Tag Archives: Obama

Joe Scarborough and Grover Norquist Discuss Ground Zero….and 1650s New Amsterdam?

On Monday’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough returned to attacking the “anti-Muslim bigotry” inspiring protests against a Ground Zero mosque, asking Grover Norquist to denounce religious bigotry. Norquist obliged in a major way, comparing today’s Ground Zero activists to Calvinist leader Peter Stuyvesant trying to forbid synagogues in the New Amsterdam colony in the 1650s. Norquist explicitly suggested a Mormon like Beck should realize that he’s only been pushing the bigotry that was used against his own religious brethren. Scarborough also bizarrely found scandal in Beck questioning Obama’s Christianity, insisting “I don’t really know what his version of Christianity is. But I don’t think it’s any of our business to judge other people’s religious faith. What? But Joe Scarborough definitely questioned the Christianity of ObamaCare opponents on July 21, 2009 as he pressed conservative Sens. Tom Coburn and John Barrasso: SCARBOROUGH: In the ‘90s, everybody was wearing these “What Would Jesus Do” wrist bands. I wonder, what would Jesus think about walking in to any emergency room in any urban center at 11:00 or 12:00 at night and seeing all of these moms bringing their children from poor families who don’t have health care having to use emergency rooms as their primary care. Is that a moral system? Is there a better way to do it? How do we do it? We can’t just say no, can we? On Monday morning, Scarborough begged Norquist to dispose of the notion that Beck was holding a religious rally:   SCARBOROUGH: I think those people were there more out of fear, fear of where Washington’s heading than the people that were up on the stage. But Glenn Beck has said this was a religious rally. It wasn’t a political rally. That’s not really true, is it? NORQUIST:  I tend to think most of the people were coming there because they were speaking to the concern and fear that people have about all the massive spending and debt that’s been coming down the pike. And he was making religious comments. I guess it’s helpful after the Romney campaign where there was so much anti-Mormon bigotry sort of under the surface that Beck, who’s a Mormon, could comfortably participate in a movement like that and perhaps we’re beginning to put anti-Mormon bigotry behind us. SCARBOROUGH: But, but now we have anti-Muslim bigotry and you actually — NORQUIST: They are sticking with the M’s. SCARBOROUGH: You actually have Glenn Beck questioning Barack Obama’s version of Christianity. Now I really don’t know what his version of Christianity is. But I don’t think it is any of our business  to judge other people’s religious faith. I said it last week about Muslims and the week before about Muslims. I say it now about Glenn Beck, the day after this rally, questioning somebody’s version of Christianity. Isn’t there something a bit ominous about that and sort of throwing the Muslim shadow on Barack Obama? Because he thinks — I don’t think — he thinks that’s a bad thing. NORQUIST: it’s an interesting question, because when the mosque in New York came up, the Forward newspaper, the Jewish newspaper in New York pointed out that in history, in Manhattan under the Dutch and the British, synagogues were illegal. So the sort of — People have been through this. When the anti-Mormon feeling was very strong in the United States, when UItah wanted to send a senator, a Mormon leader senator to congress — to the Senate, it took four years of hearings before he was seated. And in New York, Mormon missionaries were banned by the mayor. So when people look at modern political uses of religious bigotry, we’ve been there before with the Mormons. We’ve been there before with the Jews. And you sort of hope that people whose own religious heritages have been hit by that would recognize what is happening and speak out, as many are doing. The article Norquist seems to be citing, by Brandeis professor Jonathan Sarna, isn’t quite as black and white as Norquist suggested. Stuyvesant, Sarna wrote, wanted Jews barred from the colony, but “Stuyvesant’s superiors in Holland overruled him, citing economic and political considerations.” In any case, comparing peaceful Jewish immigrants in the 1650s to Ground Zero after 3,000 Americans died is a flawed analogy. From there, Mika Brzezinski pressed Norquist to declare that something more “substantive and productive” than anti-socialist fears was driving this protest: MIKA BRZEZINSKI: But real quickly, what is the next step? Are you with a president who feels this is perhaps someone, a couple of people capitalizing on fears during tough economic times where there are many fears? Was it being driven by that, or something more substantive and productive? Was there a second sentence or — SCARBOROUGH: What is the follow-up? Yeah. NORQUIST: The follow-up, this is one of many rallies. I’m not a fan of national rallies. I would rather have had 300,000 people in 300 congressional districts with thousand-person rallies because that’s how you changes things and make real progress. About ten minutes into the 6 A.M, Brzezinski noted that according to Gallup, Obama’s highest approval rating is among Muslims (78 percent, compared to 60 percent of Jews, 50 percent of Catholics, 43 percent among Protestants, and just 24 percent among Mormons). She insisted she liked Obama talking about his faith to defend himself and accused conservatives of “promulgating evil” by suggesting Obama’s a Muslim:  I would say some even want it to be worse. It’s wrong, and incorrect and basically promulgating, I think, evil when you’re lying that way about someone’s heritage and then leaving — and about their faith and leaving kind of a dark nasty cloud over it and that is exactly what is happening. It is nothing less. And it should be condemned.   

