s better respected by bloggers at Electronic Intifada, then perhaps they’re not understanding why the conservative blogosphere is alarmed, and it’s not trying to limit tolerance to “white and largely Christian” America.

See the article here:
N.Y. Times: Obama’s Mosque Tolerance Upsets Those Who Want a ‘White and Largely Christian’ America

Joe Scarborough Bashes Newt Gingrich’s Position on Ground Zero Mosque

Joe Scarborough on Monday bashed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for saying the building of the Ground Zero mosque would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum. Scarborough was responding to the following from Sunday’s New York Times: Mr. Gingrich said the proposed mosque would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building the mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” The next day on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Scarborough let Gingrich have it: JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: When I was in Congress in 1994, when I got elected in ’94, I was considered to be one of the more conservative guys up there. I was a right-wing nut job and crazy this and crazy that. So far right and yet despite the fact 14 years later, 16 years later, I still have the same views on taxes. I still have the same views on small government. I still have the same views on military. I still have the same views everywhere. I am feeling further and further distant from the people who are running my party and never more distant than this morning when I wake up to read what Newt Gingrich, a guy who’s leading in a lot of presidential preference polls across the country said this to say, had this to say about the First Amendment. “There’s nothing surprising in the President’s continued pandering to radical Islam. What he said last night is untrue and accurate.” And then he went on to say “this would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” Mark, I don’t know where to begin. To suggest that someone trying to build a, a tolerance center for moderate Muslims in New York is the equivalent of killing six million Jews is stunning to me. To begin with, where does Scarborough get off claiming this is a “tolerance center for moderate Muslims?” The Imam behind the mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is anything but moderate .   Beyond this, the Times piece included edited snippets from remarks made by Gingrich without letting readers know where and when the comments were made. What came before and after this excerpted sentence that Scarborough found so offensive? In a post-Shirley Sherrod world, shouldn’t commentators be careful about expressing an opinion about excerpted comments? Isn’t this especially true for a so-called conservative reading excerpts printed in the New York Times? For instance, Gingrich said the following on “Fox & Friends” this Monday morning providing a little more context to these twelve words: GINGRICH: This happens all the time in America. Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.  Much less offensive in that context, correct? After all, Gingrich’s point Monday – and what the majority of Americans are expressing in polls about this subject – is that Ground Zero represents hallowed ground where thousands of our citizens were killed by radical Islamists. As such, allowing a radical Islamic Imam to build a mosque near Ground Zero in Gingrich’s view would be akin to us allowing the Japanese to put up a site near Pearl Harbor or Nazis putting up a sign near the Holocaust Museum. In that context, what Gingrich said is by no means as offensive as what Scarborough claimed, and he should know better than to assume the twelve words cited by the Times stood by themselves without anything before or after that could result in them being far less caustic.  When so-called conservatives begin bashing members of their own Party because of something written in the New York Times, their judgment is going to be questioned – and with good reason.  

Follow this link:
Joe Scarborough Bashes Newt Gingrich’s Position on Ground Zero Mosque

