ADL abandons its principles, surrenders its cause
The Anti-Defamation League calls itself “the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency,” proclaiming in its mission statement that “its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.”
A group deserving of such a description could never have put out a statement like this:
We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths – to build community centers and houses of worship.
We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.
However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel – and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001.
The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.
In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values. These questions deserve a response, and we hope those backing the project will be transparent and forthcoming. But regardless of how they respond, the issue at stake is a broader one.
Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right.
Such a statement contradicts everything the ADL has claimed to defend, as those who drafted it know all too well. In one sentence they explain and defend their principles; in the next, they abandon those principles. They condemn bigotry, then surrender to it. It’s a deeply disappointing display of moral cowardice, a surrender to the very forces in human nature that the ADL exists to combat.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
883 comments Add your comment
Soothsayer
August 1st, 2010
11:17 am
Dave: by your reasoning, the current budget deficits and corresponding debt are not Obama’s fault at all, but rather Congress’. Right?
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
11:21 am
Yes, exactly!
As I have said all along.
You see, I don’t play the party game. I look for the actions behind the outcome to know how the outcome came about. The GOP Congress during Bush’s first 6 years was responsible for the increased deficits, just as the Dem Congress under the last 3 years is responsible for their increases as well.
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
11:22 am
However, Hope & Change IS a willing accomplice to their actions . . .
AmVet
August 1st, 2010
11:23 am
Dave, this issue of line item vetoes is where you and diverge widely.
And many other non-traditional, non DemReps agree, like myself agree:
From a joint statement of principles agreed to by Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr, the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin, and Ron Paul: “We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.”
Also remember that of ALL the items in that Contract On (Excuse me, With) America, the ONLY one that the shamed Bill Clinton wanted was the line-item-veto.
To my way of thinking, that should be enough to dissuade anybody from supporting it…
Soothsayer
August 1st, 2010
11:25 am
Dave: given that our defense budget of $895 bn is more than all of the other countries in the World combined, would you be in favor of a drastic reduction in that amount towards a balance budget?
vmicky
August 1st, 2010
11:28 am
Why didn’t thy just demand that a church and a synagogue be build in Saudi Arabia as a trade off?
Kamchak
August 1st, 2010
11:31 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPBGZOWvMps
Thanks TBogg
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin....
August 1st, 2010
11:31 am
Gallup puts congressional approval at 11 percent, one point lower than its worst-ever rating. Congress stands last in a list of 16 institutions in terms of public confidence. The legislative branch is now eight points lower than health maintenance organizations, 11 points lower than television news and 14 points lower than newspapers.-WaPo
Don’t worry, Congress, the Urinal is working on it, just sayin…
AmVet
August 1st, 2010
11:36 am
“Why didn’t thy(sic) just demand that a church and a synagogue be build in Saudi Arabia as a trade off?”
Who is this they you speak of?
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin....
August 1st, 2010
11:36 am
And that’s my problem with the Obama administration’s energy policy, or at least with his lavish subsidies for the Volt, Nissan’s all-electric Leaf (likely sticker price $33,000), and Tesla’s $100,000 all-electric Roadster: Where does the federal government get off spending the average person’s tax dollars to help better-off-than-average Americans buy expensive new cars? -Slate
The dummycrats never met a dollar they didn’t squander.
Kamchak
August 1st, 2010
11:40 am
Build a Baptist church in Mecca, see the love.
If you feel froggy, then jump.
Scout
August 1st, 2010
11:58 am
theyeshaveit:
Please take the below quiz and then tell me Christianity is not different and Islam is “just a religion”:
Which of the following “religious” entities in the United States requires untold millionis in taxpayer money and immense NSA, Military Intelligence, CIA, FBI (to name a few) assets to conduct investigations and physical surveillances of places of worship, community service establishments, places of education, etc. via undercover FBI agents, paid informants and sophisticated electronic means:
a) Roman Catholic Church
b) Methodist Church
c) Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)
d) Church of God
e) Southern Baptist Church
f) Judaism (all forms)
g) Lutheran Church
h) Presbyterian Church
i) Episcopal Church
j) Mennonnite Church
k) Church of the Brethren
l) Nazarene Church
m) 7th Day Adventist Church
n) Quakers
o) Church of Christ
p) Islam
Scout
August 1st, 2010
12:02 pm
Side issue:
I was in the mall yesterday and saw a young adult male filling out a job application. He was wearing shorts, a T-shirt and flipflops.
And he wonders why he can’t get a job ?
Kamchak
August 1st, 2010
12:07 pm
And he wonders why he can’t get a job ?
And you know for a certainty what’s on his mind, how?
Crystal ball?
Ouija board?
Tarot cards?
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
12:08 pm
“given that our defense budget of $895 bn is more than all of the other countries in the World combined, would you be in favor of a drastic reduction in that amount towards a balance budget?”