The rest is here:
Joe Scarborough and Grover Norquist Discuss Ground Zero….and 1650s New Amsterdam?

Man Arrested For Holding “Impeach Obama” Sign Shocking Video!

This first day of the 2010 Alaska State Fair starts with sunny skies and a brutal assault by security personnel on a LaRouche supporter. At about 5pm Alaska Time, Thursday, August 26, 2010, security personnel approach Sidney Hill, a lone man peacefully displaying an impeach Obama sign near Pioneer Plaza on the Alaska State Fairgrounds in Palmer. Minutes later, a crowd assembles, additional security forces arrive, and they physically assault the man holding the sign. He’s taken to the ground with force and detained. An unidentified Alaska State Trooper arrives to physically disperse the crowd, and at several points during the conflict, crowd members yell in support of the demonstrator’s right to speak his message. The demonstrator’s personal firearm is confiscated by fair security, and he is held captive until Palmer police arrive to escort the man away in cuffs. Sidney Hill was in jail awaiting a pre-trial at 1:00pm on August 27, 2010 at the Palmer Courthouse. He has been charged with Assault 4-Cause Fear Of Injury, Disorderly Conduct-Challenge To Fight, and Criminal Trespass 2- Upon Premises. However, according to the Valley Frontiersman newspaper, “Assistant District Attorney Trina Sears said her office decided not to prosecute Hill on the assault charge.” Assault on protestor at 3:30 Trooper distracts me, but I barely catch the gun in security guard’s left hand at 4:41 Court record of arrest: http://bit.ly/bPSx6D ADN coverage: http://bit.ly/bwE3u9 Frontiersman coverage: http://bit.ly/9V4gyn Newsminer coverage: http://bit.ly/bEEq2K Alaska State Fair official statement: http://bit.ly/cY5U2u added by: im1mjrpain

Lefties Upset By Murdoch Donation Take Note: 88 Percent of Network Donations Went to Dems

With liberals up in arms over News Corp’s political contributions, here’s an interesting fact worth noting: of the roughly $1.15 million network TV employees gave to political candidates in 2008, a full 88 percent of it went to Democrats. Barack Obama received almost half a million dollars from those same execs, while John McCain received just over $25,000. The discrepancy between donations to the Democratic and Republican parties was also enormous. Though the numbers are striking, the imbalance is not altogether surprising. But they do help to put in prospect the left’s righteous indignation over the political activities of Fox News’s parent company. According to the Washington Examiner’s Mark Tapscott : The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744… President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709, Ninety-six contributions by broadcast network employees to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senate and House campaign committees totaled $217,881. Thirty-eight contributions by broadcast network employees to the Republican National Committee and the Republican Senate and House campaign committees totaled $23,805… Notable contributors found in the CBS data include “journalist” Seth Davis, who gave $2,750 to Obama, CBS Corporation vice president and editor-in-chief Jane Goldman, who contributed $250 to Obama, CBS Radio “host” Mike Omeara, who gave $1,471 to Obama, and “journalist” Beverly Williams, who donated $200 to Obama. Among NBC contributors were Saturday Night Live producer Jeffrey Ross, who contributed $500 to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CN, former NBC Today Show weatherman Willard Scott. who gave $500 to the Republican National Committee, NBC Universal CFO Jennifer Cabalquinto, whose donations to Obama totaled $1,200, NBC Universal “editor” David Mack, with $250 to Obama and $2,300 McCain.

