This made me think of an episode of The West Wing:

This is quoted from:
Search or Browse The West Wing Transcripts -- View or Search transcripts and summaries

The constitution really isn't a catch all.

Granted it sounds like grandstanding, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is 'even more offensive.' Of course, that's just a matter of opinion...or taste.

Another thought...
The one good thing that may come of this is that the blowback may take some of the glitter off of the previous overblown xenophobic hacky sack issue - illegal immigration.

Really, Nancy? You support "looking into" how private citizens are funding themselves to express an opinion about a controversial issue? Yeah that sounds like a good idea lets make the financial backing behind any expressed view point public! That way nobody will ever want to express themselves out of fear of the US govt rooting through their organizations or personal banking account with a fine tooth comb. The 1st amendment was getting a little old anyway, I think its time has passed. At the very least most everyone involved with this cluster fuck seems to think so.

Oh well another chapter of stupid is being written for future generations to scratch their heads over. On the plus side we have about 3 more months of politicians saying and doing incredibly dumb things every time a camera or microphone is around, those votes are important. If it wasn't always based around such serious issues this stuff would be comic gold.

There are investigations of varying degrees, then, aren't there?

I'll take this to mean that this is no one else's business either.

Yes, there are differing degrees of investigations. I'd take an investigation initiated by Congress pretty seriously.

Regardless of the degrees of investigations, this is none of the government's business and hints at intimidation.

Individuals can ask all the questions they want since the first amendment only applies to the government. The people being questioned are also free to ignore the questioner.

She was speaking within the context of the ADL's position.

let's recap, shall we?

first a racist blogger creates a canard about a mosque at ground zero.

that gets picked up by the conservative media apparatus and made into a cause célèbre all for the greater good of the conservative media apparatus which always enjoys higher ratings and bumps in advertising rates from viking international (don't be caught with fiat currency when helter skelter comes! buy gold now!) when a group hate is underway. double plus good, that. always double plus good.

the group hate acquires enough media-momentum that it starts to freak out the moderates and some ultra-rightwing strategists who say to themselves:

wait....where's the advantage of being seen as racists?


and that unleashes a bit of a pushback from the remarkably passive non-conservative media apparatus, including a theatrical suggestion that an investigation might be in order because

maybe

just maybe


there's some conservative astroturf being spread again.

which means of course that conservatives are the victims.
not the people who happen to be muslim around the united states who have had to endure the spectre of yet another round of conservative-driven racism directed their way.

o no.

conservatives are the victims.

unbelievable.

I don't see anything in your above scenario where the government is involved until we get to Nancy Pelosi's comments and the pesky little issue of the first amendment. Granted, the blogger that started this is way off base, but it is his or her constitutional right to speak without threat of congressional investigations.

I don't recall reading anything about Pelosi calling for congressional investigations.

dog: i understand the point and personally will worry about it when there is an actual investigation. at the moment, i think it's theater.

but really, i don't see what the right has to worry about--so what if there is an investigation? it's not like the speech would be the object, so the first amendment complaints are beside the point. it'd be a matter of diverting money, of potential criminal actions at that level. that's not free speech. that's corruption. unless you imagine corruption to be a form of free speech...

In my completely unscientific observation of the coverage of this issue, I think it is beginning to peak and we'll all be moving on soon.

I'm starting to see coverage of staunch conservatives offering more nuanced positions.

For example, Gene Healey of the CATO institute:

Debate Is a Red Herring | Gene Healy | Cato Institute: Commentary)

...and even Pat Buchanon on CBS News:

bg- While I've said everything I want to say on the actual mosque already, I would like to make a point with regards to this. If the Speaker of the House says "something needs to be looked in to", by default, "Congress" is calling for an investigation. It doesn't really matter who investigates at that point or if it is publicly funded, it's that Congress said it needed to be looked into. She made the statement in her role as Speaker so the statement cannot be separated from Congress.

Semantics, perhaps, but her purpose was to intimidate. Why the Federal fucking government is even talking about this is beyond me.:shakehead:

:edit:
I take that back, it's not beyond me. This is one more example of the Federal government's desire to be involved in every aspect of American lives. It's one building in one city in one state in our nation. Yet, they can't resist telling those people how they should feel about it and what they should do about it.

^^ exactly. That's why Obama shouldn't have comment and that extend so Mrs. Pelosi. speaking with the position alone can cause people to believe that it's from that position.

there is something between unfortunate and unnervingly bad in the degree to which the ship of state continues to be run by people who seem to watch a whole lot of tv. like a whole lot of it and who calibrate actions and/or statements by what plays there. it gives the impression of an entire government of people in offices watching c-span and game shows. this isn't a new impression, either. but from time to time it seems more present....