Well Soothsayer, I don’t particularly give a rat’s patootie whether our defense budget compares with anyone else’s or the rest combined; I just care that it is sufficient for our needs. That being said, our defense budget is way, way too big. We need to end both occupations in the Middle East (as I have called for since their inception), and the occupations of Germany and other NATO countries as well. It is time to protect U.S. interests, not anyone else’s.
Scout
August 1st, 2010
12:10 pm
vmicky : “Why didn’t thy just demand that a church and a synagogue be build in Saudi Arabia as a trade off?”
Simple ……. because Christians or Jews who would worship there don’t want to be blown to smitherines or captured and then have their heads cut off for YouTube.
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
12:12 pm
““We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.””
And AmVet, I agree with that statement as well. I just do not consider the line-item veto part of any unitary presidency. Congress always has the ability to override the line-item if they choose to do so, but it puts that single, solitary item under the light of enhanced scrutiny, rather than hiding it among the rest of the weeds.
Every expenditure should be able to stand on it’s own merits. Our broken system of brokering deals doesn’t allow that to happen.
Disgusted
August 1st, 2010
12:33 pm
I just do not consider the line-item veto part of any unitary presidency. Congress always has the ability to override the line-item if they choose to do so, but it puts that single, solitary item under the light of enhanced scrutiny, rather than hiding it among the rest of the weeds.
Oh, nonsense! You want to put sole power over parts of legislation in the presidency, while requiring a super-majority for Congress to remove that power. Since when is the nation’s chief executive to reign as a king? The Supreme Court got this one right. The line-item veto essentially is the same as a signing statement; it allows a president to accept parts of a bill that he likes, while rejecting the parts he doesn’t like. The Founding Fathers vested the power to legislate in the representatives of the people for a good reason. If the people don’t like what Congress does, they can remove their representatives in an election.
Scout
August 1st, 2010
12:34 pm
Unfettered Islam = Human Misery
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
12:41 pm
“If the people don’t like what Congress does, they can remove their representatives in an election.”
Spoken like someone who is happy with a Congress that has an 11 point satisfaction rating.
Please tell me why you think that any expenditure SHOULDN’T go through a super-majority approval process. I suppose you LIKE having one vote determine whether or not health care is governed by the Feds who have an 11 point approval rating, or by the private industries that have an 85 point approval rating.
Disgusted, a king wouldn’t have to worry about a Congress, so your comment about that is even more laughable. There is no sole power in a line-item veto. Just much more accountability and light shined on our spending processes.
What part about that do you NOT get?
Settling for marginally-approved appropriations is settling for marginal government. There is nothing wrong with making our representatives work hard for every dollar of ours they wish to spend. Your way just makes it easy.
AmVet
August 1st, 2010
12:49 pm
“…Feds who have an 11 point approval rating, or by the private industries that have an 85 point approval rating.”
???
Do you have a source for that?
The numbers I’ve seen are dramatically different.
For example, CEO approval ratings are damn near identical to congress.
AmVet
August 1st, 2010
12:51 pm
And the approval ratings for big business are also abysmal.
After an endless litany of crime, fraud, malfeasance and criminal negligence, why wouldn’t they be?
Small business has much better numbers, though…
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
12:56 pm
AmVet, the numbers on people who were satisfied with their private insurance stood at 85% during the health care debate.
@@
August 1st, 2010
12:58 pm
AmVet:
Right up my irreverent alley. And as Bruno so wisely asserted yesterday, the Christian animosity constantly on display here is MUCH more powerful at turning people off from that religion than all of the atheists, etc in the world put together.
AND
And in my usual irreverent way, isn’t it time to lay aside this centuries old “My God can kick your God’s ass”” stuff?
You’re the only blogger I’ve seen here who mistakenly believes they can fire off an ACE with a backhanded serve.
I’ve already weighed in with my initial assessment of the mosque in NYC. It was the same as Dave R’s. I’ll go one step further…initially, I don’t think it had anything to do with religion(s) If it had been left up to THE PEOPLE, I like to believe the possibility for compromise would have been greater. Opportunistic politicians got involved, and yes…I’m talking about Newt. If there were others, I’m not aware.
I may be wrong, but I’m gonna say it anyway. When it comes to Scout, I think his is a national security concern. He KNOWS his God has him covered, he’s not to sure about his government.
Normal:
I didn’t attend church today. Found myself a shady spot where I could cut and scrape a bushel of field corn. And no, I don’t attend the church of the self-righteous. I’m Methodist, God’s frozen chosen…we don’t do much movin about. Chosen is not to be confused with exclusive. Just like you and everyone else, He chose us…some of us reciprocated. No need to go in search of someone better lookin’ but that’s not to say you can’t.
The only thing turned loose at my church are stray dogs and cats…full litters sometimes. They’re always given a good home.
Bruno
August 1st, 2010
1:04 pm
Howdy gang, just checking in for a few minutes.