Read more from the original source:
Lefties Upset By Murdoch Donation Take Note: 88 Percent of Network Donations Went to Dems

You can’t be President if you’re Black / School kids learn that lesson in Mississippi

Black Students are not allowed to run for President. the following is from a memo sent home to parents dictating which posts can be filled by which race. 8th grade…………………..7th grade…………………..6th grade President -white……….President-white…………President-white V-President-black…….V-President-white………V-President-white sec-tres-white…………..sec-tres-black……………sec-tres-white reporter-black…………..reporter-white……………reporter-black The Nettleton Middle School elections are divided between offices pegged for black and white students, according to the memo, which was provided to TSG by a parent. The document was handed out to every student in the school’s sixth, seventh, and eighth grades, and it details the race requirements for each of four class officer spots (president, vice president, secretary-treasurer, and reporter). Of the 12 offices for which students compete, eight are earmarked for white students (including the three class president spots), while four are termed “black” seats. Middle school administrators have not returned TSG phone calls, so it is unclear how this policy was established, or whether the number of offices apportioned for each race changes annually. Additionally, it is unknown how children who are not black or white would run for student government offices. Students seeking class office were directed to return their election applications, complete with the petition signatures of 10 classmates, to science teacher Jenny Payne by August 24. The Nettleton middle school has about 400 students, and about 72 percent are white, according to a source familiar with the school board's operation. The majority of the remaining students are black. The city of Nettleton has a population of 2013 and is located 15 miles south of Tupelo, the birthplace of Elvis Presley. The middle school’s policy was first reported this week by Suzy Richardson, who operates Mixed and Happy, a blog about mixed-race families. (1 page) [UPDATE: The Nettleton school superintendent, Russell Taylor, tonight posted a statement on the district’s web site announcing a review of the “processes, historical applications, compliance issues, as well as current implications and ramifications” of the student election system.] added by: Stoneyroad

AP to Bernanke: Save Us, Ben! (Barack, Nancy, and Harry Who?)

Sometimes you just have to chuckle at the transparent motivations of business writers in the establishment press. Two Associated Press reports from this afternoon, one from Stephen Bernard and another much lengthier piece from Jeannine Aversa, attempt to set the template for Friday morning’s reportage: Despite all the bad news, including a serious downward revision to second-quarter economic growth, it’s up to Big Ben Bernanke to calm everyone down, and magically return the economy to some kind of even keel. No pressure there, big guy. Aversa’s earlier report lays it on especially thick : Bernanke’s top tool now may be power of persuasion The economy appears to be stalling. Yet the Federal Reserve has run out of simple steps it can take to revive it. That’s the test facing Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke as he addresses a conference Friday in Jackson Hole, Wyo. Without any easy options left, Bernanke must try to prevent another recession by persuading people and businesses to feel confident enough about the future to spend more today. Weak consumer spending and a scarcity of jobs have put the economy at risk of lapsing into another downturn. Short-term interest rates near zero have yet to rejuvenate the economy. The benefits of federal stimulus programs are fading, and Congress has declined to pass any major new economic aid. That puts increasing weight on Bernanke’s words. The Fed chairman will speak at 10 a.m. EDT (8 a.m. local time), less than two hours after the government spells out just how fragile the economy is. The Commerce Department is expected to report the economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 1.4 percent from April to June. Growth in the current quarter is shaping up to be just as weak. Bernanke’s task isn’t confined to restoring public confidence. Equally vital, he must forge consensus within the fractious Fed itself. Some Fed officials have been reluctant to have the central bank invest more money than it already has to try to stimulate borrowing and spending. How can the Fed’s almost out-of-gas monetary policy and one speech by the guy who runs it save us, when it’s the people who are in charge of fiscal policy who have brought the economy to this awful juncture? Incredibly, the names of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid do not appear anywhere in Aversa’s report. It’s as if they’re just in the stands, no more or less important than the rest of us, waiting to see what kind of rabbit Big Ben might pull out of his hat. Aversa also writes: … at the heart of Bernanke’s challenge: How to persuade individuals and companies to feel good enough about their financial futures to buy homes and cars, expand payrolls and resuscitate the recovery? Beyond the rate-cutting and other actions Bernanke’s Fed already has taken, few strong ideas have emerged for what else the Fed should be doing. Again, why is this all being dumped on supposedly broad-shouldered Ben? He didn’t create the pervasive atmosphere of economic uncertainty that’s has sent businesspeople, entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers cautiously scurrying to the sidelines. Pelosi, Obama, and Reid did that, and continue to. Ben Bernanke hasn’t been a one-man wrecking crew attacking the employment market. On Wednesday, Michelle Malkin chronicled how Barack Obama has been that man . Ben Bernanke isn’t the guy who will be responsible for massive tax hikes that will kick in on January 1 unless Congress does something and the President signs off on it. That’s Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s problem. Ben Bernanke isn’t the guy spending money like crazy. Barack Obama’s government, with support of Pelosi, Reid, and the Democratic Congress are doing that . The later report from the AP’s Bernard (“Stocks slip as caution about the economy returns”) covered another down day in the stock market, which in this case saw the Dow close below 10,000. The AP reporter covered all kinds of things influencing the market: home sales (actually the lack thereof for both new and existing homes), weekly initial unemployment claims (which did at least fall this week on a seasonally adjusted basis after going mostly the other way during previous weeks), and, of course Bernanke’s upcoming speech. Tomorrow’s GDP report? He didn’t even mention it, nor did he bring up the names of Obama, Pelosi, or Reid. Beside’s AP’s annualized +1.4% estimate above, here are some other predictions of what Friday morning’s GDP report might bring: At the Wall Street Journal — “Economists expect to see the initial estimate of 2.4% growth cut to a more modest 1.3% gain.” Reuters expects GDP to “be revised lower to an annual pace of 1.4 percent.” Zero Hedge cites sources who believe it’s going to be in the neighborhood of below 1% to maybe +1.2% . As noted by Jeff Poor at NewsBusters , Jumpin’ Jim Cramer is predicting +0.5% and a “mass panic” in the markets. At the UK Guardian, Katie Allen is also singing from the “It’s All Up to Ben” hymnal (“Ben Bernanke under pressure to prop up US economic recovery”). Again, it’s as if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, who are again not mentioned, don’t exist. Are they really going to try to pin the economic malaise on Ben Bernanke if he isn’t the second coming of Winston Churchill tomorrow? They can’t be serious, they’re certainly not credible, and although stranger things have happened, it’s hard to see how it can work. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read this article:
AP to Bernanke: Save Us, Ben! (Barack, Nancy, and Harry Who?)

