On Sunday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) dusted off the ol' political crystal ball capable only of revealing the blatantly obvious, and predicted/warned that the proposed mosque in downtown Manhattan would be an issue in the midterm elections this fall. First of all, that's a self-fulfilling prophesy. It will be an election issue if you make it one. But why wait for November? One of Sen. Cornyn's colleagues is already exploiting the issue: the Hooker Guy, also known on his passport as Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). In an email to supporters, Sen. Vitter writes:
President Obama's support of building the mosque at Ground Zero is a slap in the face to the American people and I've demanded that President Obama reverse his position.
Charlie Melancon's silence on the issue is troubling to Louisiana families. But, we should not be surprised. Melancon endorsed President Obama, gave him an A grade and now is eerily quiet as Obama thumbs his nose at the American people on this important issue.
Americans will never forget the pain and anguish of September 11, 2001.
In my opinion, the prospect of a mosque right near this site of reverence and respect for lost loved ones from the attack shows a serious lack of sensitivity.In fact, the majority of the country is strongly opposed to building a mosque at the site of the most tragic terrorist attack on America.
I will continue to demand President Obama to reverse his support on this, especially out of respect to those who lost loved ones on September 11. It's ridiculous that my opponent, Charlie Melancon, refuses to join in me in calling on Obama to reverse his support.
Sincerely,
David Vitter
It is no surprise that Sen. Vitter would be scraping the bottom of the election strategy bucket. He can't re-use any of the ads or strategies from his last campaign. Back then, he ran as a family values guy... kinda awkward post-hooker scandal, no?
Leave a Comment:
The approach that Republicans, and sadly, some Democrats (Harry Reid, this means you) have taken to this issue goes beyond lack of respect for the rights granted by the Constitution and straight on to hateful, prejudiced, and intolerant. Timothy McVeigh was associated with the Christian extremist movement Christian Identity, so would these same people oppose the building of any Christian church near the site of the Oklahoma City Bombing? The response to this issue represents an embarrassing failure by many lawmakers and citizens alike to embrace what it truly means to be American.
Not that it matters (to people--pardon the exaggeration--like Vitter), but I deeply resent it when politicians project their opinions upon the entire nation. This cuts across the entire political spectrum, but it is the right and especially the far right which makes a special art of it (I imagine it's due to their essential cowardice). So, then, future ex-Senator Vitter, I demand that you refrain from imputing your poisonous, bigoted, nihilistic 'ideology' to me and to everyone else who is not in fact on your side. Which is probably everyone other than your imaginary childhood friend (and I shouldn't count on his support, either).
I also demand a pony.
Vitter is a bottom-feeding slime ball. I didn't expect anything other than garbage remarks like this out of him.
The people who hijacked those planes and flew them into had many common traits other than their religion, so it should be noted that bigotry is behind the motives to deny American Muslims their right to build a mosque in Manhatten or anywhere else. Let's look at some of these common traits and ask ourselves; 1. Why favor religion over the other common traits when it is not the reason we were attacked, 2. Who else should we keep away from lower Manhatten.
* Muslim, male, dark-skinned, dark-haired, conservative, Arabic, Al-Qaeda members, suicidal, hateful.
Well, that's all I can think of for now, but one of them in particular jumps out at me -- conservative. Oh my God! That's right! They were all men from very conservative cultures! You know what that means, right? We have to keep all Republicans away from ground zero! I mean really! This is sacred ground, people. We can't have a bunch of conservatives disrespecting our country and the constitution by getting within 2 blocks of the sight of the old WTC, now can we? That's like a slap n the face to all the families of the 911 victims!
And let's not forget Republicans voted against the health care bill for 9/11 first responders. Now that's truly a slap in the face for 9/11 victims!
Thank you for reminding me of this Haddie, it had slipped my my mind while I was digesting the twisted remarks from the Republican Senator.
I heard Pres. Obama remind us of the Right to build a Mosque, but that he wasn't going to address the Wisdom of it. This is a very obvious distinction.
But Cornyn and his fellow thugs just hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. Tunnel vision, selective hearing, etc.
theres a strip club & a OTB betting parlor w/in the same distance. the right needs simplistic, emotional issues to foam & fundraise the wingnuts.
strippers and bookies didn't murder 3000 people. Get ready for NYC's suicide bombers...coming soon
Nov Nightmare - do you need a hug? Having some Muslim Americans exercise their First Amendment rights isn't the end of the world, sweetie. Whoops, looks like you left something. Oh, it's just the hood for your Klan sheets before you go off to work today.
