Pelosi: Gov’t should probe people opposed to Ground Zero mosque

posted at 9:30 am on August 18, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Of course!  What better way to defend the First Amendment freedom of religion than to have the Speaker of the House ask the federal government investigate those exercising their First Amendment right to free speech?  Nancy Pelosi just guaranteed at least two new news cycles for a story, tossing even more gasoline on the fire than Barack Obama’s pas de deux this weekend:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday said she supports an investigation into groups opposing the building of a mosque near ground zero in New York.

Pelosi told San Francisco’s KCBS radio that “there is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some.”

“I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded,” she said. “How is this being ginned up?”

Does that mean that Pelosi wants Harry Reid investigated, too?   Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY)?  This should be fun!

One might think that Pelsoi would want a peek at where the Park51 will be getting its funds to build the mosque, especially since the State Department is footing the bill for a tour conducted by the imam at the head of the project.  Instead, Pelosi wants the power of the government directed at people taking political positions.  That goes well beyond any supposed extremism by the mosque’s opponents, most (but not all) of whom acknowledge that the property owners have the right to build on their lot anything that meets code, but want to express their opposition to the plans.  Pelosi would take this opportunity to use the government as a thought police to silence dissent.

Incredibly, in the same interview, Pelosi also says this:

Still, Pelosi said she’d like to see the issue determined by New Yorkers and slip off the national stage.

Yes, and a federal probe into political speech will certainly accomplish that, Speaker Pelosi.  Is the leadership of the Democratic Party really this clueless all of the time, or did something get into the water system in Washington DC this past week?

Update: The Daily Kos gets one right on this issue.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

It is not a straw man argument considering that you admit it later in the same comment. Perhaps you should look into your own heart.

Unless you’re psychic, diving the PURPOSE behind what people do is most usually a straw man.

Especially when you “divine” that the purpose is something that hurts their cause and helps yours.

Again, don’t conflate opposition to radical Islam with opposition to Islam.

And stop thinking you “know” what is in someone’s heart.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 4:52 PM

The Muslim motivation for building this mosque is crystal clear. Not only is it near Ground Zero, but the both the dates chosen to announce it and then to open it are September 11th. This is nothing but a spit in the face of Americans. Choosing those dates was no mere coincidence. It was a deliberate insult, an act of defiance, a symbol of victory for Islam. That is what they are conveying with this mosque.

If it is built, it can easily become a headquarters for promoting terrorism.

When will Americans stand up for ourselves against these people?

francesca on August 18, 2010 at 4:53 PM

2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

2:193 And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.

2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

2:244 Fight in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is Hearer, Knower.

5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.

There’s no reason to believe that these texts are never preached as imperatives for Muslims in any mosque in America today, not to mention the impending GZ mosque in the future.

Akzed on August 18, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should — sound familiar?

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 4:52 PM

And yet, other than straw man arguments, you’ve never offered a cogent or coherent reason why people shouldn’t oppose the mosque.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 4:55 PM

If it is built, it can easily become a headquarters for promoting terrorism.

When will Americans stand up for ourselves against these people?

francesca on August 18, 2010 at 4:53 PM

When they learn that being called racist and bigot won’t hurt them.

darwin on August 18, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should — sound familiar?

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 4:52 PM

Yes, and I support your right to say this and their right to build it. But somehow, only one of the three of us is considered prejudiced.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should — sound familiar?

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 4:52 PM

No … go away. You’re a fanatical apologist for Islam.

darwin on August 18, 2010 at 4:57 PM

When they learn that being called racist and bigot won’t hurt them.

darwin on August 18, 2010 at 4:55 PM

+10000

This is exactly what I was saying during the whole Sherrod affair.

Too many conservatives backed away from the truth the minute the race card was played.

Which is exactly WHY the race card was played.

The only people who have the power to DEPOWER the race card are those who refuse to back down from the truth just because some nut called them a racist.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 4:57 PM

The only people who have the power to DEPOWER the race card are those who refuse to back down from the truth just because some nut called them a racist.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Yeah, people are slowly beginning to understand that.

darwin on August 18, 2010 at 4:59 PM

I don’t really take you seriously when looking for reasonable and practical discussion, based on your claim that everything touched by dust is hallowed.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 4:38 PM

1) RZ did not claim everything touched by dust is hallowed. Read again.

2) In the interests of reason and practicality, why don’t you propose a distance and rationale for it?

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 5:08 PM

2) In the interests of reason and practicality, why don’t you propose a distance and rationale for it?