NYT Editorial Board Calls Successful Tea Party Candidates ‘Insurgents’

The New York Times editorial board on Thursday called successful Tea Party candidates insurgents. For those not intimately familiar with the term, despite having several meanings, it has in the years since 9/11 become largely synonymous with terrorists. With that in mind, the imagery in ” The Wrong Kind of Enthusiasm ” was unmistakable:  Republican insurgents from the far right did well in Tuesday’s primaries. What their campaigns lack in logic, compassion and sensible policy seems to be counterbalanced by a fiercely committed voter base that is nowhere to be seen on the Democratic side. In fairness, there are two meanings to insurgent: 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel. 2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.   On cross-examination, the authors might make the case that their intent was to depict these illogical, compassionless and senseless conservatives as the latter. But the imagery and implication throughout was clearly to brand these “insurgents” as something far worse:   In Alaska, Joe Miller, a little-known lawyer from Fairbanks, has a lead for the G.O.P. Senate nomination over Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent. The race is too close to call, but Mr. Miller’s possible victory shows the power of his mentor, Sarah Palin, and the misguided popularity of his anti-immigrant, pro-gun message. Among other dubious positions, he has questioned the constitutionality of unemployment benefits. Then, the Times predictably took sides: The good news is that the anti-immigrant message may not play as well in Florida in the general election. Good news? Good news for whom? Certainly not the overwhelming majority of Americans that support Arizona’s new immigration law. But the Times wasn’t done displaying its deplorable biases, for even a victory by a moderate mainstream candidate left a sour taste: Insurgents did not triumph everywhere. In Arizona, Senator John McCain easily fended off a challenge by a former congressman, J. D. Hayworth. But he did so by throwing his principles overboard. Gone was the stalwart voice for campaign finance reform and a humane, bipartisan overhaul of immigration laws. In his place was a man calling himself “Arizona’s last line of defense,” strutting along the Mexican border in a campaign ad, telling a county sheriff that all we had to do to fix immigration was “complete the danged fence.” Yes, McCain is the Times’ darling when he tacks far-left to help pass legislation that makes conservatives sick. But defending Arizona’s border is “throwing his principles overboard.” Not surprisingly, a good Republican to these shills is really one with no principles at all.  Disgracefully, this editorial ended with more terrorist imagery: Much of the G.O.P’s fervid populist energy has been churned up by playing on some people’s fears of Hispanics and Muslims, by painting the president as a dangerous radical, by distorting the truth about the causes of the recession. Far too many Republican leaders have eagerly fed that destructive anger. Yes, the desire of the majority of Americans to defend the borders from illegal immigrants while doing everything possible to prevent another terrorist attack is “destructive anger.” Makes you wonder if former President Jimmy Carter is heading up the Times editorial board. But the larger point is that the Obama-loving liberal media are in a full state of panic about Democrat prospects in the upcoming elections. As such, the goal now is to paint every GOP candidate as too scary to hold political office.  That even the formerly lovable McCain, who has been in Congress since 1983 and is currently one of the most moderate Republicans up for re-election, is being depicted as equally frightening should clue readers in to just how far the Times is willing to go to help Democrats this cycle. Ironically, as this editorial board clearly is way on the wrong side of public opinion concerning the issues herein addressed, aren’t they behaving like insurgents rather than the objects of their disaffection? The only question is whether their actions fall under definition one or two. We’ll let you decide that.

