From Bigoted Protest to Eminent Domain


Design concept for the Cardoba “Mosque”

Carl Paladino, developer, attorney, CEO of the Ellicott Development Company, and tea party activist is running for governor of New York and has pledged:

“As governor I will use the power of eminent domain to stop this mosque and make the site a war memorial instead of a monument to those who attacked our country.”

Of course this plan to circumvent the laws of private property flies right in the face of what conservatives supposedly hold dear. Susette Kelo was given the 2006 Ronald Reagan award by CPAC for her role in fighting eminent domain in Kelo v. New London, when she was threatened with eviction by eminent domain so that her property could be turned over to developers.

And that eminent domain stuff wasn’t just some off the cuff remark. No, it’s his TV ad. By the way, the same “conservative values” let’s-protect-marriage-from-the-gays preacher kept his extramarital love child a secret from his family for 10 years. Nice guy I’m sure.

Bill Keller, a Florida pastor, Birther infomercial host, and son of the former CEO to Chevron, said that even though he’s never been to New York, he’s proposing a $1 million project next door that he dubs “the 9/11 Christian Center at Ground Zero.” In describing the project, which he said should be up by the first of January 2011, Keller said that, “This is not to be confrontational with the Muslims, it really isn’t.” When asked about the center’s website, which calls Islam a “false religion” whose 1 billion adherents “are going to Hell,” Keller said it was not intended as confrontation but rather “telling the truth.”

In order to stop the “Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to destroy our civilization,” Newt Gingrich suggested that, were he president, he would “declare the area around the World Trade Center a national military battlefield because that was a battle and it part of a real war.” Oh yeah, and Gingrich also said of the Axis of Evil: “We’re one out of three.”

It was bad enough when these demagogues wanted to block them with a cynical attempt at declaring the Burlington Coat Factory a historical landmark (and then accuse the Commission of political bias), now they just come out and say, “Vote for me and I’ll steal the private property of a random cleric of a religion you don’t like and replace their community center with a monument to how awesome our two perpetual wars are.”

What does it tell Muslims who are now watching this debate? It tells them that Osama Bin Laden is right: that the War on Terror is just a euphemism for a war on Islam, not Islamic terror, not violent Islamic sectarians, but Islam in general. That’s telling the Arab community in New York: “Remember the fear and anger you felt when the twin towers fell and your neighborhood got blanketed in toxic dust? Well, that was nothing compared to the fear and anger felt by the Christians — the real Americans — who were watching those attacks on television. In fact, that was not an attack by terrorists against you, that was an attack by you against us.”

There’s another 40-year-old pre-WTC mosque sitting just four blocks away from Ground Zero. Why not complete the circle and just force this mosque to move out, break their windows, and spray paint slogans equating Islam with fascism without realizing that you’re basically parroting part what the SS did to the Jews?

Backers of the “Ground Zero Mosque” that isn’t really at Ground Zero and isn’t really just a mosque (it includes a gym and a swimming pool) pledged to incorporate a memorial to 9/11 victims and possibly an interfaith chapel, but that’s a ridiculous gesture because it assumes that the people doing the complaining want to reach a compromise. What they want is more festering wounds so they can howl and rage until a Republican is in office again.

As for those calling them to just move it a few blocks away, Jon Stewart points out this isn’t the only place where Islamic cultural centers and mosques are being picketed. Even if they found a place where people wouldn’t have a problem, certainly they would lose tons of money and time, and for what, to placate the irrational proposition that Muslims shouldn’t pray in their own pre-WTC community?

If no mosque should be built within two blocks of Ground Zero, does that mean no church should be built within two blocks of anywhere America has bombed?

The Anti-Defamation league sadly posted a mixed message condemning the bigotry involved in the controversy while also complaining that building the Islamic Center “in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims some pain — unnecesarily — and that is not right.” Paul Krugman poignantly remarks: “It causes some people pain to see Jews operating small businesses in non-Jewish neighborhoods; it causes some people pain to see Jews writing for national publications (as I learn from my mailbox most weeks); it causes some people pain to see Jews on the Supreme Court. So would ADL agree that we should ban Jews from these activities, so as to spare these people pain? No? What’s the difference?”

The Philadelphia-based Shalom Center are among the leaders vocally opposing the Anti-Defamation League. Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf’s wife Daisy Khan said: “Your support is a reflection of the great history of mutual cooperation and understanding that Jewish and Muslim civilizations have shared in the past, and remains a testament to the enduring success of our continuing dialogue and dedication to upholding religious freedom, tolerance and cooperation among us all as Americans.”

