Tag Archives: mosque

Open Thread: Pelosi Wants to Investigate Mosque Opponents

That’s right, not the people building the Ground Zero Mosque, the people who are leading the grassroots campaign to prevent it from being built. She said the following to reporters (via  Kerry Picket ): There is no question that there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded . How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City. So Pelosi’s complaint is that voters care about this issue. And her response is to call for an investigation. What are your thoughts on her statement? 

View post:
Open Thread: Pelosi Wants to Investigate Mosque Opponents

Time Deputy Managing Editor: America’s ‘Obsessed’ with ‘an Enemy That May No Longer Exist’

Radical Islam, schmadical Islam. “[N]ine years after 9/11, the fight over the mosque near Ground Zero shows how obsessed we remain with an enemy that may no longer exist.” That’s the argument from Time magazine deputy managing editor Romesh Ratnesar in his August 17 online Viewpoint essay entitled, ” The ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ Debate: Exaggerating the Jihadist Threat. ” “The mosque’s critics and champions both say their goal is to counter radical Islam,” Ratnesar noted, arguing that both sides are all wet: The prevalence of such rhetoric on both sides of the mosque debate makes it seem as if the struggle against global jihadism hangs in the balance. The truth is that Osama bin Laden and his ilk face much bigger problems. The story of the past decade in the Muslim world is that of the widespread rejection — or “refudiation,” to borrow a phrase — of terrorism. A study by the Pew Research Center earlier this year found that support in Muslim countries for suicide bombings has fallen precipitously from post-9/11 levels. One-third of Pakistanis believed terrorism was justified in 2002; now just 8% do. For all our anxiety about the rise of religious extremism, no government in the Arab world has been toppled by forces sympathetic to al-Qaeda since 2001. And though some militant Muslims surely wish us harm, their ability to actually inflict it has eroded; it has been more than five years since the last successful al-Qaeda attack in the West. The eclipse of al-Qaeda has come about largely through revulsion at the jihadists’ indiscriminate slaughter of fellow Muslims, from Indonesia to Iraq. And yet we have failed to notice. Of course, while these development are welcome news, it doesn’t mean the threat of radical Islam is completely eradicated. Indeed, like cancers that go into remission, radicalism can spring back with a vengeance after suffering losses in a given period of time. But Ratnesar seems to think the worst is over and that the way to beat radical Islam is to pretty much “move on” from the issue: However the [Ground Zero mosque] dispute is ultimately resolved, its impact on the “threat” posed by radical Islam will be negligible. That’s because the threat is receding on its own. Allowing a place of worship to be built in lower Manhattan will constitute neither an American triumph nor a defeat. It will simply tell the world that this nation, wisely, has decided to move on. Photo of Ratnesar from his eponymous website .

Continue reading here:
Time Deputy Managing Editor: America’s ‘Obsessed’ with ‘an Enemy That May No Longer Exist’

Arab TV Director: Ground Zero Mosque would be ‘Monument’ for Terrorists

The director of Al-Arabiya TV, a popular Arab-language news station, wrote that “Muslims never asked for” the proposed mosque at Ground Zero, and “do not care about its construction,” in a column for London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on Aug. 16. “I can’t imagine that Muslims [actually] want a mosque at this particular location, because it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime,” wrote Al-Arabiya director Abd Al-Rahman al-Rashid in the column , which was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. “Moreover, there are no practicing Muslims in the area who need a place to worship, because it is a commercial district. Is there anyone who is [really] eager [to build] this mosque?” Al-Rashid said that President Barack Obama’s support of the mosque was similar to the administration’s previous decision to close Guantanamo Bay and try suspected terrorists as civilians. “”Muslims do not [really] yearn [to build] a mosque near the 9/11 cemetery, nor do they care whether bin Laden’s cook is tried in a civilian court [or a military one],” said al-Rashid, noting that “tens of thousands of Muslims, likewise accused of extremism, are imprisoned in [even] worse conditions in the Muslim countries.” According to the director, Muslims care about issues that impact “the destinies of [entire] peoples,” such as the creation of a Palestinian state. “The last thing Muslims want today is to build a religious center that provokes others, or a symbolic mosque that people will visit as a [kind of] museum next to a cemetery,” said al-Rashid. Al-Arabiya TV is based out of the United Arab Emirates, and is a direct competitor with Al-Jazeera, another Arab-language news station. Al-Arabiya “is consistently rated among the top pan-Arab stations by Middle East audiences,” reported BBC News in 2003. According to Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, al-Rashid’s column “should mean the end of plans for a mosque near Ground Zero.” “Mr. Al-Rashid supports President Obama’s stand for the mosque in principle (as he supports Obama-like or even beyond-Obama-like policies with respect to the Middle East). He’s no neocon. But his practical case against building the mosque is irrefutable,” wrote Kristol on the Weekly Standard website on Aug. 17. “It should lead well-meaning liberals to join with us dastardly conservatives (well, it would be too painful for them to join with us—they can simply act in parallel, on their own, while continuing to denounce us) in calling for the organizers to shelve the plans for a mosque at this site.”