I peeked over at the Cynthia Tucker site since the topic is virtually the same, but didn’t see much new in the way of arguments. A fellow who calls himself “A United States Marine” echoed my sentiment that our Constitution is clear in stating that no one religion can be favored or disfavored, however popular or unpopular they may be with the majority. The only interesting counter-argument I saw to that was an assertion that individual states can somehow ignore that mandate based on States Rights. I don’t think that is true, but am open to someone explaining how that would be a possible “solution” to the “Muslim problem”.
Scout
August 1st, 2010
1:06 pm
Oh, Jaaaayyyyy !
Headline: “The United States military has a plan to attack Iran in order to prevent the country from developing a nuclear weapon, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff revealed Sunday. ”
What say ye ? We’re on Obama”s watch !
Disgusted
August 1st, 2010
1:08 pm
Please tell me why you think that any expenditure SHOULDN’T go through a super-majority approval process. I suppose you LIKE having one vote determine whether or not health care is governed by the Feds who have an 11 point approval rating, or by the private industries that have an 85 point approval rating.
The Constitution provides for passage of legislation by a simple majority of both houses. It does not provide that all expenditures be approved by a super-majority, nor does it allow popular opinion to determine the fate of legislation. Would you permit current popular opinion to govern, outside its expression in elections? If you had your way, nothing would ever be spent and nothing would ever be done. The Constitution also provides the power for a President to veto legislation. It does not provide the power for a President to nitpick his way through a bill, approving the parts he likes and vetoing the parts he doesn’t like.
Short and simple: elections have consequences, and they should. They are the supreme expression of the people’s will. I don’t give a hoot whether a bill wins a majority by one vote or by 50. If you don’t like how Congress votes, go to the ballot box and express your displeasure. That’s the American way. You like to regale us with your dedication to the Constitution, and yet you express your disapproval of the process by which that document specifies the passage of law.
Scout
August 1st, 2010
1:11 pm
Headline: WASHINGTON — “When President Obama announced his new war plan for Afghanistan last year, the centerpiece of the strategy — and a big part of the rationale for sending 30,000 additional troops — was to safeguard the Afghan people, provide them with a competent government and win their allegiance.
Instead, what has turned out to work well is an approach American officials have talked much less about: counterterrorism, military-speak for the targeted killings of insurgents from Al Qaeda and the Taliban.”
Jay ! This sounds like the PHOENIX PROGRAM in Nam. Is Obama into large scale assassinations? Oh, my goodness ………. what is going on here?
Bruno
August 1st, 2010
1:15 pm
“Please take the below quiz and then tell me Christianity is not different and Islam is “just a religion”
Scout–if your still on board, I’m open to hearing exactly HOW you would go about “marginalizing Islam”, yet still stay within the law. You pointed out that our government already spends a lot of money keeping a close eye on various Muslim factions for signs of terrorist activity. As a taxpayer, I’m concerned about that, of course, given how tight the budgets are right now. You’ll find no denial from me that Islamic groups, primarily abroad, do promote violence. Here at home, I haven’t encountered such a propensity, although I certainly don’t have any inside info on intelligence-gathering. I can only note the lack of any publicity regarding wide-spread arrests of Muslims who promote terrorism here in the US. There’s no doubt that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but I can’t find any good reason to trash our Constitution in the process.
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
1:22 pm
“The Constitution provides for passage of legislation by a simple majority of both houses.”
Well, that’s the first thing you’ve gotten right all day, Disgusted.
“nor does it allow popular opinion to determine the fate of legislation.”
Never said it did, Disgusted.
“If you had your way, nothing would ever be spent and nothing would ever be done”
No, if I had my way, we’d be better governed, more efficiently governed, and not have a lick of debt.
Now, if you knew anything about history, you’d know that when we were a much smaller government (unlike the one you worship today), bills were single-threaded affairs that dealt with one subject (primarily), and didn’t have, let’s say, a research grant for studying the effects of violence during the broadcasting of the Super Bowl vs. non-Super Bowl times, being tucked into an appropriations bill for funding the war in Iraq.
So this keeps members of BOTH parties from voting against the bill to fund the war effort, as both parties will accuse the other of not supporting our gallant troops during a time of war, and all the while that researcher, who couldn’t make a living on his or her own with a ridiculous subject to study such as that, gets our money anyway.
THIS is the way of government you support, Disgusted. To think that you find that even remotely defensible is, well, disgusting.
AmVet
August 1st, 2010
1:26 pm
Ah, I see, said the blind man!
Gallup’s annual Healthcare survey, conducted Nov. 11-14, finds 57% of Americans saying they are satisfied with the total cost they pay for their healthcare, while 39% are dissatisfied. These percentages have been quite stable in recent years, after a slight dip in reported satisfaction between 2001 (64%) and 2002 (58%).
Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system’s costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation’s health care system, including 54 percent “very” dissatisfied.
Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000.
And to your point, Dave…
More than eight in 10 Americans questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday said they’re satisfied with the quality of health care they receive.
