The left says we’re all the same, yet it seems the white race is the only one capable of being ‘scared’.

Anyone here familiar with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act?

Question 1 – Why does this lady laugh the entire time she is reading her script? Is this supposed to be a comedy show like jon stuarts or is she trying to sing her “news” stories?

Question 2 – Why is she still beating this dead horse?

I’m far less concerned about the cynical nature of the radical rightists trying to sacre White people (they have been doing that for some time) but that it has worked. We have a small, but noticeable segment of the US population which enjoys nothing more than knocking their knees together and standing in wide pools of their own urine.

MORE NEWS FOX WON’T COVER:

FOX’S QUEST FOR THOSE FINANCING TERROR,
OUGHT BEGIN WITH A LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
BIN TALAL AND KINGDOM HOLDING COMPANY
ARE OBVIOUS SOURCES OF THIS VILLANY.

“these different ’scare white people’ stories” Rachel Maddow

Below is one you missed Rachel. You can title it ‘beat whitey night’:

Des Moines-Officials announced last week that they were stepping up security outside the fairgrounds after a series of attacks Aug. 14 that included a pair of stabbings. Investigators are still investigating those assaults and victims intend to pursue charges.

Sgt. David Murillo stated in a report on Friday night, “On-duty officers at the fairgrounds advise there was a group of 30 to 40 individuals roaming the fairgrounds openly calling it ‘beat whitey night.’ ”

Jammie Carroll, 36, of Polk City, was seriously injured in the 3000 block of East Grand Avenue Friday night after a group of people beat him up, causing severe injuries to his eyes, cheekbones and nose, Murillo wrote. Carroll is white, and many of the suspects are black, police said.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100824/NEWS01/8240366/Police-say-it-s-very-possible-attacks-near-fairgrounds-had-racial-overtones

What really scares me is all of those ‘cracker kids’. They might even touch me with their Cheeto stained fingers. Ewwwwwwwww!!

I’d be curious how many times in a single day, Fox provides stories that meant to elicit fear and outrage? And perhaps its unfair to single them out, but it interesting that most of these types of stories due seem to originate within the conservative media.

I prefer my journalism straight up and without a tinge of bias. Like when Olbermann was covering Scott Brown’s election and called him a racist, sexist homophobe.

I think the media in general is guilty of overhyping, fearmongering, and simplifying. Everything has to be reduced to quick, easy sound bites. It’s shouted at you by the anchors. I prefer to get my news from print and online sources because then no one is yelling at me to be very afraid.

writer said:
I prefer my journalism straight up and without a tinge of bias. Like when Olbermann was covering Scott Brown’s election and called him a racist, sexist homophobe.

The quote from Olbermann-

“in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”

I have also have theory that the constant circulation of the news…on tv, online, wherever, keeps the crap literally the crap, in front of everyones faces.

I also suspect back before CNN was born, in the days of the Nightly News and plain old newspapers, people had time to assimilate thoughts before reacting in emotional ways.

Now…here we are, blogging and posting away, in response to every seemingly inane story that comes out.

StandUp, that’s what I mean. Only Fox shows a bias in their reporting. Olbermann and MSNBC deal only in hard facts.

I don’t think any of the networks are doing themselves any favors with so many opinion shows.

I am curious as to why RLUIPA was brought into the discussion and how this might be relevant.

Kevin Earley said:
I am curious as to why RLUIPA was brought into the discussion and how this might be relevant.

Glad you asked.

When GOP gave aid to Muslims
A 2000 law favors the ground zero mosque.

Steve Chapman

August 22, 2010
Advertisement

Ten years ago, Republicans in Congress passed a major law to protect the right of Muslims to establish mosques even where such a building might be unwelcome. Yes, they did. They just may not have thought of it quite that way at the time.

The law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, was aimed at a common problem often ignored by the courts: local government bodies using zoning authority to prevent religious institutions from moving in or expanding their operations.

It had the support of such groups as the Christian Legal Society and the Family Research Council. Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., said it was aimed at “the well-documented and abusive treatment suffered by religious individuals and organizations in the land use context.” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, pushed it because, he said, “At the core of religious freedom is the ability for assemblies to gather and worship together.”

Today, of course, that statute is a problem for anyone hoping that the city, state or federal government would take action to block an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, commonly referred to as the ground zero mosque. Many of those opponents are happy to disregard both the law and the Constitution in their effort.

Not all critics of the plan endorse government intervention. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed the Cordoba Initiative has the right to build at that site if it chooses, while insisting that it should reconsider out of “sensitivity” — a trait rarely associated with him.

But other opponents are not so respectful of religious rights. Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that permitting the construction of the center would show “weakness and submission” to our enemies.

Carl Paladino, who is running for governor of New York in the GOP primary, has vowed to seize the land. Pamela Geller, head of Stop Islamization of America, urged the city to give landmark status to the existing building to kill the proposal.

Among the citizens who turned out to protest the building at the Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting, there was no visible deference to the religious liberty of Muslims. When the commission voted to let the plan proceed, there were shouts of “Shame on you!” and “Disgrace!”

But had the city used its landmarking power to kill the project, it would have faced a court challenge. And thanks to the 2000 law, it would probably lose.

The law says, “No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution,” unless it meets very strict conditions. Nor may any government inflict a regulation that discriminates “on the basis of religion or religious denomination.”

Before this law, cities usually got away with such behavior, because zoning authority gives them broad discretion to hinder religious groups in the outwardly neutral guise of architectural preservation or traffic control. It wasn’t hard to discriminate without being obvious enough to get in trouble.

In passing the measure, Congress sided with unpopular minority sects that often found themselves blocked at every turn by local governments. So even if the opposition to the Cordoba plan was cloaked as an impartial effort to preserve the character of the neighborhood, it would run smack up against this law.