View original post here:
Arab TV Director: Ground Zero Mosque would be ‘Monument’ for Terrorists

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’

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Dismisses Ground Zero Mosque Debate as a ‘Smokescreen’

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on Monday dismissed the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque as a “political smokescreen.” The liberal anchor derided opponents of the planned construction who live in other states, sneering that there are ” people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying ‘Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end!'” He compared, “But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” Earlier in the segment, Ratigan wondered, “But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions.” The co-host talked to Nate Silver of the website Fivethirtyeight.com. As he pointed out, while 61 percent of voters believe that the Muslim group behind the mosque has a right to put it there, 64 percent oppose the plan. Yet, Ratigan seemed to put all the responsibility for tolerance on those who oppose the construction. He again wondered, “But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque?” A transcript of the August 16 segment, which aired at 4:01pm EDT, follows: DYLAN RATIGAN: Meanwhile, the top Senate Democrat feeling the same way, apparently. Within the past hour, Majority Leader Harry Reid became the highest profile Dem, so far, to break ranks with the White House and publicly oppose the mosque. But is all this back and forth just a political smoke screen? Polls show a majority of Americans struggling with the same conflict as the President’s statements and his expressions. Can you have the legal right to do something and at the same time a moral obligation not to? And why is it that the people who that live the closest to Ground Zero seem to be the least resistant to the mosque? And those who may be the furthest away, maybe have never even visited New York City in their lives, are the most adamantly against it? Our first guest this afternoon, Nate Silver who has been crunching the numbers, a founder of 538.com. It’s a pleasure to see you again, sir. Your data basically falls into three categories in your poll. Tell us what you’ve come up with. NATE SILVER: Well, I mean, the distinction, like you said, that Obama was struggling with on Friday night is the same ones Americans struggle with themselves, right? Where about two thirds of people think they have the right to build the mosque. Not terribly controversial. About two thirds of those people also think it’s in poor taste. Right? So, you look at the overlap. And there’s this one third in between who thinks, “They have the right to do it. But, I’m not sure how I feel about it so much.” And especially with, I guess, with some of this hedging, or the some of the way the media portrayed it as hedging, Obama is in that middle camp, too, right now, but seeming to satisfy nobody in particular. RATIGAN: You say this falls politically into a similar category as flag burning. Can you explain what the parallels are? SILVER: Well, sure. Flag burning is something where if you ask people, “Hey, do you like flag burning, right?” I don’t think too many people would say- would yes. Or, “Hey, should they build a Hooters down at the shopping mall? You might say “No, I would rather they didn’t.” But they’re clearly within First Amendment rights. There’s not too much debate about that. I mean, you know, some people have said some groups have said, “No they actually don’t have the right.” Newt Gingrich said something along those lines this morning. But, for the most part, that’s not that controversial. I think Obama went a little bit far in saying “We not only look at the right, the First Amendment’s technicality. We should respect their ability to choose how they want to worship and not try and intervene and say, “No, I would rather you not believe a different thing.”  Or that you’d go worship at a different time or a different place. So, he did go a step further than just saying “Hey, it’s about the First Amendment.” But not quite saying, “Hey, I love this idea.” RATIGAN: What about the distinction between people like myself who have lived in lower Manhattan for many years and worked around Ground Zero, walking with past Ground Zero everyday to and from work for five years straight, who look at this as really not that big of a deal? We deal with a lot of other things. This isn’t that big of a big deal. Versus people in Kansas, California, Alaska, saying “Oh my God. The sky is falling. The Muslims are going to kill us! It’s all going to end.” But, the people in Tribeca and Soho who are just, kind of, getting a cup of coffee.” SILVER: Well, you know, I think part of it, it shows that polls it shows that people in Manhattan are supportive of the mosque- mosque. Not people in New York overall, but in Manhattan where it’s being built. I think it has to do with the geography of the city. I walked around Ground Zero when the controversy started and kind of scouted out the perimeter. And you would not see the mosque anywhere from the Ground Zero property. It’s not really on the way. It’s kind of on a side street where there’s a Burlington Coat Factory. It’s very dense. And it’s not like you’re on main street where there’s one road to Ground Zero. RATIGAN: But, doesn’t it strike you as funny that the people who would be killed by the theoretical Muslims that are not here are afraid of, the ones who would die as a result of that attack are the ones that are least concerned about an attack from Muslims in that mosque? SILVER: Well, hopefully some ambitious polls, do a poll of people in the financial district in Tribeca or do a poll of who were victims in 9/11. They’re the people who should have a larger say, frankly, than the former governor of Alaska, I think. It is a local issue.