I chalk all of this up to the American (human?) penchant to remove enough---if not all---context from something so that it fits within a structure they can adequately target with their fears, anger, or paranoia.

Yes, Pelosi is a powerful politician, yes, she's in Congress. But let's not forget she was talking on the radio in response to another organization's position on the matter.

Jesus...context, people.

Maybe I'm reacting to this differently because I live in a place where politicians aren't considered tyrants by default.

I'll bet they introduced her as "Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi". Jesus knows they did.

Here would be a proper response (for a responsible leader), "As a resident and representative of the state of California, it is inappropriate of me to insert myself into the business of the great state of New York. I'm certain they will find a resolution to this matter without need of my opinion. Next topic?"

Ah... so "Pelosi the Pussyfooter"?

"Way to sidestep the issue, Pelosi. Yet another Democrat fails to show leadership. No wonder no one knows where Dems stand on the issues.... blah blah blah.... "

the stupidity keeps growing...

Achenblog - Are Americans total numbskulls?

That is probably the weakest retort I've seen you make. You haven't seen me say such a thing about any other national figure who has remained silent. It's as if you are arguing a point which was never made.

...or, perhaps, you are so accustomed to your level of government control that it actually seems unreasonable for your federal leaders to remain silent on every private, state matter which exists??

You know, it's okay to agree with me once in a while, no one will tell your teammates. This one is so obvious, it's almost as if you are trying too hard.:)

you know, cimmaron, if the speaker of the house says something in passing on a radio show, that isn't "government control".

just saying.

I wasn't talking about you. Sorry for the confusion.

They don't remain silent. Quite often they're forced to talk about them in official meetings of parliament; you know, where these things usually should be talked about. And they've been known to be flushed out of power when enough people don't like what they're saying, or doing. How does that work down there where you are?

No. I'm flabbergasted at how people are ignoring the context in which Pelosi said what she said.

This.

It's funny how many things the President is expected to stay out of (when his statement was a response to a question, not a totally unsolicited response) while potential 2012 candidates and dozens of other national figures are free to wharrgarble at will.

guys,

I suppose I am hoping that one side or the other would "rise above" this media circus sideshow and publicly STFU. This issue speaks for itself - the correct side of this argument, from every angle, is for the building to be built. Let the crazies swing their signs in Lower Manhattan. Have the personal restraint to let NYC decide without influence.

I won't deny that I feel a bit of glee watching the federal politicians suck on their shoes; concurrently, I mourn the lack of true statesmen in our federal government, regardless of which aisle they slide their heinies into.

:edit:

Just so we all have (some) context, this is what Pelosi said on a local San Francisco radio station:

Prior to that part, she actually was doing a really good job. I'll leave it to my colleagues in NY, blah, blah. If she'd only stopped there...

RB, my only point of disagreement with the article you posted above is this:

Given the generations-long habits of the US Gov't in regards to honesty, I fail to see how this is an unreasonable position to take. I am hard-pressed to recall a single statement, by -any- President or Cabinet member in my lifetime, which was truthful.

No new taxes? Lie.
Ruby Ridge? Lies.
Monica? Lies.
Waco? Lies.
Kosovo? Lies.
No nation-building, humble foreign policy? Lies.
Iraqi WMD? Lies.

And those are just the biggest and most egregious of the lot. Given this, why is it unreasonable to suspect that when a politician speaks, they are lying? The experience of history certainly seems to bear out the truth of the old saw about when a politician's lips are moving.

I agree with you, more than you can possibly know, about the utter idiocy of much of the nonsense that swirls around Mr. Obama. However, the assumption that one is being lied to by one's Government is, as near as I can tell, the only reasonable starting position which remains.

rb-

If someone called me with that polling question, I would have to answer "unknown". Religion is personal and its practice is also personal. There's no way for me to know to whom he prays. I don't really care, either. Balance the budget, and I don't care if you sling chicken blood all over the Lincoln bedroom in ritual sacrifice.

thing is, folks, is that the "confusion" about obama's religion is a direct function of the kind of baiting that we've all watched come to the surface from the right---again---over this non-issue of the fictional "ground zero mosque." that's why i posted it: the effects of this campaign to situate obama as "one of them" appears to have a statistically significant effect. which would mean that conservative media disinformation resonates.

and there is no parallel media apparatus "on the left" so don't even start with that nonsense.

as for the line in the article dunedan bit---i'm not particularly interested in it. you may be right. no doubt there's reasons to treat things most in power say with suspicion to some extent--but that sentence seems a weak consideration of an alternate explanation for the poll results. it's a step or two away from the data logically in an area wherein almost anything can appear correlative. but really, i think the writer is just speculating. so it's good to pull that line out.

rb -

I agree with you. There is no doubt that a fringe of people as bloggers, media, etc. intentionally create a "mystery" in order to group the people they don't like together. This would be an example of the an element in the right doing just that. "We don't like muslims, we don't like Obama. Let's turn Obama into a Muslim. That way, people who don't like muslims won't like Obama, and people who don't like Obama won't like Muslims."