Fox News is trying to paint the Sufi leader of the Community Center as a radical because he refuses to call HAMAS a terrorist organization. The accusation is certainly in line with the Republican strategy of goading Jewish American voters to abandon Democratic politicians for their perceived lack of devotion to Israel. But the reason for this is because the Sufi imam sees his role as trying to bridge Muslim and American communities together and calling the Democratically-elected Palestinian government group would not be helpful in that respect. It’s sort of like how in the Synoptic gospels the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus between cultural perceptions by asking if Roman taxes were legitimate. The imam’s philosophy is actually very Unitarian and he believes that American democracy is an embodiment of Islam’s ideal society.

Don’t expect the “liberal media” to fight too hard about it. CNN just recently fired their Senior Middle East News Editor, Octavia Nasr, for tweeting a lament for the death of the mainstream Shi’ite cleric Sayyed Mohammed Hussein, who was the religious guide for our ally, Iraq’s Dawa Party. The Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki even took the very unusual step of leaving Iraq to attend Fadlallah’s funeral.

Most of the mainstream media seemed more interested in the fact that Palin mispronounced another word, and then tried to compare herself to Shakespeare in response to the media circus. This led to a very entertaining Twitter meme, #ShakesPalin, in which participants revamped classic Shakespeare quotes, Palin-style. The funniest entry came from The Cato Institute’s Julian Sanchez: “To suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous liberals, or to quit halfterm, and by opposing, rake in speaking fees.”

Bryan at YouAreDumb.Net did a much better job of defending it:

Also, can we get the fuck over 9/11 already? It’s nine years later. The number of people who should have strong passions and keen sensibilities at this point is small enough that they shouldn’t be granted carte blanche to run roughshod over the lives of the hundreds of millions of us who have moved on. You don’t hear the Pearl Harbor Families and Newt Fucking Gingrich raising a ruckus every time someone opens a sushi restaurant near Pearl Harbor.

Hell, it’s not even all the families who are feeling anguish over 9/11 that are in play here. There are a few, sure, but they’ve been shamelessly co-opted by Newt and Sarah and Fox and everyone else who thinks it’s excellent for the 2010 elections if they can demonize some brown people that are outside Arizona for a change. And that demonizing has become so prevalent that not only are hardly any Democrats willing to go to bat for the Cordoba House (site of the proposed community center), but it’s given Joystick Joe cover to throw a little of his patented gentle Arab-hate into the mix.

“Well, I guess I’d say I’m troubled by it. But I don’t know enough to say it ought to be prohibited. But frankly I’ve heard enough about it, and read enough about it, that I wish someone in New York would just put the brakes on it for a while and take a look at this.” – Joe Lieberman.

So you don’t know enough to say it ought to be prohibited, but you’ve heard enough to wish that New York had prohibited it. Makes sense to me. Or at least as much sense as condemning the bigotry of people opposing the community center then blaming the community center for inciting it.

And in case there was any doubt in your mind that the right was just using this bullshit to position themselves for future political runs, Tim Pawlenty weighed in on it. Tim Pawlenty. Barely even governor anymore of a state so geographically and culturally distant from NYC that we wonder why delis put sesame seeds on donuts. And Timmeh was his usual loquacious self.

“I’m strongly opposed to the idea of putting a mosque anywhere near ground zero — I think it’s inappropriate. I believe that 3,000 of our fellow innocent citizens were killed in that area, and some ways from a patriotic standpoint, it’s hallowed ground, it’s sacred ground, and we should respect that. We shouldn’t have images or activities that degrade or disrespect that in any way.” – Timmeh, delicately fluffing the cock of wingnut site RealClearPolitics.

It must be pretty hallowed ground. That’s why they haven’t actually built anything there. But how far does hallowed ground extend? Do we kick the existing mosque near Ground Zero out? Who gets to decide what images or activities degrade or disrespect our patriotic hallowed ground? Tim Pawlenty? He’s running for President, which is about as disrespectful to America as you can get.

So the Republicans are picking on a minority to score political points, the Democrats are unwilling to spend the political capital to defend the minority because they don’t want to lose the votes of fiscally liberal bigots, and the media keeps it all going for the sake of ratings. Business as usual, in other words.

Actually, in reference to Bryan’s remark about “a sushi restaurant near Pearl Harbor”, there actually is a Shinto shrine right around the bend from Pearl Harbor.