And nearly three out of four said they’re happy with their overall health care coverage.
But satisfaction drops to 52 percent when it comes to the amount people pay for their health care, and more than three out of four are dissatisfied with the total cost of health care in the United States.
You know me, being the flaming Marxist that I am!
SINGLE PAYER NOW.
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
1:35 pm
Asking people if they are happy with the cost of ANYTHING, AmVet, is like asking a kid if they like candy.
You get a predetermined outcome every time.
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
1:43 pm
And I love the ways libs like Disgusted hang onto every word in the Constitution when it suits their purposes, but call for the old “it’s a living document” when it doesn’t suit their needs.
The Constitution is a LIMITING document on government, not an enabling one. And anything that puts more limits on the power of the Feds is something we should all be working towards.
AmVet
August 1st, 2010
1:43 pm
LOL, Dave!
But would you agree that it is in way too many cases, pretty painful for the average American family to pay those premiums every month?
Mine got so absurd, I finally listened to a fellow vet and reason. I told BCBS to shove it. I was taking my business to the socialist VA! If I had only done so thirty years ago, I could be now driving an Escalade like Andy!
Then throw in large deductibles and numerous other out of pocket expenses and the percentage of disposable income allocated for this one expense is MUCH too large.
popeye
August 1st, 2010
1:57 pm
AmVet I also am entitled to that socialistic program known as VA, but I’m also eligible for that other
socialistic program entitled Medicare which was passed during a democrats administration.
Oh, and that evil Social Security administration which sends me a check religiously on the 20th of the month…Just another socialistic program without receiving one vote from the party of NO.
TaxPayer
August 1st, 2010
2:00 pm
With a simple majority vote, the way it was meant to be, the Constitution limits the ability of the minority party to improperly impose its will on the majority.
Del
August 1st, 2010
2:01 pm
There have been many arguments from both sides on this thread. The left keeps challenging conservative positions by trying to make this a Constitutional issue. Conservatives don’t need the lefts lectures on religious freedoms under the Constitution. The whole issue, frankly, is mistrust of the Muslim motives associated with their Cordoba project. Do they have some kind of hidden agenda. In the much broader context is a general mistrust of Muslims both here and internationally. Given 9-11 and several botched and successful attempts by Muslims committing terrorist acts in the name of Allah and Islam since then, I think justifies all reasonable American citizens to be wary of our growing Islamic community here in the United States. That mistrust and concern has nothing to do with racism nor religious bigotry. The onus is on the Muslim community to remove distrust by vocally and strongly disavowing terrorist acts in the name of Islam. Their silence has been deafening and now building an Islamic Community Center two blocks from ground zero and calling it the House of Cordoba doesn’t do anything to gain trust and acceptance. Come on lib’s get off the sanctimony and address the issue objectively verses subjectively.
theyeshaveit
August 1st, 2010
2:08 pm
Scout,
Where are you pulling all these “headlines”? You got an old ticker tape or a teletype machine in your living room? Regarding the alleged war plans, would it surprise you that this country has long had “war plans” for a number of perceived/potential enemies? Just one example: the erstwhile Soviet Union. We were prepared all right, but that war never happened. Lot of so called war plans never happen. And…I am grateful for that.
By t he way, what would “fettered” Islam look like?
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
2:08 pm
“But would you agree that it is in way too many cases, pretty painful for the average American family to pay those premiums every month?”
Can’t disagree, AmVet, but to me, the alternative is worse.
As you know, part of the reason for these high costs is defensive medicine (as well as profits) that virtually requires doctors to suggest expensive tests even when they suspect they aren’t needed in order to avoid the inevitable lawsuit if things go wrong. Case in point: I’ve had a little issue recently that my doctor suspects is one thing, but can’t rule out something far worse (even if it is a low percentage possibility). Right now, I don’t have health insurance so I was very leery of putting out the money for that specialist and the extra tests, so it allowed both me and my doctor to have a very frank discussion about what might be going on.
If I did have insurance, the thought that I didn’t have to pay but a small percentage of that test might not have brought me to have the discussion at all, since the money thing wouldn’t have been such an issue. As such, I chose the fiscally responsible course of action based on the likelihood of the issue being really bad being so low. If the likelihood were higher, I’d probably bite the bullet and get the more expensive test.
Less government, and more interaction with our doctors, is what will ultimately make this health care system better and less expensive.
Priceless
August 1st, 2010
2:08 pm
Come on libs. Be objective, like Del.
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
2:13 pm
“With a simple majority vote, the way it was meant to be, the Constitution limits the ability of the minority party to improperly impose its will on the majority.”
But it is fine and dandy for the majority to impose it’s will on the American people, right, TaxPayer? Please; defend the system of appropriations as I outlined above. This will get a laugh.
BADA BING
August 1st, 2010
2:15 pm
Her daughter’s wedding and the poll numbers have made this a good year for Hillary.