CBS’s Schieffer: Obama Right ‘Intellectually’ on Mosque, Just Bad Politics

Appearing on Monday’s CBS Early Show to discuss President Obama showing support for a controversial mosque being built near Ground Zero, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer agreed with the President’s sentiment but lamented the political fallout: “The President said and made the right intellectual argument, but I’m not sure that it was great politics for him to say it at this particular time.”   Schieffer began by outlining White House talking points on the issue to substitute co-host Erica Hill: “The story they tell is the President thought this Ramadan dinner – these were dinners that were started after 9/11 by President Bush as an outreach to demonstrate that our problems are with terrorists, not with people who are Muslims – he thought this was an appropriate place to say what all Americans believe, in that everyone has a right to practice their religion in this country.” Schieffer later added: “I would agree with the White House.” At the same time, both Hill and Schieffer fretted over the political fallout, particularly Republican criticism. Hill teased the segment at the top of show by declaring that Obama’s “apparent defense of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero has Republicans howling.” Schieffer remarked: “Republicans are trying to take every advantage of this they can.” Continuing to worry about the political impact of the President’s comments, Hill asked: “And this could feed into the criticism of this current administration, that this is an administration that is out of touch, that is, in many ways, seen by folks across the country as being elitist. Is that what you’re hearing?” Schieffer replied: “Yes. Well, that’s exactly the spin that Republicans are trying to put on it, is that – you know, that the President’s not paying attention.”    Earlier, Schieffer described the anxiety of Democratic candidates: “But the response to this has, even from some Democrats, has been, ‘why did he have to say it at this particular time and about this particular site?’ ‘Yes, intellectually that is the correct argument,’ they say, ‘but is it entirely appropriate at this very special place, to try to link a Muslim worship center with this 9/11 ground?'” He later added: “…a lot of candidates around the country are saying, ‘look, with the economy in the shape it’s in, we need all the help we can get. And we really wish the President had not said this.'” Here is a full transcript of the August 16 segment: 7:00AM ET TEASE ERICA HILL: Political firestorm. President Obama launches a five-state political blitz today but his apparent defense of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero has Republicans howling. ED ROLLINS: First, Bob, it was probably the dumbest thing that any president has said or candidate has said since Michael Dukakis said it was okay to burn the flag. 7:01AM ET SEGMENT ERICA HILL: First, though, we do want to get you to this. President Obama heading to Wisconsin this morning. The purpose of his trip, though, could end up taking a backseat to the controversy over the building of a mosque in New York City. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid has the details. CHIP REID: The President heads out this morning on a three-day cross-country trip. He’ll be talking about the economy and raising money for fellow Democrats. The White House hopes this trip will help change the topic after a weekend of controversy over the President’s comments about building a mosque near Ground Zero. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama & The Mosque; President’s Comments Could Derail Economic Message] The First Family spent a quick weekend on the Gulf coast of Florida, swimming, mini-golfing and boating. The visit was intended to highlight the fact that on most of the Gulf Coast, the water is clean and the beaches are open. But the President’s own comments over the weekend overshadowed the trip. Speaking at a White House dinner Friday celebrating Ramadan, the President waded into the already deepening political controversy over whether to build a mosque two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York City. BARACK OBAMA: Let me be clear, as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. REID: Saturday, the President seemed to back off from his initial comments, saying that while Muslims have the right to build the mosque, that doesn’t mean they should. OBAMA: I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. REID: White House officials insist the President is not backing down from his original statement, but some Republicans say the White House is trying to have it both ways. PETER KING [REP. R-NY]: The inference or the clear impression everyone came away with is that he was saying he was supporting the mosque at Ground Zero. And he can parse it later on, and sort of back away, but the fact is, that is clearly the impression, I believe, he wanted to leave. REID: The White House says the President has no regrets about his comments even though they turned a local issue into a national debate. Traveling with the President, Chip Reid, CBS News, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.          HILL: And joining us from Washington now is CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Bob, always good to have you with us. BOB SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Erica. HILL: We know and you know, of course, from talking about this on your show yesterday morning, the firestorm that these comments have ignited, and really, shots coming from both sides. So, why would the President, especially in this time when Democrats are really fighting to hold control of Congress in November, why make these comments at this point? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama & The Mosque; Will Comments Impact Midterm Elections?] SCHIEFFER: Well, that’s just the question I asked White House officials and some people in the administration last night. The story they tell is the President thought this Ramadan dinner – these were dinners that were started after 9/11 by President Bush as an outreach to demonstrate that our problems are with terrorists, not with people who are Muslims – he thought this was an appropriate place to say what all Americans believe, in that everyone has a right to practice their religion in this country. But the response to this has, even from some Democrats, has been, ‘why did he have to say it at this particular time and about this particular site?’ ‘Yes, intellectually that is the correct argument,’ they say, ‘but is it entirely appropriate at this very special place, to try to link a Muslim worship center with this 9/11 ground?’ And clearly, Republicans are trying to take every advantage of this they can. Now, what White House officials say is, ‘look, this next election is going to be about the economy. It’s not going to be about whether they should build a mosque at Ground Zero.’ But a lot of – a lot of candidates around the country are saying, ‘look, with the economy in the shape it’s in, we need all the help we can get. And we really wish the President had not said this.’ The White House will say, ‘if you do the right thing, the politics will take care of itself.’ Clearly, there are some Democrats who are worried about that, though. HILL: They are a little worried. And this could feed into the criticism of this current administration, that this is an administration that is out of touch, that is, in many ways, seen by folks across the country as being elitist. Is that what you’re hearing? SCHIEFFER: Yes. Well, that’s exactly the spin that Republicans are trying to put on it, is that – you know, that the President’s not paying attention. What really bothers some Democrats, though, is that when the President gets into something like this, when he makes a statement like this, it elevates it to a national issue and every single Democratic candidate running for office is now going to be asked about it and will now have to take a position on something that they were hoping they would be able to say, ‘this is just a local issue. It’s up to the folks in New York to decide what to do about this.’ Yes, I would agree with the White House. The President said and made the right intellectual argument, but I’m not sure that it was great politics for him to say it at this particular time. HILL: Bob Schieffer, always good to have you here. Thanks. SCHIEFFER: Thanks, Erica.

Read more:
CBS’s Schieffer: Obama Right ‘Intellectually’ on Mosque, Just Bad Politics