Before its destruction in 2001, the World Trade Center featured a prayer space, where hundreds of Muslims would gather every Friday to practice their faith. The number of Muslims who died during the 9/11 attack is estimated as being between 28 and 75. We shouldn’t let Osama Bin Laden prove that he was right when he said: “The West is incapable of recognizing the rights of others. It will not be able to respect others’ beliefs or feelings. The West still believes in ethnic supremacy and looks down on other nations. They categorize human beings into white masters and colored slaves.”

Income Equality in the U.S.

Last Friday, Bill Maher touched on something I had noticed a while back. In the 60s, a middle class family could be raised by only one money-earner in the family. Then by the 70s, the mother started to also have to work in order to provide an adequate living. Conservatives were still bitching about it in the 80s, but the rich guys finally figured out that they can just keep wages the same while costs skyrocket and make all that extra money for themselves, so the “moral majority” basically just called their dogs off that issue. In the 80s and 90s, even two people couldn’t make enough for a family, but it didn’t matter because the house had increased so much in worth. Now that that bubble has burst, the middle class has nothing, the rich has everything, and instead of blaming it all not on the “business party” that has fought tooth and nail to keep wealth stratified at the top, the main criticism with the right is that poor, uneducated minorities tricked rich, trend-calculating bankers into giving them money they had no ability to pay back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Misrepresenting Climate Change Economic Studies

“H.R. 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act threatens the United States $14.4 trillion economy, measured by GDP, which is the largest national economy of the world. Of this amount, 7.5 percent ($1 trillion) of the US economy is attributed to by the oil and natural gas industry. To give you an idea of how the United States derives it source of energy, the below outlines the division of the energy industry:

* 40% from petroleum
* 23% from coal
* 23% from natural gas
* 7.4% from nuclear power
* 6.6% from renewable energy

Affect on Employment
The oil and natural gas industry alone represents 63% of US energy production and supplies the US economy with over nine million jobs to Americans. However, according to the Brookings study, H.R. 2454 would cause a 15% decline in refining employment and a 35% drop in crude oil employment1. Buttressing Brookings Study, the National Black Chamber of Commerce found that a net 2.5 million jobs will be lost after accounting for the new green jobs being created.

Affect on Individual Finances
According to the Heritage foundation, the Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020; which equates to about $1,900 for a family of four. As the emissions limits decrease, the costs rises to $6,800 per family by 2035. In today’s terms, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the net present value of the bill would equate to approximately $12,000. Another way of stating the above statistics to more practical terms; the Congressional Budget office states that H.R. 2454 would add up to 77 cents per gallon of gasoline, while the Heritage Foundation has a more conservative analysis of gasoline prices rising by more then 74% by 2035.”

-Heriberto Latigo, Houston Personal Finance Examiner

http://www.examiner.com/x-17064-Houston-Personal-Finance-Examiner~y2009m10d4-HR-2454-American-Clean-Energy-and-Security-Act

————–

Heriberto Latigo makes it sound like the Brookings Study is on this particular bill and that the analysis is meant as evidence against the move. Actually, if you click on the first link in his Bibliography, the Brooking Report which he claims to be getting his information about the bill from and you’ll see this:

* Not an analysis of particular bills
*Not a cost?benefit analysis
» Looking only at mitigation costs and emissions
reductions
* Looking for ways to pursue environmental goals at lower cost

So that tells you right off that the study isn’t what he makes it out to be. However, a fact sheet reveals that the current bill is “consistent” with some of the emission paths the study looks at. Here are the key findings:

The study estimates that alternative paths to reach an emission reduction target of 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 will:

• reduce cumulative U.S. emissions by 38% to 49%, about 110 to 140 billion metric tons CO2
• reduce total personal consumption by 0.3% to 0.5%, or about $1 to $2 trillion in discounted present
value from 2010 to 2050
• reduce the level of U.S. GDP by around 2.5% relative to what it otherwise would have been in 2050
• reduce employment levels by 0.5% in the first decade, with large differences across sectors
• create an annual value of emission allowances peaking at around $300 billion by 2030, and a total value
of about $9 trillion from 2012 to 2050

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2009/0608_climate_change_economy/20090608_cap_trade.pdf

Below is a picture showing the huge impact that the bill will have on our economy. You need a magnifying glass just to see the differences in 2050.