Del
August 1st, 2010
2:16 pm
Feckless@2:08pm,
So what’s your objective argument or are you just hanging out at your local Lemming Aide stand.
theyeshaveit
August 1st, 2010
2:16 pm
Bada Bing,
How about these numbers – $3 – $5 Million?
BADA BING
August 1st, 2010
2:18 pm
Eyes , that would have bought 1/2 of Kerry’s yacht.
BADA BING
August 1st, 2010
2:20 pm
I didn’t see it in the papers, who was Bill’s date for the wedding?
TaxPayer
August 1st, 2010
2:20 pm
Of course it is fine and dandy for the majority to impose its will on the populous since they are imposing a reflection of the will of the majority. hehehe hahaha hohoho humhumhum
Scout
August 1st, 2010
2:20 pm
BRUNO AND THEYESHAVIT :
Here is how you “fetter” or “marginalized” Islam in this country and abroad …………….
1) First, two crimes specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution are treason and counterfeiting.
2) If one is caught today with counterfeit money in their car, boat, motorcycle, plane, or other conveyance …….. guess what happens? That conveyance now belongs (it is seized) to the U.S. Government. It doesn’t matter if you borrowed the car from your brother-in-law. He is just going to be very, very unhappy with you. I seized many a car in my day and watched them weep.
3) Therefore, update federal law so that any mosque, community center, school, etc. that is found in any way to be harboring violent people, plans, meetings, speech, receipt of funds pertaining thereto, etc., etc. ……….. said property, buildings, bank accounts, etc. should be seized by the U.S. Government in addition to strenuous prosecution for criminal violations involving terrorism. The property is NO LONGER THEIRS !
Prosecute, prosecute, prosecute and deport, deport, deport !
The also goes for ANY “religious” or other entity advocating violence or the overthrough of the government.
4) Shut down our borders.
5) Continue non-stop 24/7 the “elimination” (by whatever means necessary) of Islamic or other terrorists around the world.
Give no quarter.
Black flag.
6) Scrutinize any immigrant coming to the U.S. legally. Anyone with a “hint” of connection to activity determental to our liberty is excluded …………. end of discussion.
Coming to this country is a privilege ……….. NOT A RIGHT.
Discriminating on who is allowed in this country is not a right it is a DUTY !
Scout
August 1st, 2010
2:21 pm
THEYESHAVIT:
You still didn’t take the test at 11:58 !!!
Priceless
August 1st, 2010
2:21 pm
I Object.
Scout
August 1st, 2010
2:23 pm
BADA BING:
Don’t you just love her new last name. Everytime Hillary has to say the last part of it, Bill will catch he*l again ………………
RW-(the original)
August 1st, 2010
2:24 pm
In 1965 when the Social Security act was amended and Medicare added it passed the House 307-116 and the Senate 70-24. I don’t know the breakdown of the vote, but the membership at the time was 295 to 140 in favor of Democrats in the House and 68-32 in the Senate so there had to have been some Republican votes. Not that there should have been mind you.
BADA BING
August 1st, 2010
2:26 pm
Scout, I thought that Al getting a massage at the reception to be in very bad taste. I give him a slap in the face with a steel hanky !
josef nix
August 1st, 2010
2:27 pm
DEL
“I think it justifies all reasonable Americans to be wary of our growing Islamic community here in the United States.”
Just being advocatus diaboli here for a minute, but this reminds me of a conversation I recently had with one of my Muslim associates. She’s American born-bred-and-raised as we say and i wouldn’t doubt a Republican to boot, an educated professional and her parents from one of those secular, democratic states with a majority Muslim population. That said, she made the point that if we are indeed to fear the “growing Muslim influence” as a threat to our national values and identity, then does it not make equal sense to express the same fears about the growing atheist community and its threats and, if we take measures to limit the one, should we not also take measures to limit the other? After all, she said, the atheistic regimes of the Soviet Union and Communist China, among others, killed tens of millions of their citizens in the name of their orthodox interpretation of their state religion…
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
2:29 pm
“Of course it is fine and dandy for the majority to impose its will on the populous since they are imposing a reflection of the will of the majority.”
Except the will of the majority, in the form of every poll taken by every pollster, showed the the “majority” didn’t want THAT health care reform package passed, TaxPayer. The reflection of the will of the majority was NOT represented.
Now, stop dodging the questions as you are so adept at doing, and defend the appropriations process as I laid out earlier. I’ll refresh your memory:
“Now, if you knew anything about history, you’d know that when we were a much smaller government (unlike the one you worship today), bills were single-threaded affairs that dealt with one subject (primarily), and didn’t have, let’s say, a research grant for studying the effects of violence during the broadcasting of the Super Bowl vs. non-Super Bowl times, being tucked into an appropriations bill for funding the war in Iraq.
So this keeps members of BOTH parties from voting against the bill to fund the war effort, as both parties will accuse the other of not supporting our gallant troops during a time of war, and all the while that researcher, who couldn’t make a living on his or her own with a ridiculous subject to study such as that, gets our money anyway.”