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Monkey already said something about more than two blocks away from Ground Zero (which I’m assuming is only the former World Trade Center sites) but never did explain why exactly.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 5:09 PM

1) RZ did not claim everything touched by dust is hallowed. Read again.

Actually, I DO believe that everything touched by the debris of towers, building, planes and victims of 9/11 IS “hallowed” or “sacred” ground. And since it would be all but impossible to distinguish what dust came from what, I have no problem saying that most everything touched by the dust that day is “hallowed ground.”

The straw man here, though, is assuming that I believe:
1) that just because it’s hallowed that means nothing else can ever be built there (see the Fredicksburg battlefield); or
2) that I believe that the dust cloud is the radius to prevent mosques being built.

I stated numerous times that the DEBRIS FIELD should be the limit (with another block or two added on that).

I just think there is a difference between labeling something as “hallowed” and saying that nothing evermore should be done on/in/with that ground.

There is always a tug-of-war between encroaching civilization and the need to preserve a living record of what occurred.

Compromises need to be made.

That doesn’t mean that where civilization encroaches, it somehow “un-hallows” the ground.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Not only is it near Ground Zero, but the both the dates chosen to announce it and then to open it are September 11th.

francesca on August 18, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Statistically there is a 0.0000075% chance the dates were chosen randomly. It could be.

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Another comment lost to the ether. Wonder what it was this time.

Short summation:

I kinda DO think that everywhere the dust cloud touched is hallowed ground.

It’s just that I don’t think that means that life stops in that area.

The debris field is as good a “boundary” as there is, whether or not there is other ground that may be considered “hallowed.”

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 5:18 PM

The goal of this “mosque” is to lay claim to ground zero and establish a large muslim presence in the area. They want to own it … they want to control it. They want to show us who’s boss.

darwin on August 18, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Muslim is not a race.

slickwillie2001 on August 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Monkey already said something about more than two blocks away from Ground Zero (which I’m assuming is only the former World Trade Center sites) but never did explain why exactly.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 5:09 PM

“I think I would stop at 2 blocks outside the permiter of the world trade center site. I think that is reasonable.”

seems quite arbitrary. I’d like to know the reasoning behind it.

Please explain your reasoning Monkeytoe.

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Let me propose:

1. Find the geometric center between the Twin Towers.

2. From there measure the distance to the farthest position of a person directly physically injured or property immediately damaged by the attack on 9/11/2001.

3. Plot a circle of that radius centered on the point found in step 1.

There’s the limit.

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 5:40 PM

The give ‘em enough rope strategy just keeps on bearing fruit. Heh!

ronsfi on August 18, 2010 at 5:44 PM

I think the term debris field is unreasonable. Anywhere dust settled that day? That is simply not being reasonable. The site of the actual attacks, the buildings that came down, and immediately adjacent to it is reasonable.

Monkeytoe on August 18, 2010 at 3:56 PM

1) Can we at least be honest enough to admit that wherever the “boundary line” is drawn, reasonable people can and will disagree?

2) I don’t know why you continue to deliberately misstate and misrepresent what I’ve said. I’ve already defined “debris field” to be a subset of all the land touched by the dust cloud and defined by where the majority of debris from the planes, buildings and victims landed. I don’t think it’s “reasonable” for a mosque to be built at the location damaged by the landing gear of one of the planes. That’s “unreasonably” close.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 5:47 PM

There’s the limit.

DarkCurrent on August 18, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Which, again, places the proposed site WITHIN such a limit.

To be honest, I’m not sure what is so difficult about this.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 5:50 PM

To be honest, I’m not sure what is so difficult about this.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Nothing. It’s an easy way to feel morally superior by pretending everyone else is a racist.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 5:55 PM

We don’t have to draw a boundary. The fact that the muslims decided it was close enough for a victory celebration means it’s too close.

slickwillie2001 on August 18, 2010 at 6:16 PM

10,000 years from now, historians will still be scratching their heads about why this country allowed Nancy Pelosi to have power.

I can’t believe I’m saying it, but in comparison, she makes the Clown in Chief appear to be a statesman.

On the bright side, it’s testament to the infinite flexibility and tolerance of the human species.

In the animal kingdom, she would have been killed within seconds of bumbling into a position of authority.

notagool on August 18, 2010 at 6:28 PM

al-AP (that’s the Associated Press to our resident trolls) came out with a hilarious propaganda piece about this today. Purporting to be a “Fact Check” (yes, the kneepad who wrote it used those words), it’s mainly a long slog whining about Newt Gingrich’s remarks.