Go here to see the original:
NYT Editorial Board Calls Successful Tea Party Candidates ‘Insurgents’

Open Thread: Another GZ Mosque Supporter Refuses to Call Hamas a Terrorist Group

The State Department classifies it as such . Apparently Imam Dawoud Kringle is of a different mind. What do you think of Andy McCarthy’s explanation for this Imam’s non-response? Is the definition of terrorism the real issue here? 

View post:
Open Thread: Another GZ Mosque Supporter Refuses to Call Hamas a Terrorist Group

NY Times Frank Rich: Fox News Trying to Portray Obama as a ‘Closet Terrorist’

Never mind the personal feelings of people, which they’re entitled to have, over the notion of a mosque being built in close proximity to Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan. Those sensitivities have nothing to do with what’s really going on. It’s really all about President Barack Obama and his political opponents according to New York Times columnist Frank Rich.  On MSNBC’s Aug. 26 broadcast of “The Rachel Maddow Show,” host Rachel Maddow admitted she was befuddle that anti-Islam sentiment has seemingly peaked in the past few weeks and wondered why it has suddenly been brought to boil, with the mosque in question at the forefront. “For all the bad decisions made post-9/11, we really didn’t see a national, like, open partisan two-minutes hate toward Muslims the way we are seeing now about this mosque debate,” Maddow said. “Why is it happening now?” This could be one of the rare moments Rich actually had something positive to say about former President George W. Bush. According to Rich, you didn’t see a hostile response toward Islam in America because Bush managed to tread lightly around the issue. “I think it’s happening now because of Obama,” Rich said. “I mean, go back to right after 9/11. Bush for whatever reason did the right thing. Very quickly he went to an Islamic center in Washington. He said Islam is a religion of peace, we’re not out to get Islam.” So if this is an occasion where the American left isn’t pointing fingers at Bush – where should they be pointed? Another go-to target loathed by liberals – the Fox News Channel. According to Rich, this was a conspiracy which FNC was in cahoots with the “right-wing” to make Obama out not only to be a Muslim, but also a “closet terrorist.” “Why is it starting up now?” Rich continued. “Well, I think it fits into, if I may say so, the Fox/right-wing strategy of trying to portray Obama as a closest terrorist basically, and a practitioner of Islam . So it has a synergy in a campaign year and this whole thing has been ginned up and it’s depressing. It’s undermining the war. It’s – it’s doing nothing but spreading bad feeling.” The debate over Obama’s religion and what certain segments of society think about the President’s faith has been a fascination of the mainstream media in recent weeks. Several polls have cast a large amount of attention to the subject, which has begged the question – if it’s silly to debate Obama’s faith, why have the media dedicated so much attention to the topic ?

View original post here:
NY Times Frank Rich: Fox News Trying to Portray Obama as a ‘Closet Terrorist’

Americans do be dumber.