Please, TaxPayer. Defend this system.
RW-(the original)
August 1st, 2010
2:29 pm
Papa Bill’s Proud Day
popeye
August 1st, 2010
2:30 pm
scout….”It doesn’t matter if you borrowed the car from your brother-in-law. He is just going to be very, very unhappy with you. I seized many a car in my day and watched them weep”
You were a repo man.??? COOL!
AmVet
August 1st, 2010
2:31 pm
So popeye, you’re a triple dipper!
Man, the misnamed fiscal conservatives must really hate you. (Though I’m quite certain, a whole boatload of them do it is as well.)
But if you ask the most strident among them, they are to a man, self-made!
For me personally, Islam is of no personal value, other than in a philosophical sense. It as immaterial as a basis for my ethos as is Christianity. And I do not endorse that mythology over any other. I however, do not fault all Muslims – in any way – for the horrific actions of a minuscule minority.
That is IMHO just plain un-American. And irrational.
I have repeatedly written that I could not care less if people build a church on every street corner from here to San Francisco. Ditto with mosques and synagogues. And for example, if people want to give their money to televangelists and charlatans of any stripe, that is their American right to do so. It is still a free country.
With that said, why this insistence on placing such enormous importance on the Muslim community endlessly speaking out against terrorists?
There are many, many, many examples over the past nine years where they have, though some have chosen to ignore them and contend otherwise.
CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, The American Islamic Congress, The American Muslim, and many others have forcefully spoken out against the murder.
For example: The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has consistently and persistently condemned terrorism and the killing of innocent civilians. CAIR has also organized fatwas, petition drives, placed advertisements in national and local newspapers, ran public service announcements on television and radio stations, helped local Mosques across the United States in holding open houses, published Op-Eds in local and national newspapers, conducted inter-faith meetings and worked with scholars to disseminate the peaceful teachings of Islam.
http://www.google.com/search?q=american+muslims+speak+out+against+terror&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm
BADA BING
August 1st, 2010
2:32 pm
Having Bill as your father in law is like a free pass to misbehave. No matter what you do, you could never top him.
Scout
August 1st, 2010
2:32 pm
popeye ! LOL !
Scout
August 1st, 2010
2:34 pm
josef:
You surprise me! You know your 2:27 won’t hold water. Atheists are not creating world-wide havoc right now ……… Islam is.
P.S. Will you PLEASE take the test at 11:58. I value your response ………….
BADA BING
August 1st, 2010
2:35 pm
I wonder if Bill had a cigar after the wedding? You know, like the good old days.
Scout
August 1st, 2010
2:35 pm
BADA BING @ 2:26
I must have missed that one.
Kamchak
August 1st, 2010
2:37 pm
AmVet
Ralph Nader is taking call-in questions live on C-SPAN2.
Scout
August 1st, 2010
2:38 pm
INVESTORS.COM
Great article …………….
“Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.
Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He’s diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.”
By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A ROBBINS
• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration.
• Robbins, an economist, served at the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=542171
Priceless
August 1st, 2010
2:38 pm
The “system” is such that we elect representatives to do the bidding of the majority, simple as they may be, as you acknowledged yourself in an earlier reply to one “disgusted” blogger. If the majority of the people do not like what we have, then they get out there and vote for a version of hopey – changey that is more to their liking.
I like the healthcare reform. It just did not go far enough. Many others that voiced their opinion in polls made a similar observation — they were unhappy with the healthcare reform because it did not go far enough.
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
2:39 pm
“Having Bill as your father in law is like a free pass to misbehave.”
Except having Teddy Kennedy as your uncle, Bada Bing!
Scout
August 1st, 2010
2:40 pm
BADA BING:
No cigar ! Monica wasn’t invited.
josef nix
August 1st, 2010
2:41 pm
Scout
A per you quiz..at this point in time, I do not know. However, I do know that in the 1960s quite a bit of government cash went into spying efforts on just about all of those denominations you named, in response to the religious institutions being seen as “hotbeds” of anti-war and civil rights activities…
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
2:41 pm
“I like the healthcare reform. It just did not go far enough. Many others that voiced their opinion in polls made a similar observation — they were unhappy with the healthcare reform because it did not go far enough.”
That’s fine, Priceless. So why not stop a 2,000+ page monstrosity in it’s tracks that a majority didn’t want for any reason, and take the time to do it right? Because a one-vote majority could make it happen, no matter how bad it was.
If you think that is good government, fine. I don’t.
one question
August 1st, 2010
2:42 pm
If a fundamentalist Christian group that was against all abortions wanted to build a church on the site of the Olympic bombing, what would Bookman and Tucker say?