But there are some gems in there-some excerpts:

THE FACTS:

No mosque is going up at ground zero. The center would be established at 45-51 Park Place, just over two blocks from the northern edge of the sprawling, 16-acre World Trade Center site.

Notice how the “writer” studiously avoids admitting that the “center” will have a mosque-it’s simply a “center”. This despite the fact that the developer says there will be a mosque on his website. He also fails to mention that the exact site was struck by the landing gear of one of the planes, thus making it in the impact cloud zone.

Re. another mosque in the neighborhood,the al-Farah mosque, al-AP continues:

That mosque, at 245 West Broadway, is about a dozen blocks north of the World Trade Center grounds.

Another, the Manhattan Mosque, stands five blocks from the northeast corner of the World Trade Center site.

Here the “writer” is trying to paint the proposed mosque opponents as bigots, because they never objected to these 2 mosques being so close to Ground Zero.

The problem with his “logic” is that both of them were built decades ago.

Del Dolemonte on August 18, 2010 at 7:20 PM

gateway pundit has charles krauthammer wondering whether pelosi said this out of malice or lunacy and he clinically softshoes it gracefully and chooses lunacy…

+2 Charles K. check it

ted c on August 18, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Nothing. It’s an easy way to feel morally superior by pretending everyone else is a racist.

Esthier on August 18, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Exactly. And they’ve already overplayed that hand to the point where it has no power anymore. They keep throwing around words like “racist” and “bigot” and people are done playing the game of proving a negative. You say I’m a bigot for opposing the mosque, well boo-fricken-hoo. That word does not get to equal conversational kryptonite anymore. The fear of being called a racist, etc, may have worked at one time but people don’t care anymore.

BakerAllie on August 18, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Some New Media reporter should ask Nazi Pelosi if she plans sending them to camps?

viking01 on August 18, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Request: Every keeps claim that those who are opposing the building of the center/mosque have been called racist.

Please show any statement in which some one has called opponents racist or at least implied it.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Some New Media reporter should ask Nazi Pelosi if she plans sending them to camps?

viking01 on August 18, 2010 at 7:35 PM

The question really does need to be asked:

“Madame Speaker, what happens AFTER the investigations?”

Because it certainly seems like a big “or else…” hanging out there (i.e. “stop opposing the mosque OR ELSE…”)

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 7:44 PM

Please show any statement in which some one has called opponents racist or at least implied it.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM

OK, let’s start here:

Of course they should probe them – America needs to know why mosque opposers don’t have the bal*s to come out and say they want to kick all Muslims out of the country.

Dave Rywall on August 18, 2010 at 10:12 AM

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 8:00 PM

I have opposed it since day 1…where’s my money????

Dingbat63 on August 18, 2010 at 8:10 PM

Maybe it has been said but I’m not reading 6 pages: the ball is in the court of the followers of “Religion of Peace” to stop this travesty. The elected advocates of this will find themselves unemployed ASAP.

Dingbat63 on August 18, 2010 at 8:14 PM

It’s not calling people racist, but how about comparing those who oppose the mosque to those who murdered 3000+ people on 9/11

Somebody’s got to say that, “We’re not going to act like the people who stole freedom from Americans, the people who attacked America and killed 3,000 people.”

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Tom you really are dense:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/18/liz-cheneys-keep-america-_n_686697.html#comments

Page through the comments idiot.

CWforFreedom on August 18, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Tom hmmm did not take long….even more

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36979_Ted_Olson_Supports_Cordoba_House/comments/#ctop

Seriously you are truly ignorant.

CWforFreedom on August 18, 2010 at 8:22 PM

Please show any statement in which some one has called opponents racist or at least implied it.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM

From Salon.com http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/07/ground_zero_mosque_hate

“There was a protest yesterday, attended by various wingnuts, racists, riled-up nativists, and terrified fools, of the supposed “Ground Zero mosque.” (It will not be at Ground Zero, and it will actually be a community center that will include a mosque. But still.)”

or from Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39899.html
“The aide, policy hand Andrea Batista Schlesinger, followed that up with:

“@SarahPalinUSA whose hearts? Racist hearts?”:

BakerAllie on August 18, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Baker … TomShipley lives in the land of make believe

CWforFreedom on August 18, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Tom hmmm did not take long….even more

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36979_Ted_Olson_Supports_Cordoba_House/comments/#ctop

Seriously you are truly ignorant.