This case, though, is even simpler. Most of the time, when local authorities throw up roadblocks before unwanted religious groups, they do so in a way designed to conceal their real motive. Here, though, the critics object to the center precisely because it involves Muslims doing nothing more than practicing their religion.

There is nothing covert or subtle about the opponents’ motives. To stop the building on the grounds that Islam has no place near ground zero would clearly defy the law’s ban on religious discrimination.

That prohibition is a credit largely to conservatives who understood the dangers of putting religion at the mercy of government. The law was an effort by Republicans (and many Democrats) to protect the rights of believers — especially despised minorities.

The law recognized the importance of assuring the same freedom for them as for everyone else. That objective made sense 10 years ago, and it still does.

Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune’s editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman

How dare those racists Howard Dean and Harry Reid try to scare white people!!!

70% believe building that structure at that location is a bad idea. So, 70% of the country is “far-right wing”. Well, yeah according to far-left extremists like maddow & macnichol.

Glynnis and Rachel are scary looking white people .

I guess if we keep the focus on the mosque, we don’t have to talk about things like:

Existing Home Sales Hit 15-Year Low; Housing Market Weakens

Good strategy dems!!

Royal King is not an elitist nor a racist. He has great sympathy for all the common scum beneath him, depending on what color they are.

“paulmdoro says: Glad you asked.”

You’ve been waiting to pounce haven’t you…LOL.

Socrates69 said:
“paulmdoro says: Glad you asked.”

You’ve been waiting to pounce haven’t you…LOL.

Not that anyone here cares or will bother reading it. Michelle both parties excel at using more trivial matters to keep more serious issues out of the news.

File this under “things you won’t see at MSNBC or mediaite”:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100824/NEWS01/8240366/Police-say-it-s-very-possible-attacks-near-fairgrounds-had-racial-overtones

Dude, I care. I love hypocrisy stories. And this one gets better with the telling. And please don’t try logic and reasoning with MichelleF…she will just make it your fault.

“lonestar77 says:
File this under “things you won’t see at MSNBC or mediaite”:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100824/NEWS01/8240366/Police-say-it-s-very-possible-attacks-near-fairgrounds-had-racial-overtones”

Actually thats twice now that I’ve this link on Mediaite. And I read it. So what do you want to do with it…this piece of information? What does it provide you?

Kevin Earley said:
I am curious as to why RLUIPA was brought into the discussion and how this might be relevant.

Like a fish looking at a worm…you bit …and found that paulmdoro had placed that worm on a hook!

paulmdoro said:
Not that anyone here cares or will bother reading it. Michelle both parties excel at using more trivial matters to keep more serious issues out of the news.

Actually, I think it was a very good point made, and I appreciate the point.

MORE NEWS FOX WON’T COVER:

FOX’S QUEST FOR THOSE FINANCING TERROR,
OUGHT BEGIN WITH A LOOK IN THE MIRROR.
BIN TALAL AND KINGDOM HOLDING COMPANY
ARE OBVIOUS SOURCES OF THIS VILLANY.

And this mosque story was not news until the New York Post and subsequently Sarah Palin stoked it up and media outlets hungry for headlines jumped in.

Are you retarded, Glynnis? The mosque story became news when the President of the United States, Barack Obama stoked it up and kept it stoked with 5 consecutive days of statements on the matter.

Does anyone dispute that, or are you satisfied with simply pretending it didn’t happen that way?

paulmdoro said:
Glad you asked.

They already have their permit. The RLUIPA is irrelevant.

Seems that uses, either pro or con of RLUIPA is tenuous at best. What this simply creates is a forum for legal counsel from both sides to argue their issues and leave the decision up to the courts. The majority of cases cited concerning RLUIPA have been decisions handed down by Supreme Courts, either at the State or Federal level. As has been seen, any law or act developed within the United States is subject to Judicial interpretation. Are we willing to allow this to get to the point where a decision will be at the minimum six months away, all the while, the issue is bandied about within the public?

Socrates69 said:
I’d be curious how many times in a single day, Fox provides stories that meant to elicit fear and outrage?

I’m curious whether Maddow intended this show to elicit fear and outrage. It seems she did.

Pablo said:
They already have their permit. The RLUIPA is irrelevant.

Wait, do they have their permit? I’m just not sure.

Pablo said:
I’m curious whether Maddow intended this show to elicit fear and outrage. It seems she did.

Because that is the point right? Get your base outraged and fired up? It seems that’s the primary function of media outlets these days, whether it is FNC or MSNBC or CNN or your local news affiliates or an opinion show or a news program. It’s all shouting and sound bites and fear and anger.

Dear Rachel (and the rest of MSNBC):

You have over played the race card; it has no meaning anymore.

MichelleF said:
I guess if we keep the focus on the mosque, we don’t have to talk about things like:

Existing Home Sales Hit 15-Year Low; Housing Market Weakens

Good strategy dems!!

I agree completely.

To be fair though, it was far right (Pamela Geller via Fox News) who pushed it in the first place and people like Newt who encouraged it’s growth.

Now that it’s become a liability for the GOP, it would be preferable to let it go.

Corruption {ACCORN} Communism {Van Jones} Voter intimidation {New Black Panthers} are not just one race just really bad. Watch the other hand while I play the race card.

Ms.Meddow, once again, misses the point…again. Which leads me to believe, that’s exactly what she and her news-agency intend to do. They can’t compete with Foxnews on a straight-up competency level, so they use the “shock-jock” approach hoping to garner the grocery-store newspaper gossip rag customer. It works for awhile but, quickly becomes boring.