Del
August 1st, 2010
2:42 pm
josef,
Fear that a growing Muslim population is a threat to our national values and identity isn’t the concern. The concern is with radical Islam and it’s threat to our national security. I don’t doubt that your associate is anything other than a law abiding person who has nothing to with radical islamic elements. Her comment to you, however, reveals a defensive posture that seems to challenge Americans, while not vehemently disavowing the acts of her fellow Muslims. We have no way of knowing accurately, how many Muslims worldwide truly disassociate themselves from the radical jihadists. Once again their collective voice against terrorism is deafening. As you indicated I believe yesterday, the onus is on them to gain our trust and acceptance.
BADA BING
August 1st, 2010
2:44 pm
Dave R…….. That would be like having 2 ‘Get Out of Jail’ cards, wouldn’t it?
popeye
August 1st, 2010
2:47 pm
BADA BING …. “Having Bill as your father in law is like a free pass to misbehave. No matter what you do, you could never top him.”
Oh I don’t know about that Bada….He could be a perv like Vitter and like to wear pampers!
He could have been a toe tapper….ala Larry Craig.
He could have liked his pages real young like Mark Foley.
Did I mention John Ensign who had to pay the husband of an office staffer to keep his nasty affair
hush..hush.
Ted Haggard….
Bada you might want to quit with your nonsense about Bill Clinton when you are pinned to the mat
Care to say UNCLE?
BADA BING
August 1st, 2010
2:50 pm
And none of those killed anybody like “Uncle” Teddy did.
Scout
August 1st, 2010
2:51 pm
josef:
You really surprise me on this on and I’m very disappointed. Seriously.
The answer is so obvious as to be funny.
BADA BING
August 1st, 2010
2:53 pm
I killed all my relatives so I wouldn’t have say uncle to anyone.
Scout
August 1st, 2010
2:53 pm
Del:
Just remember, the Koran specifically authorizes Muslims to lie and deceive infedels in furtherence of the cause …………. kind of like American liberals.
popeye
August 1st, 2010
2:53 pm
Oh did you mention Kennedy in the statement that I quoted verbatim for you….Well here it is again just for you BADA…so you will remember what you wrote.
“Having Bill as your father in law is like a free pass to misbehave. No matter what you do, you could never top him.”
I don’t see a single mention of Kennedy do you?
josef nix
August 1st, 2010
2:53 pm
DEL
Oh, but you’re wrong! I was quoting her on one point…you should hear her get started on the “medievalists” as she calls them! She sounds like a combination of Scout and Saul on a bad day (no offense to either of them!). She’s the one who makes the comment that Islaam is now about 1300 years on, about the same span of time it took the Christians to start their Reformation…
Scout
August 1st, 2010
2:54 pm
Del:
Would you please take the test at 11:58 ?
Bruno
August 1st, 2010
2:55 pm
“3) Therefore, update federal law so that any mosque, community center, school, etc. that is found in any way to be harboring violent people, plans, meetings, speech, receipt of funds pertaining thereto, etc., etc. ……….. said property, buildings, bank accounts, etc. should be seized by the U.S. Government in addition to strenuous prosecution for criminal violations involving terrorism. The property is NO LONGER THEIRS !”
Back on board for a few more minutes…
Scout, I appreciate your response, even if I have strong reservations about government seizure which is out of proportion to the crime committed. While your solution sounds clear-cut, I see a lot of potential for abuse. During the health care debates, I heard a lot of fiery speech from citizens at town-hall meetings and in organized protests. Shold they lose their homes over it?
Several years ago, the City of Atlanta pursued a policy of seizing the vehicles of anyone caught trying to solicit a prostitute. The end result was that a lot of men had the family vehicle taken away, which created great hardship. Kind of hard to keep your job if you don’t have wheels. You may respond “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime”, but our Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment” for a good reason. Taking away a family’s livelihood isn’t a benefit to our society, IMO. Better to keep these guys working and collect taxes then to make them a burden on the rest of us. Just my opinion, of course.
“4) Shut down our borders.”
“6) Scrutinize any immigrant coming to the U.S. legally. Anyone with a “hint” of connection to activity determental to our liberty is excluded …………. end of discussion. Coming to this country is a privilege ……….. NOT A RIGHT.”
No arguments from me regarding threats coming from the outside in. However, my guess is that only a tiny fraction of the practicing Muslims in our country are foreign nationals. I don’t have any stats, but have to believe the overwhelming majority are US citizens.
BADA BING
August 1st, 2010
2:56 pm
popeye, who died and made you moderator. I don’t blog here for your amusement, I do it for my amusement.
Del
August 1st, 2010
2:57 pm
Scout,
josef is usually straightforward in is replies of agreement or disagreement. On this thread topic some have been dancing all over the place trying make a straw man argument about trampling on the Constitution in condemning the ADL or Gingrich and those of us who support their view.
josef nix
August 1st, 2010
2:57 pm
Scout
@ 2:51
Why would you say that? You are of the age to remember that and all of the government “spying” that went on in that tumultuous time…this is but a different time and an international context…and, yes, cetainly more dangerous…but the question had to do with which groups “had to be” monitored in the governmental view of maintaining domestic security…and I answered that question…
Priceless
August 1st, 2010
3:00 pm
I killed all my relatives so I wouldn’t have say uncle to anyone
You must have a “family” of very masculine women.