CWforFreedom on August 18, 2010 at 8:22 PM

I stopped visiting LGF when Charles started going nuts over creationists, so I missed most of the “great purges.”

And, I guess, I hadn’t really, totally believed people about it.

But as I was reading through the comments you linked to, very early on there is a fairly benign comment about how Ted doesn’t speak for all the 9/11 families. It is, though, the first comment to disagree with Charles.

And wouldn’t you know it, Charles almost immediately replies telling the person to shut up!

He really DID go crazy, didn’t he (Charles)?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 8:30 PM

RelZeal…yeh he went nuts and I rarely visit the cess pool but I knew the statement that Tom Shipley made could easily be disproved.

CWforFreedom on August 18, 2010 at 8:43 PM

10,000 years from now, historians will still be scratching their heads about why this country allowed Nancy Pelosi to have power.

notagool on August 18, 2010 at 6:28 PM

We can blame Sanfran for every election she won before 2008.
But the majority of the american electorate knew what they were getting her when they voted her again into the speaker’s chair in 2008, this is what anybody who voted for a Democrat for congress did. The saddest thing is that there will be more than zero democrats voted in again in 2010.

neuquenguy on August 18, 2010 at 8:45 PM

Tom even more.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/8/17/is-the-mosque-issue-a-risk-for-obama/upholding-the-constitution-for-american-muslims
~~~~
kicking sand in the smug phuck’s face ~~~

CWforFreedom on August 18, 2010 at 8:46 PM

RelZeal…yeh he went nuts and I rarely visit the cess pool but I knew the statement that Tom Shipley made could easily be disproved.

CWforFreedom on August 18, 2010 at 8:43 PM

Disproving a Tom Shipley statement is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

He keeps posting crazy stuff, getting his posts destroyed and then moving to another thread.

On the one hand, you can almost admire his tenacity.

On the other hand, anyone who seems to genuinely not understand how building this mosque at Ground Zero is insensitive…

…well, there’s no real discussion that can be had.

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Hmmm from Newsbusters Tommy-

Appearing in the 2:00PM ET hour on MSNBC, New York Daily News reporter Samuel Goldsmith cited a poll featured on the paper’s website, about opposition to the Ground Zero mosque: “[it] shows that 70% of New Yorkers say that they think the opposition is out of hatred and religious intolerance.”

Unfortunately, Goldsmith forgot to mention that it was a completely unscientific poll that only appeared within articles on the topic and allowed people to potentially vote numerous times. The slanted poll question read: “Is opposition to the building of a mosque near Ground Zero intolerant?” The three responses offered were: “Yes, it’s pure religious bigotry against Muslims; No, you can be against because it dishonors victims of Sept. 11; Maybe, but the sensitive thing to do is to move it further from the WTC site.”

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz0x0b7fupN

CWforFreedom on August 18, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Request: Every keeps claim that those who are opposing the building of the center/mosque have been called racist.

Please show any statement in which some one has called opponents racist or at least implied it.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM

We were glad to answer your request.

Any other questions?

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 8:56 PM

I think the answer is to confess!

For example, take this post by Scott Johnson at Powerline.

Or, take this recent Iowahawk tweet, for example:

Dear @SpeakerPelosi: I am opposed to Park51. My funding is provided by the Botox Corporation.

iowahawkblog
David Burge

Offers a whole new wrinkle on the funding controversy, no!

Remember this? “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” S. Alinsky.

Ask Nan how it feels!

Trochilus on August 18, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Several others are doing it as well . . . and only a few are over the top.

Trochilus on August 18, 2010 at 9:16 PM

I think this Ground Zero “opposition” is merely another flavor of crap sandwich for these guys. Healthcare was a huge crap sandwich and all of us were forcefed that one (and considered by Nan et al. as just uninformed nabobs as a result). Now this mosque thing is just more of the same. Any opposition to these tyrants and we should be investigated, derided and what’s next? ….yeesh…

ted c on August 18, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Who is funding Nancy Pelosi??

TN Mom on August 18, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Request: Every keeps claim that those who are opposing the building of the center/mosque have been called racist.

Please show any statement in which some one has called opponents racist or at least implied it.

Tom_Shipley on August 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Even though you haven’t thanked us yet for answering your question, I thought I’d give you one more example (emphasis mine):

“I’ve seen a lot of the comments about this and a lot of it is silly that I’m agreeing with Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich,” Dean said in response to the criticism. “That’s just silly. I don’t believe in race baiting…”

Religious_Zealot on August 18, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6