Go here to see the original:
MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Dismisses Ground Zero Mosque Debate as a ‘Smokescreen’

Open Thread: Has Obama Already Flip-flopped on Ground Zero Mosque?

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Has Obama already flip-flopped on the Ground Zero Mosque? Friday he said this .  Saturday he said (video follows): Thoughts? 

View post:
Open Thread: Has Obama Already Flip-flopped on Ground Zero Mosque?

Under Ingraham’s Interrogation, Newsweek’s Fineman Pleads ‘No Contest’ for Newsweek’s ‘Mesmerized’ Obama Coverage

On Tuesday morning’s Laura Ingraham radio show, Newsweek reporter Howard Fineman pleaded “no contest” in Latin to the conservative host’s lecture that Newsweek was too busy celebrifying Barack and Michelle Obama to weigh whether Obama would succeed as president. (Audio here. ) He insisted the magazine was “mesmerized” by a “brilliantly run campaign,” as if it wasn’t also about their liberal wishes and dreams:  INGRAHAM: How is it though with all these smart people at Newsweek – I went around the block with Evan Thomas about this as well. How did you all think that a guy who basically went from the Harvard Law Review, to some community leafleting, organizing, whatever you want to call it, to a short stint, a few lectures about constitutional law at [the University of] Chicago, very short stopover in the state Senate, and a very short stopover in the U.S. Senate. How does that add up to experience to run the biggest economy and the biggest military in the world? And why wasn’t Newsweek, instead of doing these celebrified covers of Michelle and Barack as historic, and celebrity culture, and all this love-love-love-love-love, why wasn’t – Why weren’t those questions asked before this election took place? Because to me, those were the questions to ask. . It wasn’t about personality. It was about experience and outlook. FINEMAN: Well, uh, first, I’ll plead nolo [ contendere ] on a lot of this. But –  INGRAHAM: That’s what he did, in the U.S. Senate. He voted present. So you’re voting present for Newsweek. FINEMAN: No, no. Part of the problem is, or part of the reason is that we – as political reporters, we become enamored with the mechanics of the campaign, and I would still insist that – Ingraham saw right through the admire-your-mechanics trope:  INGRAHAM: You’re gonna do that if Paul Ryan is the nominee, for the Republicans? You’re gonna celebrify him? I don’t think so. FINEMAN: No, no. Let me back up for a second. That was – Whatever you say about Barack Obama and David Axelrod in your diaries and everything — INGRAHAM: Yeah. FINEMAN – It was a brilliantly run campaign. And I have come to despair of the notion of the relationship between the quality and shrewdness of a campaign that someone runs and the kind of presidency that they have. When Ingraham joked that Lady Gaga is good at branding, too, Fineman added; “We were mystified and mesmerized by the quality of the branding campaign that was Obama’s.” Another word for “mystified and mesmerized” would be that Newsweek was “suckered,” or “bamboozled,” or to use an Ingraham favorite, “razzle-dazzled.” But they knew he would be an inexperienced president, and make plenty of mistakes. They just calculated that they would cross that bridge when they arrived at it. “History” came first, incompetence afterwards.  When the media offers a contender like Obama yards and yards of gauzy press coverage, and when it papers over every inconvenient truth about his hate-preaching minister of two decades, among many contentious fractions of the candidate’s personal history, isn’t it much easier to portray his campaign as “brilliantly run”? Earlier, Fineman played the centrist correspondent who would have advised Obama to be less self-impressed with his own historic importance and seek half a loaf of government activism instead of greedily grabbing for a large socialist combination plate:  He consciously at the beginning set himself up as a kind of counterpoint to Reagan. Remember he said he admired Reagan and Hillary got all upset at him admiring Reagan? What Obama admired about Reagan was not his philosophy, or his program, but the fact that Reagan was an inflection point in history, was a big sea change in history. I believe Obama views himself in that way, and that’s why he went for the big health-care bill, and the big stimulus, and all the other big bills to make history, because he felt he would be the anti-Reagan. But I missed – I have to admit I miss half of what I cover when I’m out there. I thought Obama was shrewder than that, and wouldn’t use all of his political capital in the way he did, and it’s hurt him. But if Obama’s in dire political straits now, Newsweek’s over-the-top, ego-stoking coverage comparing him without any real factual foundation to historic presidents like FDR and Lincoln is a part of the problem. So maybe after November, Fineman and his colleagues can also plead “no contest” to unintentionally spurring the Republican wave that may come. 