CAconservative said:
Ms.Meddow, once again, misses the point…again. Which leads me to believe, that’s exactly what she and her news-agency intend to do. They can’t compete with Foxnews on a straight-up competency level, so they use the “shock-jock” approach hoping to garner the grocery-store newspaper gossip rag customer. It works for awhile but, quickly becomes boring.

“shock-jock”???

If you refer to the above as a “shock-jock” approach than I can only conclude you dont know what it means.

Sorry Maddow, the idea disgusts people of all races. Why do you have to be racist and single out white people?

Liberals are the FIRST ones to call people racists, but it is they who are the racists.

Miss USA isn’t white, in fact, she’s a brown Muslim. Yet she opposes the ground zero mosque. So, what was Maddow saying about scaring white people?
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=185596

Socrates69 says:
August 24, 2010 at 12:44 pm (Quote)
0 2

“Actually thats twice now that I’ve this link on Mediaite. And I read it. So what do you want to do with it…this piece of information? What does it provide you?”

Nothing actually. However, if the table were turned, it would be looped 24/7 by the MSM. That’s what I was pointing out. I’m glad you apparently agree that a couple hoodlums doesn’t make an entire race evil. I look forward to that defense the next time the MSM paints all white people as racists because some poor black dude gets called a poopy-head by some white dude.

“Liberals are the FIRST ones to call people racists, but it is they who are the racists.”

Yes sure, “Alz.” It’s us Libs who are the racists.

Did you happen to notice that we elected the first African American President?

Did you notice that every single African American in Congress today is a Democrat?

But sure, we are the racists.

Got ya.

So are the Klan members of the Dem. party.

If there’s a special place in hell for race-baiters, Maddow, I predict, will be on the front row. First of all, I’ve always wondered how other races, view these fringe white liberals, such as Maddow, whom constantly attack their own race. No other races on this planet, have this self-hating mental disorder. White liberal guilt from this fringe, has slowly evolved from their own self-hatred, to projecting that self-hatred onto non-fringe whites. Activist Maddow and her ilk, also detest white Christians whom believe, based on the structure of the human anatomy, that male-female relationships were likely intended to be the natural order, biologically. Yet, Obama, black Christians, muslims, as well as the rest of society, overwhelmingly reject the notion that same-sex marriage, was ever intended to be the natural order, even through activist legislation. Maddow attacks whites for their belief system, but ignores the fact that all other races have this exact belief system? Is she insane to believe that she’s impressing any race, with her attack of whites only? I’m 100% certain that most races are saying, “damn, I agree with those white folks, on this insane notion of same-sex marriage.” Last, but not least, this race-baiting ‘scare white people’ BS, proves, imo, just how dangerous Maddow and her ilk are, in inciting racial tensions and disharmony. When riots occur, based on the hate speech of Maddow, Olbermann, and their ilk, I do hope the law holds them accountable, as well as MSNBC. Maddow needs to take her self-hatred and white liberal guilt, to the nearest qualified shrink, in order to take responsibility for her own inadequacies, shortcomings, and most of all, to address her misgivings with her obvious identity crisis. There’s a reason why society, in general, has always laughed at and rejected these fringe left misfits, and the November elections will put them all back in their proper places, which is under a rock.

A bit of clarification: If some group such as the Nation of Islam makes anti-semitic or racist statements and you point it out, that makes you the racist for pointing it out.

MacNicol is astonishingly vapid. If I was a Buddhist id be jealous of her. She never has to light any incense candles or focus on her breathing to clear her mind. Her brain is made from teflon.

Angel says:

Now that it’s become a liability for the GOP, it would be preferable to let it go.

So in your world, 70% of American’s being against the mosque, is a liability for the GOP? Wow, the delusion never ends with the left, does it?

Hate speech against white Christians, whom refuse to conform to the gay agenda, is a crime and should be prosecuted. Email MSNBC and express your outrage at hate speech, aimed at white Christians.

And FOX picks up on it like the goose-stepping goons that they are. Apostles of hatred.

Now that’s a swell looking tomato !

paulmdoro said:
paulmdoro says:
August 24, 2010 at 11:44 am paulmdoro(Quote)
4 4
Anyone here familiar with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons

Paulmdoro,

This is an excellent example of the unintended consequences of actions, in this case passing a law. If you want a solution to a problem the worst place to go is usually the government.

Rich

Instead of calling this a ‘Scare White People’ Story,” Rachel would be better to name it her “Play-the-Race-Card” story. This is one of the reasons why Maddow’s rating have collapsed in recent weeks. She once drew two million viewers per night. Then it fell to one million. And now it is tending down towards 500 K. That’s what happens when you build your programing around these predictable leftwing histrionics and character attacks, and accuse everyone who disagrees with you of racism. Maddow had a choice between offering intelligent political commentary or playing a debased smear game, and she opted for the latter. I give her show no more than another 12-18 months before she gets canceled. And she will have earned it with garbage stories like this one.

Big Eddie said:
Now that’s a swell looking tomato !

Great Caesar’s Ghost ! … Thought this was the Laura Ingraham story .

newzmaker said:
Hate speech against white Christians, whom refuse to conform to the gay agenda, is a crime and should be prosecuted. Email MSNBC and express your outrage at hate speech, aimed at white Christians.

My straight agenda has been a smashing success. Good luck with your email campaign. Another smashing success I predict!

maddow nails it again

writer said:
The left says we’re all the same, yet it seems the white race is the only one capable of being ’scared’.

No writer you are not all the same. And everybody feels fear. That’s natural. But drumming up fear, that is something different. The mosque issued was handled, definitively, by the Mayor of New York, with the support of major religious and social leaders. Then FOX, or whoever, figured out this could be a wedge issue for political gain. Essentially, as Rachael said, drumming up fear among white people that the brown skinned men might harm them. In this case, unfairly.

