Tag Archives: 1st amendment

The mosque pit

From Jon Stewart to Sarah Palin there is the lingering question… What does President Obama really think about the mislabelled “Ground Zero Mosque”.

On Friday, the President said Muslims…


“have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country … That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

That’s  easy enough for even the simplest mind to understand, and she did, but the next day when the President said

My intention was to simply let people know what I thought. Which was that in this country we treat everybody equally, in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there.

I was commenting very specificly on the right that people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country’s about. And I think its very important that as difficult as some of these issues are, that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about

Simple minds like Palin’s imploded. If it was just hers and Fox Nation who all of a sudden had the look of a hog reading a wristwatch, I wouldn’t have said a word. I don’t expect them to understand any multi-syllabic response that doesn’t include waving some kind of pitch-fork at a new minority group they hate. But, it wasn’t just those of a simpler intellect that somehow got confused with the two comments, David Morey vice chairman of the Core Strategy Group, who provided communications advice to Obama’s 2008 campaign, said “The danger here is an incoherent presidency,”. The Daily Show ran a skit on it. Politico had an article titled “Obama, the one-term president” that said

Honest to goodness, the man just does not get it. He might be forced to pull a Palin and resign before his first term is over. He could go off and write his memoirs and build his presidential library. (Both would be half-size, of course.)

Really? This is his ‘Palin sees Russia from her house’ moment?

WTF?

To borrow a line from Aliens… Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?

President Obama looked around all last week and saw the country he is the leader of having apoplectic fits over a misnamed “Mosque” being built near ‘Ground Zero’. He looked around and saw GOP right wingers calling for an end of building permits, not just around New York city, but around the entire country. The President looked around and saw other states weighing in on banning mosques from being built, and my own states ‘burn the koran’ day and he said ENOUGH ALREADY!

Thank God he did, because the week leading up to his comment the narrative was ‘let’s ban a religion from being able to build their house of worship’. The right-wing-uber-fucks were chanting and spewing how this extremist can’t build his terrorist recruiting center mosque, and a candidate is even running on a promise to stop this mosque from being built if he gets elected. Their narrative was simple, we are strict constitutionalists only when it suits us, when it comes to brown people we want them to have separate rights and laws. Repeal the 14th amendment and only allow ‘our’ churches and ban ‘theirs’. That’s the road this country was headed down until President Obama weighed in on the matter.

There is no ‘message problem’ like it’s been implied here. The message is simple and easy. It’s not anyone this high in government’s place to say whether a church should or should not be built. It could be seen as influencing an outcome. Harry Reid was wrong to offer his opinion on the matter the way he did. The only answer to expect from this President or anyone else in government is simply this. Our constitution allows it’s citizens the freedom of religion, the freedom to pray to the God of their choosing. It allows houses of worship to be built without interference from the government. If you want to build a church worshiping space aliens, our constitution allows that. If you want to build a mosque to worship Allah, our constitution allows that. Unless we are going to stop allowing catholic churches to be built next to schools, then we really have no right to stop a mosque from being built in the same zip code as the 9/11 attacks. The President’s message was crystal clear, it’s not up to him to say whether or not it should be built, it’s only his job to say that it can be built, and until he made that distinction the narrative out there was demanding that the 1st amendment be nullified when it comes to Muslims and their rights. If you don’t get what the President was saying and why? Then maybe you should look at the idiocy in yourself instead of blaming him for your confusion. For him to weigh in on the ‘should/shouldn’t’ question, puts him on a ‘false’ side. Just ask Harry Reid, now that he weighed in and said it’s lawful to build but they shouldn’t, he’s considered in the crowd that opposes the mosque. Nice work Harry, you’ve joined the ranks of  the political opportunist Newt Gingrich who considers all Muslims the same like all Nazi’s are the same. Who equates the building of a mosque to the holocaust! Yes, brilliant move on your part.

and to Sister Sarah, who said

“Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement”

Darling, it’s not his job to say whether or not he thinks a house of worship should be built, it’s only his job to remind those who wish to impede on the religious freedom of this country. The opinions of whether it should be built or not, are left to the idiots commentators who couldn’t make it in politics. See, when you become President, you can’t just ‘tweet’ your responses and opinions on every subject and you can’t just claim the media twisted your words when the curtain of your idiocy is pulled back to reveal an empty mini-skirt.When you become President, every utterance from your lips is chewed and re-chewed down to a microscopic level, so you learn to give generalized answers on most non-essential issues. Because if you were to weigh in and give a personal answer like, I don’t know, you thought the police acted stupidly on some random matter, then the same people screaming at you now for giving a generalized and non-partsian answer will have seizures because you gave a direct personal opinion on an issue.

The failure here isn’t Obama’s ability to communicate, it’s your ability to understand.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

free only the speech they agree with.. ban the rest

I just want to make sure I have this right. When a veteran opinion writer is accosted in her private life and asked an opinion, she is forced to retired because that opinion doesn’t conform with conservative ideology and no 1st amendment right  is afforded to her.