Follow this link:
Under Ingraham’s Interrogation, Newsweek’s Fineman Pleads ‘No Contest’ for Newsweek’s ‘Mesmerized’ Obama Coverage

Ground Zero Mosque on Greg Gutfeld’s Plan for Gay Islamic Bar: Respect ‘Sensibilities of Muslims’

As we noted in this morning’s Open Thread , Greg Gutfeld is planning on building the first gay bar catered to Muslim men next to the impending “Ground Zero Mosque.” Gutfeld wrote at his blog , the Daily Gut, that he has “already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.” On Twitter today, Gutfeld and the official twitterers of the Park51 project – the official name of the mosque – duked it out in what was a very telling exchange. See a full graphic of the back and forth below the fold, courtesy of Johnny Dollar  (pic at right by way of Jim Treacher ). “He’s got a point,” notes Allahpundit in reference to Park51’s tweet concerning “Muslim sensibilities.” “Construction projects that fail to consider local cultural sensitivities aren’t very conducive to dialogue, are they?” Indeed, the entire exchange seemed to strengthen Gutfeld’s position. He shouldn’t offend Muslim’s sensibilities? Well what about New Yorkers’ sensibilities? How is Park51’s total disregard for those sensibilities any more constructive in building a dialogue than Gutfeld’s? Outrage over Gutfeld’s move only reinforces the point his project is making (whether or not he intends it): yes, everyone has a right to build wherever they like, as long as they do it legally, but that “sensibilities” are a two-way street. Since Park51 has apparently taken a stance against Gutfeld’s bar, will media liberals condemn the mosque’s proprietors as homophobes the same way they condemned mosque opponents has Islamophobes? Individuals who opposed the mosque’s construction have been dubbed ” bellicose ,” ” xenophobic ,” ” Nazis ,” and ” intolerant know-nothings ,” while the mosque itself has been labeled a ” monument to religious tolerance .” The Twitter exchange today demonstrated the double standard espoused by the mosque’s proprietors. Will the media personalities who so vilified the mosque’s opponents endorse that same double standard? Or will they defend Gutfeld’s attempt to promote a dialogue about the treatment of homosexuals in most Muslim nations and communities, even if it means offending a few people?

Visit link:
Ground Zero Mosque on Greg Gutfeld’s Plan for Gay Islamic Bar: Respect ‘Sensibilities of Muslims’

Ground Zero Mosque Site Denied Landmark Status

NEW YORK — A city commission on Tuesday denied landmark status to a building near the World Trade Center site, freeing a group to convert the property into an Islamic community center and mosque that has drawn national opposition. The Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9-0, saying the 152-year-old building blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks wasn't special or distinctive enough to meet criteria to qualify as a landmark. Commissioners also said that other buildings from the era were better examples of the building's style. National and New York politicians and the Anti-Defamation League have come out in recent weeks against plans for the mosque, saying it disrespects the memory of Sept. 11 victims. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who also chairs the foundation building the Sept. 11 memorial, has defended plans for the mosque. Several members of a crowd of 50 or 60 applauded, while others shouted “Shame!” as commission chairman Robert B. Tierney called for the vote. One opponent, Linda Rivera of Manhattan, held up a sign reading, “Don't glorify murders of 3,000. No 9/11 victory mosque.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/03/ground-zero-mosque-faces_n_668580.html?… added by: emarston