Just another poisoned Daughter of Darkness who appeals to the Little People.

Here’s the thing, valk. Was it only white people who were killed on 9/11? So when bringing up opposition to the mosque, why does the left take such pains to say it’s only white people who are opposed?

valkyrie101 said:
The mosque issued was handled, definitively, by the Mayor of New York, with the support of major religious and social leaders. Then FOX, or whoever, figured out this could be a wedge issue for political gain.

No, then Barack Obama chimed in and everybody has been talking about it since. Like Maddow.

You will not rewrite the facts on the fly. One person blew thing thing up, and he’s the President.

Pablo said:
No, then Barack Obama chimed in and everybody has been talking about it since. Like Maddow.

You will not rewrite the facts on the fly. One person blew thing thing up, and he’s the President.

I think there’s more blame to go around than that Pablo, as convenient as it might be to blame one person and one person only. Obama isn’t the only prominent political figure to weigh in on this.

Nothing is more obnoxious and elitist sounding then when white liberals on TV or in print try slam try to gain liberal street cred at the expense of their “uneducated, easily frightened” white counterparts. Bill Maher does it all the time as well.

Rachel, Minorities don’t like you any more or less for this. If anything its condescending and patronizing. You might as well just say, “Don’t worry minorities, I will protect you by showing the evil republicans that they are just scaring fellow whites with their Rovian tactics. I will re-educate them so that their animosity is no longer directed at you and you won’t have to live in fear any longer. (cue Superman soundtrack)

Ignoring the actual debate and devolving into this is weak and campy.

I wonder if Rachel has asked any of the black or Hispanic victims’ families if they’re gung ho for having the mosque built? Doubt it. That would destroy the left wing mantra that only white people get ‘scared’.

MichelleF said:
Angel says:

Now that it’s become a liability for the GOP, it would be preferable to let it go.

So in your world, 70% of American’s being against the mosque, is a liability for the GOP? Wow, the delusion never ends with the left, does it?

In my moderate prism I see that the issue is becoming a political liability for the GOP.
I didn’t say anything about the emotions of the people.

I do believe that most everyone has an opinion either one way or the other on this.
But considering the small group of people who showed up both protest on Sunday tells me the really is very little intense outrage.

500 people against (and remember we are talking NYC here) show up
250 for show up.

It doesnt even crack 1000 people. In NYC no less.

Most Americans are opposed. Yes. But are they so opposed that they are outraged? No, not really.

Someone put a finger in that dyke!

paulmdoro said:
My straight agenda has been a smashing success. Good luck with your email campaign. Another smashing success I predict!

Dude, the gay agenda is dangerous and intended to quash disagreement. Activists hope to use the courts for their agenda, in order to label disagreement as ‘hate speech.’ I read an article recently, in which a church in Canada, is being accused of hate speech, for simply expressing its usual moral beliefs. Disagreement is NOT hate speech. Personally, I don’t give a damn about what gays or straights do, in the privacy of their own homes, but when gay activists use the court system to quash freedom of speech, this affects everyone. If gay activists succeed in removing free speech from white churches, believe me, this will give them the nerve to finally go after churches of other races and religions. Personally, I am only playing the hate speech card against Maddow, because it is the truth. If she wants to make free speech in places or worship a crime, then, I will damn well call her on her hate speech against white Christians. These pitiful misfits on the left, deserve to have their same tactics used against them.

Just for Fun!!

10 Bigoted Remarks Made by the ‘Tolerant’ Left In Obama’s ‘Post-Racial’ America

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/08/22/10-bigoted-remarks-made-by-the-%e2%80%98tolerant%e2%80%99-left-in-obama%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98post-racial%e2%80%99-america/

You know an easier way to scare white people: Put a life-size cutout of Rachel Maddow in their bedroom just as they’re falling asleep. The horror! I’d have nightmares for the rest of my life. I threw up in my mouth a little just thinking about it.

Can this site go 24 hours without praising Ms. Maddow? Can they hire one conservative columnist to counter an entire staff that treats her word as Gospel?

Seriously, Mediaite has simply become an extension of the Abrams wing of MSNBC: Praise almost everyone who works there, give Olbermann a ribbing periodically but be respectful out of fear, and continue the obsession with FOX. Sadly, the act has already become predictable.

“Yes sure, “Alz.” It’s us Libs who are the racists.

Did you happen to notice that we elected the first African American President?

Did you notice that every single African American in Congress today is a Democrat?”

Typical racist obamacrat thinking: “I don’t have to live in black neighborhoods, spend my money at minority owned businesses and integrate fully with the black community…INSTEAD, casting a vote for a black person and race-baiting on behalf of them means that I am not a racist. I’ll just cloak myself in their oppression to make my political point. Race-relations be damned, I’ll throw out the accusation of “racist” whenever my agenda needs me to.”

You racist assholes that hijacked the democratic party ARE racist. THE WORST EXPLOITATIVE KIND, TOO.

shootfromthehip, Liberals ARE the biggest racists. Look at what theyhave done to the inner cities? Over FIVE DECADES of concentrated liberalism and about all we can say is there is a lot of hopelessness, despair and death.

tomcable says:
August 24, 2010 at 2:59 pm (Quote)
2 0
“Can this site go 24 hours without praising Ms. Maddow? Can they hire one conservative columnist to counter an entire staff that treats her word as Gospel?”

No. And, NOOOOOOOOO!

Signed,
Dan Abrams

MichelleF said:
Angel says:

Now that it’s become a liability for the GOP, it would be preferable to let it go.

So in your world, 70% of American’s being against the mosque, is a liability for the GOP? Wow, the delusion never ends with the left, does it?

MichelleF,
I think someone in some post somewhere on this site mentioned you are from UT. Are you LDS?