When a conservative blogger speaks his mind in private emails and those private letters are then released by his employer and he is forced to resigned for his private opinions,  no 1st amendment right is afforded to him.

A President banning the the rival  party’s mascot because he didn’t want the world to see them in a positive light? totally within the parameters of “OK”.

When a military leader and his circle of aides, all still on active duty thus having no rights to free  speech, makes disparaging comments against his commanders and is forced to retire HE should be afforded all privacy and rights of speech because his views bolster conservative ideology.

When a governmental agency restricts web surfing and tells it’s employees they will no longer be able to access certain websites while at work, websites like

  • Chat/messaging
  • Controversial opinion
  • Criminal activity
  • Extreme violence and gruesome content, including cartoon violence
  • Gaming

the outrages is palpable because even though this is an employer’s internet and the people being ‘censored’ are being paid by the government to work and not ‘game’,  waste and inefficiency is trying to be weeded out by the current administration to make government work better and cheaper… these people are having their 1st amendment and privacy rights infringed upon and we need to stop the totalitarian ‘thing’ that was elected to office? Are you insane, incompetent or have your brains finally imploded from having all that resentment build up from not being able to say “Well, he’s black for one” in polite company when voicing concerns about the current President ?

The predictable and  insanely large font on the Drudge report yesterday  leads you to a story on how the TSA sent a letter out informing employees that instead of standing around playing online all day while they are supposed to be working, certain website will now be restricted.  The comments on this piece should be shocking but I have become a reader of all comments sections these days because the stupidity that has taken over the ‘tubes’ is growing exponentially and I am as unable to turn away from them as I would be any horrific scene being played out in front of me.

-This is how it starts.
It’s as if Hitler himself was in charge.

-Does Janet Napolitano fit either, or both of the following?

1. The worst dregs of society gather around the tyrant – they are people of weak character who trade servility for unearned wealth.
2. Accomplices can profit greatly from their positions in the hierarchy.

Fear government.

-Sounds like China….

-It’s amazing how useless the first amendment is to these people now that they are in charge. Its how the left operates when in charge they ignore the constitution and when they are out of power they manipulate it to the other extreme and use its freedoms to harm, stiffle and dismantle progress. Absence of opposition is the sole intent of this administration like all dictators they must have no interruption of their propaganda. Truth is the worst enemy of chronic liers.

-China does tha same thing and they are a dick-tator-ship. What are we? I wonder if McCrystal is intrested in heading up a revolution, a military takeover. It works for some countries. Now my computer will blow up in my face, I will commit suicide (shot in the back of the head with a riflea) or I will be sent to a concentration camp for speaking against the King of America

What the hell is wrong with these people! It is NOT a free speech violation when an employer tells you that you can’t surf the web gaming and chatting while you are at work on their computers! Calling for a military take over because a Governmental agency head dared to stop employees from tweeting? These are the same neanderthals whose hair spontaneously combusted when they heard a private opinion and read private emails because  those of course are not issues of privacy or free speech to them, but we should overthrow the government because TSA said “no” to Instant Messaging?

It’s clear the small government these people beg for isn’t really small, it’s just conservative. It’s clear the spending they want curbed is spending for ‘those’ people and not their own socialistic or ideological programs.  It’s clear that the privacy they want only belongs to them while everyone’s life in and out of the bedroom or doctors office should be fully exposed, and the freedom of speech they advocate is only for speech against this administration, not  the last one mind you, only against this one.

Wiretaps on your phone without a judge signing off on it?
Searching your house while you’re not home and without a warrant?
Holding you in an undisclosed location without benefit of the law, a lawyer or even your family knowing where you are?

None of that is police state,tyrannical,dictatorship.. But preventing employees from playing “World of Warcraft” while on the clock is where the military should step in and take over?

God help us if these people get their politicians elected.

**update**

TSA backs off and caves into right-wing extremism..

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) reversed itself today, announcing that it will no longer block TSA employees, using work computers, from accessing websites that contain a “controversial opinion.”


Well there you go… the Right cried and now tax-payers get to foot the bill for government employees to access sites that could pose security risks to the country.. It’s a weird logic that says employers shouldn’t be forced to serve blacks or give access to the handicapped , but they should be forced to let their employees have internet even if it poses a national security risk to the country, not too mention the Right advocates letting people browse online sources while we’re paying them to work.

Ok, it’s not weird logic, it’s reactionary and more proof of the small minds that responds to each individual issue as being separate from the other, never seeing the whole picture because their world would crumble if they did. Let’s have a tax revolt, my taxes are really fair.  Say NO to socialism but stay away from my medicare and social security. Get out of our bedrooms, but ban homosexuality. Health options are between doctors and patients not government panels, but stop abortion.

I don’t think we need a voting ballot as much as we need a map to keep up with all the twists and turns this bizarre party hopes  to lead us on.

Enhanced by Zemanta