Yea, must have left it next to your new black panther cap you forgot when you went to the benifits line. Or do they just mail those now?
"If the mosque were built further away it would be a non-issue."
Oh really? So conservatives have offerred no resistance what-so-ever to any othger mosques or Islamic schools in the US since 911? Now who is uninformed?
There are 30 mosques in Manhatten already dip@!$%#
So, if this particular structure, (which is NOT a mosque), is too close, are the other mosques ok, or should they be forced to move also?
By the way, brilliant debating style! Use of profanity to try and make a point? It speaks of someone desperately trying to defend a position they know is weak and virtually indefensible.
New mosques in other parts of the country are being protested, too. Proximity to Lower Manhattan doesn't really seem to the relevant issue. The subtext to all of this seems to be that one more mosque anywhere is one more too many. Freedom of religion isn't only applicable to the ones that don't frighten the easily frightened.
So now the left is into the constitution,and the first amendment, how nice. Neither the rep. or dems. have had a clue about the constitution for years especially those in congress they surely haven't read it and it is such an easy read approx. 4,000 words and is a document to limit government not expand it. The mosques is not about the first amendment.
Please site sources for your argument. Any founding father will do or the Federalist Papers or the Anti-Federalist Papers. I've keep and have read a copy of the Constitution in my purse since Gore v Bush so I am familiar with what is in it. I forgot to add I'll take debates from state legislatures over ratification too.
I find it ludicrous to hear the right falling all over themselves to block the construction of this community center, as well as repeal the 14th amendment, on one hand, while at the same time also complaining about the government having too much power over people. Should the federal government be able to overrule local government on things as basic as zoning and construction permits? If so, what is to stop them from telling a christian church that they can't build in a certain location, even when approved by local zoning boards? Maybe they can overrule you city government then when they say you can build your house in a certain area.
They scream at the top of their lungs about the federal government sticking their nose into places best left to local authorities...until they don't like the decisions of the local government.
Actually, the Constitution was intended to 'expand' the federal government. The central government established by the Articles of Confederation hardly deserved the name. It could only act with the unanimous consent of the states, so nothing was ever accomplished (including the repayment of loans from our allies in the war for independence, which was turning said allies slowly into enemies). The reason the Convention of 1787 was called was really just to amend the Articles, but the delegates (minus those from New York, other than Hamilton, who walked out) decided to scrap the worthless thing and start over. The federal government established by the Constitution is by design far stronger than the Articles' central government. The fact is, that most of the things the wingers attribute to the Constitution are actually far more appropriate to the Articles and are just warmed over anti-federalist arguments from the debate over ratification. Some people just don't know when to stop beating a dead horse.
So Health care is a right in the Constitution, Homeland security is slightly out of bounds, the federal reserve, medicare, medicade, so why are we bailing out unions, mortages, cash for clunkers, we went 130 years without an income tax, social security, what else do you want please tell me. The federal government is to provide for the common defense.
And promote the general Welfare
So the only reason for the existence of the federal government is to provide for the defense of the nation? That argument was decided a couple of centuries ago in favor of a strong federal government, (remember the Federalist Papers?). A loose confederation of states that are linked only by considerations of national defense is too weak. If you doubt that, look no further than the CIS? Never heard of them? That's what the USSR became when it collapsed. The idea was exactly what you describe---a collection of nominally independent states that are only considered as a whole on matters of defense. It failed miserably, and its most powerful member, Russia, ended up dominating it so completely that it just didn't work. That was foreseen by the Founding Fathers, which is why they opted for a strong federal government.
Even more damaging to your argument is the tax stance you take. The defense budget, at least the unclassified portion, is currently more than $700 billion. How to you intend to fund it, if you don't have an income tax? Maybe hold a bake sale?
If you don't like living in this country, go find one that is more to your liking. I'm sure there are countries out there with lower tax rates, like Somalia. Unfortunately, those nations won't have any of the basic things you have come to take for granted in the US, from education to healthcare to labor laws to environmental regulations to safety regulations and more. Have you heard the expression " you get what you pay for"?