Has your church ever proposed to build one of your LDS temples somewhere and have the community protest?
If you are LDS, and this is the case, did your church ever decide against build such a temple and move it elsewhere to appease the protesters in the community?

I think it’s sad that RM is such a racist. She hates 80% of Americans. And RM, the Muslims would sure like to give you a warm welcome given your lifestyle!

AngelPeters,
If 3000 people are ever killed in the name of my religion, you might have an argument. Until then, you are missing the entire argument. Whether it’s on purppose or not, I’m not sure. A lot of people see this mosque as a monument to their victory on 9/11. I find it funny that Mediaite NEVER mentions the muslims that are against it. It just doesn’t fit the template, I guess.

writer said:
Here’s the thing, valk. Was it only white people who were killed on 9/11? So when bringing up opposition to the mosque, why does the left take such pains to say it’s only white people who are opposed?

I don’t think they are saying that, per se, because of the mosque issue. Also including the Acorn event, the Sherrod event, the border event, the New Black Panther event. Seems to be more white people on their high horse on all of those. Why is that? I venture no theory.

Pablo said:
No, then Barack Obama chimed in and everybody has been talking about it since. Like Maddow. You will not rewrite the facts on the fly. One person blew thing thing up, and he’s the President.

He was being asked. And certainly this was an issue before he spoke up.

paulmdoro said:
I think there’s more blame to go around than that Pablo, as convenient as it might be to blame one person and one person only. Obama isn’t the only prominent political figure to weigh in on this.

But he was the first that had nothing to do with it, and the story blew up when he stepped into it. 5 straight days of White House statements makes news, every time it happens.

valkyrie101 said:
He was being asked. And certainly this was an issue before he spoke up.

No, he was giving a speech. Try again.

valkyrie101 said:
Seems to be more white people on their high horse on all of those. Why is that?

There are more white people than black people, by a lot. Are you suggesting that blacks are all OK with the shenanigans you mention? I can quickly disabuse of that notion if you’d like to meet some black people that aren’t.

THE ACTIONS AGAINST MOSQUE IN AMERICA IS NOT NEW IN 2007 NEW JERSEY HEARD QUESTIONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST MOSQUE IN NEW JERSEY TOWNSHIP OF WAYNE–GUESS WHAT HAPPENED READ THIS—

“Journal—Department of Justice Intervenes in NJ Albanian Mosque Case
July 27, 2007—On July 25, New Jersey federal district judge Peter Sheridan heard argument on the Township of Wayne’s motion for summary judgment in the RLUIPA lawsuit brought by the Albanian Associated Fund, a Paterson, N.J. mosque, against the Township. In 2001, the mosque bought land in Wayne and since then has been trying to build a mosque to house its congregation on the site. The Township repeatedly delayed the mosque’s application for a conditional use permit, and finally moved to seize the mosque’s property using eminent domain. —In another development, the United States Department of Justice has intervened on behalf of the mosque, filing an amicus brief in opposition to Wayne’s motion for summary judgment…”

http://www.rluipa.com/

THESE PEOPLE DID NOT DO WELL IN NEW JERSEY SO THE COME ACROSS THE WATER TO SEE IF THEY CAN SCARE WHITE PEOPLE WITH A CENTER GEARED TO REPRESENT THE BEST OF AMERICA REDEMPTION AND UNDERSTANDING

Pablo said:
No, he was giving a speech. Try again.

So you believe the mosque controversy started after Obama spoke up?

Pablo said:
There are more white people than black people, by a lot. Are you suggesting that blacks are all OK with the shenanigans you mention? I can quickly disabuse of that notion if you’d like to meet some black people that aren’t.

valkyrie101 said:
“Seems to be more white people on their high horse on all of those. Why is that?”

I think what I said does not suggest that there are only white people upset, just most.

MichelleF said:
AngelPeters,
If 3000 people are ever killed in the name of my religion, you might have an argument. Until then, you are missing the entire argument. Whether it’s on purppose or not, I’m not sure. A lot of people see this mosque as a monument to their victory on 9/11. I find it funny that Mediaite NEVER mentions the muslims that are against it. It just doesn’t fit the template, I guess.

No, Im not missing the argument. As a moderate I tend to see both sides of any issue or argument very clearly.

I would say however, that while some do see this as a monument of victory for radicals, I would bet that most of the 70% who are against it aren’t against it for *that* reason, but more as a sensitivity issue.

Bet most don’t even know of the history you are suggesting when it comes to Muslims building monuments after a victory.

There is another wrinkle in this. Imam Rauf is a Sufi (not sure if Sunni or Shi’ite background)
Bin Laden is Sunni.

Spiritual differences of the two are worthy of note

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-sunni-and-sufi/

Islam has its off-shoots as does Christianity.

Americans really are under-educated when it comes to Islam. Hell, most Americans are under-educated when it comes to the Judeo-Christian backgrounds of their own traditions.

valkyrie101 said:
So you believe the mosque controversy started after Obama spoke up?

Before Obama opened his taco hole, it was an issue that looked like it might have been resolved locally by offering an alternate location. Then Mr. Stupid Ass Prez decided to jump into a puddle of shit. Congrats. Obama is the most clueless motherfucker ever to stink up the office.

She’s getting a lot of mileage out of the “scare white people” theme. I suppose as long as Fox News and others keep providing the fuel…..

Just a question borne from curiosity:

When Rachael, Keith, Matthews, and others from their network were filing story after story focusing on the “white” makeup of the tea-party rallies, who were they intending to scare with that coverage? I mean, that is the way it works, right? When you bring up the racial component of a story you must be doing so to frighten a certain segment of the electorate.

Some_Dude said:
She’s getting a lot of mileage out of the “scare white people” theme. I suppose as long as Fox News and others keep providing the fuel…..