Brookings Study Graph

But Heriberto Latigo isn’t the only one trying to misrepresent that report, as you can see here:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/09/brookings-study-waxman-markey-economy/

And what’s the second source he claims “buttresses the Brookings Report”? The National Black Chamebr of Commerce. Just put that into Wikipedia and you see that they are sponsored by:

* Tobacco Company Altria. NBCC has opposed tobacco control legislation.
* ExxonMobil has provided $225,000, per a Greenpeace analysis titled ExxonMobil’s Continued Funding of Global Warming Denial Industry[1]
* AT&T and Verizon. NBCC has opposed Network Neutrality, a position strongly held by AT&T and Verizon.
* Comcast. NBCC has opposed A La Carte pricing, a position strongly held by Comcast.

And what are their other positions on legislation?

* In testimony submitted to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions regarding Senate Bill S.625, the NBCC stated that it opposes increased Food and Drug Administration regulation of tobacco. The reason for its opposition is that the regulation would impose fees affecting small tobacco retailing and distribution businesses in the U.S., many of which are owned by Black Americans.[2] The statement contained no reference to health risks associated with using tobacco products.
* The NBCC indicated that the Microsoft settlement was inadequate in terms of consumer protection and that additional remedies were required

And what’s source #3? An oldie but a goodie. The Heritage Foundation. A conservtive think tank that uses the supply side business model of Reagan and Bush II. Here’s one of their key strengths according to Wikipedia:

“Heritage’s influence is also due in part to its decision to publish shorter policy papers that are designed to convey usually complex topics in an executive summary format more likely to be read by governmental officials. Other Washington think tanks historically have produced lengthier publications or book-length works, which Heritage also publishes, but only rarely.”

So that’s why they’re so much more popular than the American Enterprise Institute and other right-wing think tanks. They publish “Far Right-Wing Ideology for Dummies.”

The Conservative Bible Project

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

“First Example – Liberal Falsehood

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34: Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.”

The Kristol Method

“By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of “originalism,” the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004,” – Richard Posner

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/quote-for-the-day-ii-2.html#more

“Given how often Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and other right-wing populist rabble-rousers make coarser versions of the same argument today, it’s important to note that Kristol and his colleagues initially refused to propose a political response to the rise of new class. Adopting Trilling’s ambivalent stance toward the adversary culture of the intellectuals, Kristol explicitly rejected a “populist perspective” that portrayed new class elites as “usurp[ing] control of our media” and using “their strategic positions to launch an assault on our traditions and institutions.” Such a simple-minded view was, for Kristol, “misleading and ultimately self-defeating.” The rise of the new class and the adversary culture could not simply be willed or wished away, since they had emerged out of and had their roots in the extraordinarily complicated dynamics of modern, urban civilization itself. The appropriate response to recent troubling trends was thus careful study and reflection on the complexities of contemporary American life–not futile and destructive calls to stamp them out through political action.

“But Kristol’s moderation and detachment would soon come to an end…. Two years later, Kristol would assert that defending the American way of life against foreign and domestic enemies required that citizens develop a “religious attachment” to their country. In future years he would go even further, to claim that modern conservatism should be based on a synthesis of religion, nationalism, and economic growth–and that Republicans should give up their resistance to the transformation of their party into an explicitly religious organization–all for the sake of banishing liberalism, now flatly described as the “enemy,” from American political life.”

http://www.tnr.com/blog/damon-linker/irving-kristols-other-journey?page=0,1

“Among the core social scientists around The Public Interest there were no economists…. This explains my own rather cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit and other monetary or fiscal problems. The task, as I saw it, was to create a new majority, which evidently would mean a conservative majority, which came to mean, in turn, a Republican majority – so political effectiveness was the priority, not the accounting deficiencies of government…”

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/movement-conservatism-and-debt.html

“David has the righteous answer,” Mattera said, “because he is taking pride in his Christian beliefs.” No matter that Mattera didn’t accurately grasp David’s biography or the biblical timeline. In conserva-land, David, a character from the Old Testament, was a Christian even before Christ was born. “Anyone who came against his God,” Mattera said, “David would take it personally.”

During the panel, Mattera took the David and Goliath metaphor another perverse step: If conservatives (David) smite liberals (Goliath), they will be rewarded with the hot conservative women, just like King Saul promised his daughter to the warrior who slew the evil giant. “You know his daughter must have been beautiful because there’s no guy whose gonna die for an ugly girl,” Mattera chortled. “Our women are hot. We have Michelle Malkin. Who does the left have, Rachel Maddow? Sorry, I prefer that my women not look like dudes.”

http://www.campusprogress.org/fieldreport/4585/taking-it-personally

Republican Party Chart