I believe it went from 11% to 18% in 2 and a half years. That's quite a jump. What I don't understand, is that I don't see much media surrounding this issue. Granted, I don't look at extreme right stuff like, World Net something or other. Maybe, that's where it comes from? I can't imagine 1 in 5 Americans read that crap, though. So, where's the source of the rumors? I get all sorts of crazy forwards in my email from both sides, and I don't really get any about his religion. Surely, +7% didn't just decide that without something showing up on the media radar?!

(Of course, I do view this as the same tactic being used against the tea party - turning them all into racists.)

I don't know, in my opinion its pretty weird for the speaker of the house to support looking into the funding behind any of this (she also seems to supports looking into the funding behind the Mosque as well which is in my opinion is just as bad). What could possibly be the purpose behind doing so? What would she hope to find? How would it be used? It seems like it would do nothing more then add fuel to an already raging fire...it might not have been the best idea to put forth.

Anyway it appears she clarified her statement later on and I didn't see it before I made my comments above. Regardless the idea of bringing transparency to the finances behind either side of this issue is ridiculous as its nobodies business. There is nothing illegal about trying to build a Mosque and there is nothing wrong (legally anyway) with protesting it, let everyone involved be. It should work itself out in time, we don't need anybody making it worse by digging up where the money came from in all of this.

Honestly, nowdays if a pollster called me I'd probably say he's a Muslim just for the lulz.

My personal guess is that Nancy Pelosi already has a pretty good idea of who is funding opposition to the Mosque At Ground Zero, assuming that its Rupert Murdoch or someone similar. Therefore, assuming there was any actual thought to her response to the question, I would interpret it as veiled threat to go public with that information. Its one thing to manipulate "conservative Republican GOP" members of the American public, and its another thing to be fairly well known to be manipulating the "conservative Republican GOP" members of the American public, but its an entirely different thing to be blatantly, obviously called out for manipulating the "conservative Republican GOP" members of the American public. Don't turn the sheep into mules.

As far as the public statements from the White House on this topic, I don't see much of a way they could pragmatically do otherwise. The basic premise at the base of this - freedom of religion and speech versus fascist fear-induced decisions complete with pitchforks - is something you can't just ignore if your job is to serve as the nominal figurehead of the American People. I do find it amazing that it seems a strong undercurrent of the "conservative Republican GOP" politicians campaign is essentially "Fuck the poor (i.e. yourselves), fuck the hispanics (i.e. one of the fastest growing sectors of the American public), and fuck the Muslims (i.e. a large percentage of everyone else in the world)" and that it will probably work better than I would anticipate. Americans are some scared-ass motherfuckers these days.

here's an item from the guardian about pamela geller, the racist blogger at the heart of the "ground zero mosque" fiction. check out her political affiliations.

The US blogger on a mission to halt 'Islamic takeover' | World news | The Guardian

just in case you thought referring to this business as fascist was overstating things.
of course, all the neo-fascist groups that geller supports are victims of bad press, not really so bad, not really so...

Here he is "vlogging" from the beach.


There is a lot of crazy packed into that bikini.

really just pathetic. embarrassing and pathetic

I want to hope that this "Ground Zero Mosque" donnybrook is an isolated incident, but I'm not going to invest too much into that.

I don't want to think about it, but what's happening to you, America?

Islamofascist terrorists are winning another victory mere blocks away from your most devastating battlefield.

Swallow your fear and ignorance before it consumes you like fire.

I forgot to include that the guy in the white cap isn't Muslim but is taunted as being so incorrectly.

Yeah, that's how fear and ignorance works.

this is what fascism looks like.

Gotta keep all those dang communists muslims in check.

Seriously. I may not be wise to the ways of the world yet, but when I look at this; I can't help but think this must be how McCarthyism got started.

Oh, no, Hektore. My thoughts go back further than that—back to American internment camps during WWII.

If enough people think they are "at war" with Islam (as opposed to Islamofascism), then how much further do you need to go before you start viewing Muslims as "enemy aliens"?

I guess we can chalk an awful lot of this up to a complete failure to teach accurate history to the masses. You know, as opposed to the hero worship version of history. Anyone with even a basic understanding of the ugly things this country has done has to look at this and think - deja vu.