Independent states.........hello, states rights are the backbone of this country, I could give a darn who marries who, if you like a hairy......as long as the state you live in has the right to decide not the fed.govt or the courts. The budget had been covered by tarrifs up until the early 1900's and I would quit war. We have no business in Germany, S. korea, Iraq, afganistan, ....name it we need to take care of us not the world talk about saving money and making the world police itself. Send the UN to France or the deep blue sea for all I care.
You speak of a time when the US military was fairly insignificant, and would have been unable to defend this country if some world power like Great Britain or Germany had decided they wanted to attack. The current power of the US, whether we like it or not, is strongly based on our military power, power that cannot be maintained without some kind of tax.
As for states having power over the federal government...once again, that may have worked 200 years ago....for a short time. But, over time, the bigger states would come to dominate the smaller, less populous states, making a few states the de facto rulers of the country. There's a reason that each state, no matter what its size, gets 2 senators. It's to keep the small states from being trampled on by the bigger states. We see that happen in presidential elections and the electoral college. Politicians spend a lot of time and money in states with a lot of electoral votes, like California, while small states like Delaware and Rhode Island are lucky they even get a visit during the campaign.
Besides which, 'states rights' is code for racial segregation. It's like the right never heard of the Supremacy Clause. Or the fact that nearly every state is the creation of the federal government.
Hello, yes we are to have a powerful military, I said nothing about the states not being equally represented that is a constitutional guarantee 2 senators, and reps equal to the proportion of the population but our current system for jarrimandering blows that all to hell and back. All of our spending is based on what we want not what we need explain that in the constitution. By the way how much farther left can Delaware and R.I. go why do you need a visit?
Well, the governor of Rhode Island, Donald Carcieri, is a Republican. He isn't running for reelection, though. The Independent candidate is currently ahead in the polls over the Democratic candidate and both Republican candidates.
In addition, the Congressional Representative for Delaware, Mike Castle, is a Republican. Plus, I have a hard time seeing the state that gives huge tax breaks to corporations so they will locate their "headquarters" there (58% of the Fortune 500) as "left".
http://www.city-data.com/states/Delaware-Taxation.html
The independent candidate for governor in Rhode Island (Lincoln Chafee) used to be a Republican, but left the party in 2007. His daddy John was also a Republican politician in Rhode Island.
If this mosque/center is for healing and peace - it has produced the opposite so why build it? If it is for peace then why won't they say who is financing it? Too many Saudi connetctions? Remember the 9-11 bombers were mostly Saudi.
Are supporters of this mosque aware of honor killings here in America, blatant oppression of women's rights etc right here in America ? If you are so concerned about "freedom" how about protecting women against this oppressive "religion'? Seems we did stop that radical religion the FL some years ago when they wanted to safrice chickens. Do we protect chickens but not women? The left is making this too simplistic and handing the next election over to the Repubs. As an independent liberal, I can't stand watching the left cave to this radical, women hating philosophy called Islam and ignoring separation of church and state when the Islamists get foot washing sinks in our schools but our kids can't have a secular Chirstmas tree.
Please cite sources for oppression of women and honor killings in US by Muslims. I have known a few Muslim women who are very traditional over the years and not one of them has given me an inkling of this. As an old time feministI'd like to know. Also a secular Christmas Tree? Even growing up in the sixties we did have a Christmas tree at school let alone a menorah.
Ah, J Bolton, by definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/secular) a Christmas tree isn't secular, being as it is a symbol for a Christian religious holiday.
I agree with MariaB, please provide some reference(s) for oppression of women and honor killings in US by Muslims.
If this mosque/center is for healing and peace - it has produced the opposite so why build it? If it is for peace then why won't they say who is financing it? Too many Saudi connnetctions? Remember the 9-11 bombers were mostly Saudi.
Are supporter of this mosque aware of honor killings, blatant oppression of woemn's rights etc right here in America ? If you are so concerned about "freedom" how about protecting women agaisnt this oppression "religion'? Seems we did stop that radical religion the FL some years ago when they wanted to safrice chickens. Do we protect chickens but not women? The left is making this too simplistic and handing the next election over to the Repubs. As an independent liberal, I can't stand watching the left cave to this radical, women hating philosophy called Islam.