Chances are that by now you've heard about the Aug. 19, 2010, Pew poll that found that nearly one fifth of Americans (mistakenly) believe that President Obama is a Muslim. Perhaps you think that a terrifying outlier; or perhaps you're a believer, and then you are in good company. Either way, you're wrong: in fact, remarkably high numbers of Americans believe the most unusual things. Although the portion of poll respondents who believe Obama is a Muslim has risen recently, some of these oddball opinions contain more consistent numbers of believers. Here's a sampling of the nuttiest. EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM To mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, Gallup thought it might be a good idea to poll Americans on their beliefs of the British naturalist's theory. But the results must have had Darwin spinning in his grave, since only 39 percent of Americans believed in the theory. The good news: only a quarter said they didn't believe it; the remaining portion either didn't have an opinion or didn't answer. (Also, only 55 percent correctly linked Darwin's name with the theory.) However, it appears that views may, um, evolve: younger people believe in evolution at far higher rates than older ones. WITCHCRAFT It seems obvious that it's not a good idea to put too much stock in withcraft. But it turns out that 21 percent of Americans believe there are real sorcerors, conjurers, and warlocks out there. And that's just one of the several paranormal beliefs common among Americans, according to Gallup: 41 percent believe in ESP, 32 percent in ghosts, and a quarter in astrology. In fairness, the numbers in this poll are a little old—they date back to 2005. But then again, if people haven't changed their mind since the Enlightenment, it's not clear another half decade would make much difference. DEATH PANELS From Facebook to faith: that's how a spurious rumor became part of the national dialogue. On Facebook, Sarah Palin wrote in August 2009 that Obama would institute a “death panel” as part of health-care reform. Soon pundits and politicians were demagoguing the issue into common currency. Even in August 2010, one year after the initial burst and five months after health reform was signed into law, the belief lingers. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, four in 10 Americans mistakenly believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates a panel that makes decisions about end-of-life care. SADDAM'S WMDs AND 9/11 INVOLVEMENT Even years after claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or had links to the September 11 attacks had been debunked, not all Americans were convinced. In a June 2007 NEWSWEEK poll, four years after the invasion of Iraq, 41 percent believed Saddam was involved in 9/11—even though President Bush had said otherwise as early as September 2003. Wild views on 9/11 are in fact still rampant. In September 2009, Public Policy Polling found that a quarter of Democrats suspected Bush had something to do with the attacks. Meanwhile, many Americans also remain convinced that Saddam had WMDs, even though inspectors haven't found any in the seven years since the invasion. Still, as of 2006, half of Americans believed that, according to Harris. Who knows where they got that idea? HELIOCENTRISM Didn't we clear this one up in the 16th century? Copernicus be damned, 20 percent of Americans were still sure in 1999 that the sun revolved around the Earth. Gallup, the pollster that conducted the study, gamely tried to dress it up by celebrating the fact that “four out of five Americans know Earth revolves around the sun,” but we're not buying. HISTORY OF RELIGION If mutual understanding is the key to tolerance, we're in trouble. According to NEWSWEEK's 2007 What You Need to Know poll, barely half of Americans were correctly able to state that Judaism was older than both Christianity and Islam. Another 41 percent weren't sure; in case you're in that group, here goes: Judaism is the oldest of the Abrahamic faiths, followed by Christianity—which reveres the Jewish prophets (including Moses, above)—and then Islam, which reveres the Jewish prophets and also hails Jesus as a prophet. Supreme Court vs. Seven Dwarfs It's hard to imagine what inspired the pollsters at Zogby to ask the question, but the answer is striking: in a 2006 poll, more than three quarters of Americans could name at least two of the seven dwarfs, while not quite a quarter could name two members of the Supreme Court. NEWSWEEK's response is a split decision, if you will: on the one hand, Disney is as much a symbol of America as the high court, and those dwarfs are adorable. On the other hand, it should be easy to name only two out of a pool of nine options. Objection sustained! WORLD GEOGRAPHY Lost? Don't ask an American. Sixty-three percent of young Americans can't find Iraq on a map, despite the ongoing U.S involvement there. Nine out of 10 can't find Afghanistan—even if you give them the advantage of a map limited to Asia. And more than a third of Americans of any age can't identify the continent that's home to the Amazon River (above), the world's largest. Three Stooges vs. Three Branches What a bunch of knuckleheads: according to Zogby, the majority of Americans—three in four—can correctly identify Larry, Curly, and Moe as the Three Stooges. Only two out of five respondents, however, can correctly identify the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as the three wings of government. FREEDOM OF RELIGION Who needs constitutional constructionism? Not one in three Americans, apparently: that's the proportion that said in a 2008 First Amendment Center poll that the constitutional right to freedom of religion was never meant to apply to groups most folks think are extreme or fringe—a 10 percent increase from 2000. In 2007, two out of five Americans told the FAC that teachers should be allowed to lead prayers in public schools. You can see several years of the reports here. PRESIDENT OBAMA'S RELIGION Opponents of President Obama have been spreading false rumors about his religion for quite some time. Recently, however, it seems that the number of Americans who believe these untruths is on the rise. Among respondents to a Pew poll, 18 percent believed Obama was a Muslim, up from 11 percent in March 2009. A Time magazine poll last week found similar results: 24 percent believed he was a Muslim, while only 47 percent correctly identified him as a Christian. There's some evidence that the best indicator of belief that Obama is a Muslim is opposing him politically, casting doubt on the accuracy of the results. Then again, it wouldn't be the craziest thing Americans believe, would it? added by: UtopianSky

Pataki Smacks Down Matthews: You Bash Limbaugh, How About Olbermann?