Scout
August 1st, 2010
3:00 pm
Bruno:
I hear you but we either act strongly now or it will be too late. My prediction? We will not act.
When did I mention homes? I said Mosques, Community Centers, Schools, etc. And that applies to ANY GROUP that advocates violence. BTW ……. IRS takes homes all the time.
P.S. The Supreme Court has upheld the seizure of vehicles containing even a partial counterfeit note. I have done that and proud of it !
“And so he bowed.”
Scout
August 1st, 2010
3:02 pm
Del:
Yes a LOT of dancing around because they have a preconceived notion and won’t face facts.
Josef is usually above that and I am truly disappointed ………. but you learn something everyday.
BADA BING
August 1st, 2010
3:03 pm
Well you know, masculine women don’t wear burkas !
Scout
August 1st, 2010
3:03 pm
Out for awhile ……………..
“And so he bowed.”
AmVet
August 1st, 2010
3:05 pm
Thanks, Kam!
I had made a note but got busy with work (yep, I’m a BAD back-slider!) and generally suffer from mental fragmentation, aka ADD!
Saw the last 15 minutes though and will tune in at midnight for more…
theyeshaveit
August 1st, 2010
3:08 pm
Scout said Just remember, the Koran specifically authorizes Muslims to lie and deceive infedels in furtherence of the cause …………. kind of like American liberals.
Scout,
You might wish to get another PR firm working for you. With a remark like that, you are not likely to gain any sympathizers and are very likely to lose respect.
popeye
August 1st, 2010
3:09 pm
Bada Sorry I put a damper on your amusement.
Truth hurts doen’t it?
By the way Bada your one liners are not funny…don’t quit your day job!
AmVet
August 1st, 2010
3:10 pm
josef, you are such a disappointment!
BILL: I can’t get behind the Gods, who are more vengeful, angry, and dangerous if you don’t believe in them!
ROLLINS: Why can’t all these Gods just get along? I mean, they’re omnipotent and omnipresent, what’s the problem?
BILL: What’s the problem?
BILL: What about the men who say ‘Do as I do. Believe in what I say, for your own good, or I’ll kill you!’ I can’t get behind that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM6pYG1DQ4s
josef nix
August 1st, 2010
3:10 pm
BADA BING
On the burqas…the colleague I was talking about above usually goes into a frothing tirade at the mere mention of the burqa (and is not overly tolerant of the hijab!). She’s not real fond of her son’s intended and says she told him, “but in her case I’ll make an exception!”
Bruno
August 1st, 2010
3:10 pm
“P.S. The Supreme Court has upheld the seizure of vehicles containing even a partial counterfeit note. I have done that and proud of it !”
My concern with that particular practice is in regards to how the person obtained the counterfeit note. From my understanding, a fair amount of counterfeit bills end up at the bank, where they are returned to account holders making a withdrawal. By the time they spend that note later, how can they prove that the bank gave it to them? In the case of someone manufacturing counterfeit money, seizure might make more sense, but I see the strong possibility of an innocent person getting shafted.
I don’t want to get too far sidetracked debating seizure laws, but there are many, many cases on record of aggressive law enforcement agencies targeting individuals they “thought” might be doing wrong strictly because the “perp” had substantial assets. I know of at least one case which resulted in the murder of innocent people. I understand your background and zeal for catching bad guys, but the fact remains that the government has nearly unlimited resources in comparison to most citizens. That is the reason for all the Constitutional protections.
Back in a short while………
Del
August 1st, 2010
3:11 pm
Scout,
Every ethnic or religious group that has ever immigrated to this country has had to carve out their respective value and acceptance as Americans. Somehow, that has changed in this age of political correctness where illegals should be granted unearned acceptance and even those from groups who have vowed to destroy us, we’re supposed to grant unconditional, unquestioned acceptance. Crazy time we’re living in. Hopefully, America has had enough and we’ll soon be seeing change we can really believe in. With that I’ll close until hopefully tomorrow.
theyeshaveit
August 1st, 2010
3:11 pm
josef,
Scout just wanted to run a card trick by us. You know. You’ve seen it before, “Pull any card, any card at all, mister, and I’ll tell ya which one you got..” But then, the trick goes awry and the old trickster says, “Uh, not that one. Uh, not that one either….”
Dave R.
August 1st, 2010
3:14 pm
Actually, Popeye, some of Bada Bing’s lines are funny. Not all, mind you, but some.
josef nix
August 1st, 2010
3:14 pm
AmVet
Well, I am EOI!
That Bill one reminds me of the scene in “Fiddler” when Tevye is trying make peacemaker and one of the locals says.
“Wait a minute. He’s right. And he’s right. They can’t both be right.”
Tevye thinks for a minute and says, “You’re also right.”