No- it’s his racism that is fueling him.

lanquihue said:
Before Obama opened his taco hole, it was an issue that looked like it might have been resolved locally by offering an alternate location. Then Mr. Stupid Ass Prez decided to jump into a puddle of shit. Congrats. Obama is the most clueless motherfucker ever to stink up the office.

It was a major issue before Obama spoke up. But he did, to clairfy the Constitutional rights of peace loving Islamics, and to affirm the 10th amendment rights of the locals. Nothing wrong with that. This is a big issue because the right thinks it can make hay by ginning up controversy.

valkyrie101 said:
So you believe the mosque controversy started after Obama spoke up?

I believe he and his team blew it up into the predominant news story it is today. Had they followed their first instinct, that wouldn’t be the case. I’m sure they wish they had.

valkyrie101 said:
But he did, to clairfy the Constitutional rights of peace loving Islamics, and to affirm the 10th amendment rights of the locals.

Neither of those things needed clarifying. The issue was already settled with the City of New York.

newzmaker said:
Disagreement is NOT hate speech. Personally, I don’t give a damn about what gays or straights do, in the privacy of their own homes, but when gay activists use the court system to quash freedom of speech, this affects everyone.

It’s unsettling to see how obsessed the Left is with silencing people who disagree with them. This is the whole impetus behind the race-card playing, the speech codes on college campuses, etc. And it explains why leftwing pundits spend less time covering the news than they do whining about Fox’s coverage of the news.

But this is the problem that propagandists always face. When you have confidence that you are stating the truth, you don’t worry about what other media outlets are saying, but if your mission is to spread propaganda and misinformation, you understand that you must also silence other sources of more credible information. This is why Fox hosts almost never mention MSNBC, but MSNBC hosts constantly whine and obsess about Fox.

valkyrie101 said:
But he did, to clairfy the Constitutional rights of peace loving Islamics

Give it a rest, you can lie in the mirror, but I know better.

Pablo said:
I believe he and his team blew it up into the predominant news story it is today. Had they followed their first instinct, that wouldn’t be the case. I’m sure they wish they had.

I don’t agree that they wish that had not spoken up. Obama chose the correct side, which is to support the Constitutional rights of the Islamics, and the local government. Again, clearly, this became an issue because the right wing decided they could may political hay with this. And they have, but the tide is turning. Now they look like anti-Islamic bigots.

First of all, the sherrod debacle was started by her employers and the NAACP long before FOX picked up on the story. It’s funny how that detail always seems to escape everyone’s mind. Secondly, who assisted with all of the racist “fearmongering” towards the general population when a certain talk radio host tried to become part owner of an NFL team and it was all based on made up quotes attributed to him. Don’t think it was FOX – but again, let’s conveniently forget about that example because it doesn’t help with the “FOX is horrible” story line.

And the irony is that to go after the mosque Iman, FOX has gone after one of his funders, who is also part owner of FOX.

felixw said:
It’s unsettling to see how obsessed the Left is with silencing people who disagree with them. This is the whole impetus behind the race-card playing, the speech codes on college campuses, etc. And it explains why leftwing pundits spend less time covering the news than they do whining about Fox’s coverage of the news. But this is the problem that propagandists always face. When you have confidence that you are stating the truth, you don’t worry about what other media outlets are saying, but if your mission is to spread propaganda and misinformation, you understand that you must also silence other sources of more credible information. This is why Fox hosts almost never mention MSNBC, but MSNBC hosts constantly whine and obsess about Fox.

Silencing? In what way?

ok i took great pains to read all the posts and responses to this blog. these posts are hilarious, but let me give my take. fox first reported about this mosque back in dec 09. no one cared, the far right started attacking and all hell broke loose say about may. now the initial outrage never targeted the imam, that was after their argument of sensitivity started losing support. they went on to tar the imam as a bad actor because of comments attributed by him on the culpable role the US played on causing 9.11. it was crickets then cause he was of course an ally and emissary for the bush admin.
in 2005 saudi prince buys a stake in fox news. now this is where this gets tricky. this saudi prince is the same person who right after the terror attack he gave the city of New York $20 million bucks along with a lecture about US foreign policy. this was guiliaini’s famous “rub your filthy money on ya chest!” moment with brought him huge accolades. this same prince who murdock 4 years later gladly sold 7% of his newscorp. stock to also a sound of crickets.
fast forward to 2010 now and the same comments that they are attacking imam rauf (similar sentiments mind you of fox news own glenn beck) and the sentiments of the saudi prince owner of newscorp are absolute deal breaker for the building of park51. of course fox news also must tack on the matter of a money trail back to terror ties, of which it is commonly held since 2001 that this same princes royal family routinely sends money to the families of suicide bombers and terrorists, including al quaeda.
whats learned today in the ensuing article about the meeting btwn newscorp and rotana media, (a saudi media company responsible for the airing of the the anti-US/Israel al jazeera network) where we now learn that newscorp $70(0?) million investment is stock owner ship in said media corp.
questions
1. is fox news duplicity ever more apparent? YES
2. does fox repudiate the saudi princes sentiment as well as glenn becks in the same manner as it did the imam raufs? HELL NO
3. should fox loyalist believe now that fox has a sincere agenda in america’s national security interest? HELL NO
4. does fox care that this family sends money to terrorist families? HELL NO
5. does fox care that you give them ratings so that some of this success helps profit saudi princes investment in terrorist families? HELL NO
6. will fox news loyalist look at this as a nothing to see here moment? OF DAMN COURSE THEY WILL!!!
5. should fox be boycotted?

MartiniShark said:
When Rachael, Keith, Matthews, and others from their network were filing story after story focusing on the “white” makeup of the tea-party rallies, who were they intending to scare with that coverage?