Former New York Governor George Pataki on Wednesday got into a heated discussion with Chris Matthews over the Ground Zero mosque and the Republican opposition to it. In the middle of his second “Hardball” segment on MSNBC, Matthews played a clip of Rush Limbaugh saying on the radio earlier in the day, “If this is a nation that is Islamophobic, how do we elect a man whose name is Barack Hussein Obama?” This led Matthews to ask his guest, “What do you think of guys that keep putting out lies like that?” Over the course of the next five minutes, Pataki basically took over the show not only putting Matthews in his place, but also doing the same to his other guest, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Governor, it just seems to me that people on the right of the spectrum, right across the right center right all the way over, really don`t like Muslims. Take a look — here`s Rush Limbaugh today. Here`s what he said today about — about the — about our election of — well, he refers to President Obama, basically, as a Muslim here again. Here he is. Let`s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: My question — Mr. Matthews and Mr. Fineman, a question for you. How can America be Islamophobic? We elected Obama, didn`t we? If this is a nation that is Islamophobic, how do we elect a man whose name is Barack Hussein Obama? (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Governor, this is why, I think, 25 or some 30 percent of the people think that Barack Obama is a Muslim, this trash talking by Rush Limbaugh, the voice of the American right here, who speaks for so many Republicans, assuming that he`s a Muslim because we voted for him and that proves we`re not anti-Muslim. What do you think of guys that keep putting out lies like that? So, in Matthews’ view, Limbaugh not only believes Obama is a Muslim, but he’s also responsible for how 25 to 30 percent of the nation thinks.  Well, before we get to Pataki’s fabulous response, here’s what Limbaugh actually said today on this subject: RUSH LIMBAUGH: Monday night on Mess NBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. He and Howard Fineman are blaming me for the Obama Muslim poll. They’re blaming me for the fact that about 20, 25% of the American people think Obama’s a Muslim and that fewer and fewer Americans believe that Obama is a Christian. Well, that’s not what I was doing. These guys are outthinking me by half here. To put this back in context, I was trying to explain to these people why the poll was what it was. Don’t forget, it’s not us that took the poll. I’m in the wake of this. I had nothing to do with the shaping of opinion on this poll. The only time I have referenced Obama being a Muslim was when I was quoting Khadafy. I’ve never put it out there myself that Obama is a Muslim. I’ve quoted Moammar Khadafy for saying so. I’m trying to explain to these people in the media, “You want to know why the American people think this, let me help you.” What do we know about Obama being a Christian? The only thing we know is that he has said so. But we don’t see him going to church. We don’t hear him talk about it like other presidents have. But we do know that his pastor for 20 years was Jeremiah Wright. And the American people have heard what Jeremiah Wright said, America’s chickens have come home to roost and all of that. And we also have heard Obama say he never heard Wright say any of these things. Well, sorry, media. We just don’t believe that a parishioner does not hear the pastor for 20 years. Sorry. We may be rubes, but that doesn’t compute with us. I mean those of us that go to church know what the pastor says. One of the reasons we go is to hear what the priest or what the pastor says. This Pew poll was taken back in July. Now, I never said anything about Obama being a Muslim until the last few days. With that as pretext, here’s how Pataki responded to Matthews: GEORGE PATAKI, FORMER GOVERNOR NEW YORK (R): Well, I think it`s clear that Rush and I both understand that Barack Obama is a Christian. He has expressed his Christianity. He has shown that he goes to church, although I have doubts about his choice of the right church when he was with Reverend Wright for so many years in Chicago. But, you know, you can pick out inflammatory positions on either side. The idea of this Islamic center so close to Ground Zero is wrong, and you`re painting it as something that the right is opposed to. In New York State, the Democratic governor and the Democratic speaker are opposed to it. Harry Reid has come out against it. There is bipartisan opposition, and by the way, the vast majority of Americans think it is the wrong center and the wrong site at the wrong time. Exactly. The polling data on this issue finds huge bipartisan opposition to this mosque. Yet, Matthews and his ilk continue to blame this on conservative talkers like Limbaugh: MATTHEWS: Right. PATAKI: And just commenting on Eugene`s analysis that it`s making the U.S. look bad in the Islamic world, if the people who proposed building this in fact wanted to reach out, wanted to build bridges, they would understand the nature of the opposition. They would understand the emotion involved around September 11, and they would have taken up a Democratic governor`s offer to relocate that site. They won`t do that. So, it makes me question, not just question, but doubt seriously, if in fact this is about building bridges, as opposed to just sticking — poking a stick in our eye at one of the hallowed grounds and the scenes of one of the greatest tragedies in American history. And I have to tell you that you — I am not anti-Islam. I am very strongly anti that mosque. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Well, you think that`s the message, Gene, that we`re sending here as a country? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Is that the message that we`re sending, we`re not anti- Islamic? (CROSSTALK) PATAKI: It`s not the message you`re sending, Chris, when you say that the right is anti-Islam. MATTHEWS: I`m looking at the poll data. PATAKI: We`re in favor of tolerance across the political spectrum. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. I have just cited a major national poll that says most Republicans don`t like Islam, period. I have just quoted Rush Limbaugh from today`s broadcast where he is making it sound like we have elected a guy who is Islamic, and therefore we`re not anti-Islamic, playing that old game again, that canard that he`s really not a Christian. I would think if I were a guy sitting in a Cairo cafe right now, I be would thinking, I don`t really want to go to Michigan State and study engineering because those people don`t like me. Nicely set up, Pataki whacked the ball out of the park: PATAKI: Well, you know, you always manage to get a clip from Rush. I would love to have one from Keith Olbermann or someone, because you can always take — MATTHEWS: Well, I`m looking for Republican opinion here. Exactly! Matthews is always looking for Republican opinion to bash, which once again set Pataki up nicely: PATAKI: — take positions — let me give you a Republican opinion. (CROSSTALK) PATAKI: We believe in freedom of religion. In New York City, there are over 100 mosques. In New York State, there are over 300 mosques. MATTHEWS: Right. PATAKI: We believe that religious tolerance is an important part of our Bill of Rights and of our country. But that doesn`t mean that we have to tolerate building a center with questionable sources of funds, questionable leadership so close to Ground Zero. It is the wrong thing to do at the wrong site. MATTHEWS: Gene, your last word here, please. EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST: Well, I believe the organizers of the mosque will refuse, as all of us do, to be classified as second-class citizens of this country. PATAKI: That`s right. ROBINSON: I believe the governor forgets that innocent Muslims died in the collapse of the Twin Towers, along with Christians and Jews and everyone else. And — and I just think it is an outrageous violation of what we as Americans hold sacred, freedom of religion, and the fact that we are all equal to say, yes, sure, we like Islam, but we don`t like you here. Brace yourselves, for Robinson was about to get schooled: PATAKI: You know, I think it`s an incredible violation of our freedom of speech if you think that by expressing an opinion that differs from yours somehow, it is in any way treating people as second-class citizens. Ouch! Even Matthews recognized Pataki was right: MATTHEWS: OK. I`m with you. I`m with you. PATAKI: It`s not. MATTHEWS: Governor — Governor, you rang my bell. I agree. Both sides — I respect your opinion. I respect the other guy`s opinion. What I don`t respect are people talking about blacklisting the construction companies, talking about we`re going to get those people and run them out of business who do try to build this center. That is bad Americanism. That is not American to say, all right, you have a right to do it, but we will ruin your business if you do it. Is that freedom of speech or is that something else? PATAKI: No, it`s not. No, it`s not. And I agree with you. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. Then we`re together on that — (CROSSTALK) PATAKI: We have to follow the law. But let me raise another point here. The developer, so-called developer of this project, earlier, about a year or so ago, plunked down $4.9 million in cash to buy the site. A year-and-a-half before that, he was a waiter. He then plunked down $5 million to buy the second site and got a mortgage in excess of $20 million or $30 million, a guy who was a waiter as a restaurant a year-and-a-half ago. People are asking him the source of that almost $10 million in cash. MATTHEWS: OK. PATAKI: He won`t answer the questions. And I think it`s — the American people and certainly the people of New York have a right to know the source of the funding, because that goes to what this center is going to be used for. I have grave doubts. I think it should be moved. And if they were really serious about reaching out and building bridges, they would listen to those of us who respect Islam, but who don`t believe that center should be there. Outstanding, Governor. Absolutely outstanding. Now watch Matthews further make a fool of himself: MATTHEWS: OK. Seven years ago, the man who is building this center was speaking at Danny Pearl`s funeral. I`m not sure he`s a bad guy, like you say he is. This is why folks like Olbermann don’t allow conservatives on their programs, for Matthews was seriously about to get owned: PATAKI: Well, I can tell you, Danny Pearl`s father has said that it should not be built there. Game, set, and match Pataki. Bravo, Governor! Bravo!

Read more:
Pataki Smacks Down Matthews: You Bash Limbaugh, How About Olbermann?