President Obama to Launch Ocean Initiative | Will Create National Stewardship Policy for the United States’ Oceans and the Great Lakes

latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-ocean-20100719,0,1686762.story Obama to launch ocean initiative The stewardship policy embraces a controversial zoning practice that could change how the U.S. regulates drilling, fishing and other maritime activities. By Jim Tankersley, Tribune Washington Bureau July 19, 2010 Reporting from Washington President Obama on Monday is set to create a national stewardship policy for America's oceans and Great Lakes, including a type of zoning that could dramatically rebalance the way government regulates offshore drilling, fishing and other marine activities. The policy would not create new regulations or immediately alter drilling plans or fisheries management. But White House documents and senior administration officials suggest it would strengthen conservation and ecosystem protection. The initiative culminates more than a year of work by a federal Ocean Policy Task Force, which Obama established last year. After the task force releases its final recommendations, the president is expected to sign an executive order directing federal agencies to adopt and implement them. Calling the BP oil spill ravaging the Gulf of Mexico a “stark reminder of how vulnerable our marine environments are,” the recommendations center on creating a National Ocean Council to coordinate regulation of oceans and the Great Lakes, and on a principle of “ecosystem-based management” for marine areas. The council would include top federal scientists and officials from a variety of agencies, including national security experts, environmental regulators and managers of ocean commerce. The recommendations embrace a controversial practice called marine spatial planning, a zoning process of sorts that seeks to manage waters in the way some cities manage factories and strip malls. The process could result in confining activities such as drilling, shipping and conservation to areas the planners deem best-suited to each use. Nine regional groups — consisting of state, federal and tribal officials — would draft plans for conservation and use of ocean resources that would have to be approved by the National Ocean Council. Federal agencies have agreed to abide by the plans. If the Great Lakes regional body designated certain lake areas for offshore wind farms, for example, the Interior Department would agree to approve wind farms only within those areas. The same would be true for any new offshore drilling projects. Currently, Interior officials develop drilling plans under a public comment process within their department. In Southern California, the heavy focus on “ecosystem-based management” could cause the U.S. Navy to retool its fleet deployment, with an eye on how its operations affect water quality or whales. The recommendations do not specify their effect on offshore drilling. Administration officials said the new policy would not prejudge or conflict with future findings of the bipartisan commission Obama had charged with investigating the oil gusher. But the administration says coordinated, stewardship-heavy ocean management is likely to “really change” practices in nearly every marine activity, drilling included. The final task force report predicts that the changes would help restore fish populations, protect human health and “rationally allow” for ocean uses such as energy production. “This sets the nation on a path toward much more comprehensive planning to both conservation and sustainable use of [ocean] resources,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the policy had not been officially announced. The first draft of the policy, released in September, drew heavy criticism from some quarters, including industry and recreational anglers concerned that sport fishing might be restricted or banned. After a deluge of criticism and meetings with fishing and boating groups, the administration modified the recommendations to emphasize the importance of fishing and ocean recreation, calling them “critical to the economic, social and cultural fabric of our country.” The recommendations do not include curbs on recreational fishing. But the mere prospect of marine spatial planning has drawn skepticism from ocean users. Oil and gas officials are concerned too. They have repeatedly urged the administration not to adopt any planning process that could restrict offshore drilling. Last fall, for example, a representative of the American Petroleum Institute testified at a task force field hearing, “The oil and natural gas industry's presence in the Gulf [of Mexico] has successfully coexisted with other ocean uses like tourism, fishing, the U.S. military and shipping for many years, demonstrating that the current system of governance works well.” The new plan would emphasize nine areas under the broad banner of marine stewardship and conservation, including improved scientific research and mapping; helping coastal communities adapt to climate change and ocean acidification, particularly in the Arctic; and enhancing water quality on land to boost ocean water quality. jtankersley@latimes.com Copyright