The whole point in them doing so is a subliminal advertising trick, to make people who might relate to the cause of the tea party to associate it with racism, thus keeping their distance. Unfortunately for them, though, the term racism has been beaten to a pulp, and people don’t give a shit anymore when some leftist asshole calls them a racist. Actually, it usually means they’ve won whatever debate they happen to be engaged in.

moneymack said:
questions
1. is fox news duplicity ever more apparent? YES, blah, blah, fox=bad, blah, I hate fox, blah, blah

We get it. You’re obsessed with Fox News. Here’s the cure: Don’t fucken watch.

valkyrie101 said:
And the irony is that to go after the mosque Iman, FOX has gone after one of his funders, who is also part owner of FOX.

Al-Waleed is funding the mosque? Where’d you get that idea? Comedy Central?

Oh, yeah.

Keep the mosque issue alive, & DEMAND every Democrat state their positions on the mosque location publicly!!!

This is almost as big a losing issue for the Dems as the economy, and the public, more and more,is beginning to question the MOTIVES of seemingly Anti-Christian Democrats!
(Stress the Anti-Christian Democrat narrative.)

Thus far only $18,000 has been raised of the estimated $100Million needed. RIght now this is hands off as far as donors are concerned.

valkyrie101 said:
Silencing? In what way?

Pay attention to the real world, Val. I could give many examples of the left trying to silence conservatives, but here is one. Jonathan Lopez found that a leftwing professor at his college wanted to use the school’s free speech restrictions to get him to shut up about his personal beliefs, and wanted to get passages from the Bible restricted as “hate speech.”

http://californiawatch.org/watchblog/los-angeles-college-district-34-tries-apply-uc-5-hastings-ruling-its-free-speech-case

Then again, I imagine that you would be completely aligned with this student’s professor, who called Lopez a “fascist bastard,” refused to let him speak in class, and told him “Ask God what your grade is.”

Few students are as brave as Lopez and most are simply bullied into silence by profs who share your leftwing views.

valkyrie101 said:
Silencing? In what way?

Another example for you Val. Check out the views of UCLA law professor Jonathan Zasloff, who wants to use the FCC to shut down Fox News.

I could give a thousand of these examples. A basic premise of the Left is not to debate the Right to ridicule and silence it.

When we wipe the S–t out of our eyes there will be a mini Bagdad at ground Zero. It will look like any of the European cities, with Mid-east markets nad covered faces. It is already too late for Belgium, Holland, Germany and France. I hope we don’t go down this road. Be scared Whites just be bloody scared.

valkyrie101 said:
Silencing? In what way?

Here’s another example Val. Check out this article on liberal journalists who want the government to censor Fox News.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/liberal-journalists-suggest-government-shut-down-fox-news/

felixw said:
Pay attention to the real world, Val. I could give many examples of the left trying to silence conservatives, but here is one. Jonathan Lopez found that a leftwing professor at his college wanted to use the school’s free speech restrictions to get him to shut up about his personal beliefs, and wanted to get passages from the Bible restricted as “hate speech.”

http://californiawatch.org/watchblog/los-angeles-college-district-34-tries-apply-uc-5-hastings-ruling-its-free-speech-case

Then again, I imagine that you would be completely aligned with this student’s professor, who called Lopez a “fascist bastard,” refused to let him speak in class, and told him “Ask God what your grade is.”

Few students are as brave as Lopez and most are simply bullied into silence by profs who share your leftwing views.

Wow right in the comments….

“The Truth
July 31, 2010
Like most other reporters covering this story, you continue to misrepresent the facts of the case and leave out significant details. Matteson did NOT interrupt Lopez’ speech and he did NOT call him a “fascist bastard”. That comment was made prior to class in a discussion between the instructor and other students. It was not part of the class and it was not directed personally at Lopez. Lopez was allowed to finish his speech even though it clearly violated the requirements of the assignment which was supposed to be an informative, not a persuasive. he also received an “A” in the course. You also fail to mention that the majority of the other students in the class submitted a letter to the dean indicating that they were offended by Lopez’ speech and that they supported the actions of the instructor. Lopez was clearly not responsive to the requirements of the class. The reason that many readers respond with such anger to stories like yours is that they believe what is written even though much of it is false and the rest is taken out of context. It is really too bad that reporters today do not learn the same ethics that were such a hallmark of American Journalism in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Before disguising what is clearly an opinion piece as reporting, maybe you should do some actual research or have the courage to identify the piece for the editorial that it really is. And, in response to your previous commentor, the courts have rather clearly established that speech instructors do have the legal right to restrict topic choices in class and to exercise their own rights to academic freedom. As a consumer, a student has the right to drop the class and take it with another instructor.”

Brave as Lopez? It seems it had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with the student getting the assignment wrong.

But righties and facts…..

felixw said:
Pay attention to the real world, Val. I could give many examples of the left trying to silence conservatives, but here is one. Jonathan Lopez found that a leftwing professor at his college wanted to use the school’s free speech restrictions to get him to shut up about his personal beliefs, and wanted to get passages from the Bible restricted as “hate speech.” http://californiawatch.org/watchblog/los-angeles-college-district-34-tries-apply-uc-5-hastings-ruling-its-free-speech-case Then again, I imagine that you would be completely aligned with this student’s professor, who called Lopez a “fascist bastard,” refused to let him speak in class, and told him “Ask God what your grade is.” Few students are as brave as Lopez and most are simply bullied into silence by profs who share your leftwing views.

That is your example? LOL.

valkyrie101 said:
Silencing? In what way?

Val, also check out Professor Robert McChesney, influential leftwing profesor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who is a big proponent of censoring media sources that disagree with his progressive agenda. In his words: “We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.”

felixw said:
Another example for you Val. Check out the views of UCLA law professor Jonathan Zasloff, who wants to use the FCC to shut down Fox News. I could give a thousand of these examples. A basic premise of the Left is not to debate the Right to ridicule and silence it.

People in the private sector can do what they want, within the law. So you think that an allegation of impropriety by a private citizen, liberal or not, constitutes “silencing”? And what does that have to do with Obama? Surely the Prince of Darkness has done more to silence his critics than you mention. That one does not even involve Obama. So, from among the thousand of other examples, give it your best shot. I feel in the mood for agreeing with you, felix, but you will have to do better. On the other hand, by acknowledging state law jurisdiction, and reminding everyone that Islamics are protected by the First Amendment, he also demonstrated his knowledge of, and respect of, the limits of federal authority.

valkyrie101 said:
That is your example? LOL.

I have plenty of examples. Looking for leftists trying to silence political opponents is like shooting fish in a barrel. They are on every street corner. You can pretend otherwise — and will, since you live in pretend-land — but this is so obvious that it should hardly need more substantiation than just reading through comments on the Huffington Post, Media Matters, etc.

And the reasons for this are fairly obvious. The left can no longer defend its agenda of bloated, intrusive government — no one with any sense believes in this stuff any more — so the “progressive” pundits have shifted from open discussion and debate, which only leads to embarrassing fiascoes like the Town Hall meetings of last year, and instead just try to stifle the opposing voices.

valkyrie101 said:
People in the private sector can do what they want, within the law. So you think that an allegation of impropriety by a private citizen, liberal or not, constitutes “silencing”? And what does that have to do with Obama? Surely the Prince of Darkness has done more to silence his critics than you mention. That one does not even involve Obama. So, from among the thousand of other examples, give it your best shot. I feel in the mood for agreeing with you, felix, but you will have to do better. On the other hand, by acknowledging state law jurisdiction, and reminding everyone that Islamics are protected by the First Amendment, he also demonstrated his knowledge of, and respect of, the limits of federal authority.

You keep changing the subject, Val. You asked for examples of Leftists trying to silence the right. I give you plenty of examples, and now you want to talk about Islamics. You are a buffoon, and I can’t take you seriously when you play these games. Adios!

Will you take a stand for those who lost their lives on 9/11?

felixw said:
You keep changing the subject, Val. You asked for examples of Leftists trying to silence the right. I give you plenty of examples, and now you want to talk about Islamics. You are a buffoon, and I can’t take you seriously when you play these games. Adios!

I don’t think anyone has been silenced. In fact, in today’s world, silencing anyone is almost impossible. And I stuck to the subject that you brought up. However, you are having trouble justifying your position.

Breaking News! Rachel has just reported that Obama’s black half has been scaring his white half.

I think your extreme view of my extreme view, well, it’s just, extreme. Thank God we all have the Right to be Wrong. Rachel Madcow is no exception. Grateful to be an American!

‎Rachel sells more advertising space than education.

THIS IS HOW SAFE WE ARE HERE IN AMERICA!

‘Honor killings’ in USA raise concerns

Faleh Almaleki
Peoria Police Department via AP

By Oren Dorell, USA TODAY

Muslim immigrant men have been accused of six “honor killings” in the United States in the past two years, prompting concerns that the Muslim community and police need to do more to stop such crimes.
“There is broad support and acceptance of this idea in Islam, and we’re going to see it more and more in the United States,” says Robert Spencer, who has trained FBI and military authorities on Islam and founded Jihad Watch, which monitors radical Islam.

Honor killings are generally defined as murders of women by relatives who claim the victim brought shame to the family. Thousands of such killings have occurred in Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Palestinian territories, according to the World Health Organization.

Some clerics and even lawmakers in these countries have said families have the right to commit honor killings as a way of maintaining values, according to an analysis by Yotam Feldner in the journal Middle East Quarterly.

MORE: Ariz. woman allegedly hit with car by Iraqi father dies
BRITAIN: Father found guilty in honor killing

In the USA, police allege the latest “honor killing” was that of Noor Almaleki, 20, who died Nov. 2 after she and her boyfriend’s mother were run over in a Peoria, Ariz., parking lot. Prosecutors charged Almaleki’s father, Faleh Almaleki, with murder, saying the Iraqi immigrant was upset that his daughter rejected a husband she married in Iraq and moved in with an American.

“By his own admission, this was an intentional act, and the reason was that his daughter had brought shame on him and his family,” says Maricopa County prosecutor Stephanie Low, according to The Arizona Republic.

Many Muslim leaders in the USA say that Islam does not promote honor killings and that the practice stems from sexism and tribal behavior that predates the religion.

“You’re always going to get problems with chauvinism and suppressing vulnerable populations and gender discrimination,” says Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

Not all agree. Zuhdi Jasser says some Muslim communities have failed to spell out how Islam deals with issues that can lead to violence.

“How should young adult women be treated who want to assimilate more than their parents want them to assimilate?” asks Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which advocates a separation of mosque and state. “How does an imam treat a woman who comes in and says she wants a divorce … or how to deal with your daughter that got pregnant, and she’s in high school?”

Phyllis Chesler, who wrote about honor killings in her book Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman, says police need to focus on the crimes’ co-conspirators if they wish to reverse the trend. Before 2008, there were six honor killings in the USA in the previous 18 years, according to her research.

“It’s usually the father, brother or first male cousin who is charged with the actual shooting or stabbing, (but not) the mother who lures the girl home,” Chesler says. “The religion has failed to address this as a problem and failed to seriously work to abolish it as un-Islamic.”

Jasser says his community needs to address how to treat young women who want to assimilate. “Until we have women’s liberation … we’re going to see these things increase.”