Gingrich compares NYC Islamic community center to "Nazis" putting a "sign next to the Holocaust museum"
August 16, 2010 8:36 am ET
From the August 16 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
On second thought, why am I trying to come up with a common-sense analogy to offset the idiocy of Gingrich?
Plus, as you will likely be running for POTUS next year it's nice to know your loathing for the First Amendment in advance.
really believe in the sanctity of the Constitution they claim to defend. I don't believe the framers of that great document included any buts in it. Newt's blatant willingness to use it as a symbol of hate and bigotry is nothing short of stunning.
That's why they spent so much time scrutinizing every word that went into the Bill of Rights so there would be no room for radical interpretations. Thus, we have Gingrich and his crew of racist fear-mongers (e.g. Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, King, Conyers, Liz Cheney, etc).
This in particular really shows the level at which the Repubs are willing to take their bigotry. Shall we ask for example: If a person wanted to build a Christian church in Afghanistan and the Afghans called it a victory dance over the graves of dead Afghanis and told him to build it elsewhere, would we not be offended?
All this right wing claptrap can be summed up on one sentence: "The Constitution Sucks because it gives people so many freedoms we find distasteful!"
Or perhaps two: "The Constitution would be much improved if it were altered to give these freedoms to only certain people, and deny them from others, which is what the founders intended in the first place."
I have arrived at this conclusion using Republican standards that Newt himself helped to shape.
Here they are always screaming about the Constitution.
And this proves--if there was ever any doubt--they don't even know what the Constitution says.
Conservatism is a joke.
The only thing that would be better is if you could photoshop or edit in a little crown on the toad's head, along with a little GOP button or something.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=08&year=2010&base_name=rejecting_the_strategy_that_ke
Maybe the Holocaust museum will choose the Nazi sign over a political sign for YOU. They may realize a Con like you is active while the Nazis' are insignificant. Really Newt, you are more dangerous to America than the Nazis'.
Everyone realizes you wish to ruin the Constitution, except the dummies that follow Fox News.
I know, the premise is outlandish but.....
I wrote a letter to the editor to my local paper. They published Cal Thomas' article about how we should stop the building of mosques in the United States.
You should see some of the bigoted, and some sensible, responses to my article online.
I just can't beleive they published my article.
Pilot Online
I'd give him 75 yards before the dogs caught him, perhaps 76 if he had a Red Bull beforehand.
Just to give the dogs some extra incentive?
I'm proud of you, tman!
I clicked on the link and read your letter -- which was very good -- and all the responses . . . I love how people who have never studied Islam, or probably ever MET anyone who's Muslim, can profess to speak on an entire religion . . .
BTW, I spent the better part of the '90s stationed in Hampton Roads; sad to say, some of the comments don't surprise me: the area has a heavy military concentration {like where I am now, the San Diego area} -- and with that, there's seemingly always a element of extreme rightwingnut opinionism . . .
Not just with those who support terrorism.
Thanks for clearing that up you dried up old whore.
King is perpetrating the LIE that "parts of the planes" from 9/11 were found in this building, therefore the BUILDING is "hallowed ground".
This is utter RUBBISH!
To which Rep.Jerry Nader reminded him, that there's a mosque in the Pentagon .
The Pentagon was attacked on 9/11, so by those standards the Pentagon is "hallowed ground", but King and the rest of the GOBP never complain about that or the other 2 "mosques" in the area.
Interfaith Leaders Stand with Cordoba House, Denounce Hateful Rhetoric
As Catholic, evangelical, mainline Protestant, Jewish and Muslim leaders and scholars committed to religious freedom and inter-religious cooperation, we are deeply troubled by the xenophobia and religious bigotry that has characterized some of the opposition to a proposed Islamic center and mosque near where the World Trade Center towers once stood.
Fox News has aired a steady stream of irresponsible commentary and biased coverage that reduces what should be a civil debate into starkly combative terms.
Mr. Gingrich, Ms. Palin and other prominent voices privileged to have the ear of the media would make a more lasting contribution to our nation if they stopped issuing inflammatory statements.
Fear-mongering and hateful rhetoric only undermine treasured values at the heart of diverse faith traditions and our nation's highest ideals.
Please sign the "Faithful America" petition against anti-Muslim propaganda and for religious freedom and tolerance
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2518/action/supporting_muslims
Wrong. The Pentagon has a prayer room where Muslims can pray.
Not that facts would ever enter into the discussions here. For example, how many on this thread have said conservatives (like Newt) are against the Constitution? We agree with Muslims having the RIGHT (as it says in the Constitution) to build a mosque wherever they want. We just don't think it is WISE (as Obama said yesterday) for them to build one so close to where 3,000 Americans were murdered. Why can't you liberals see this distinction? Why do so many of you continue to say we are against the Constitution? Frankly I am quite surprised by your ignorance on this.
Also, so nice to read so many compassionate posts from you all. I really liked the dogs attacking Newt ones. So much class here on this Board.
You probably missed it but there are 2 mosques mere steps away (as Ms Palin said-of course by her reasoning, Russia is mere steps away from Alaska, so there's that) from the site of the WTC attack.
Two Mosques Have Firm Roots
We're agreed that the backers have the right to build there so the question is should they? There are only 2 answers and if you think not, it doesn't mean those who think so are Nazis or any other rhetorical slur spouted by the immoral (oh yes,he is, no doubt there) Newt (I support heterosexual marriage-as often as possible) Gingrich.
Nor are those who say yes Quislings or Petains or any other historical turncoat, say like Ben Franklin's son.
Wrong.. it was the World Trade Center, not the American Trade Center. Victims came from various countries, not just the USA.
Also, the Community Center is essentially equivalent to a YMCA... with various sports and educational areas. Would you say a Catholic School with a chapel is a "church"?
Are all those chauvinistic bumpkins trumpeting their cardboard cutout patriotism and proxy wounded dignity aware that their notion that the U.S.A. is the only nation on the planet and that the rest of us are of no consequence other than to be used by you is deeply offensive to other nationalities?
That is why people fly planes into buildings and set off bombs at U.S. targets.
Don't bleat about insensitivity until you develop some sensitivity of your own.
It was not my intention to slight any other country's loss of their countrymen. My apologizes to those I have offended.
BTW, I hear Harry Reid now says the mosque should not be built by the WTC.
2BTW, Sara Palin never said she could see Russia from her front door step. This is a leftist propaganda lie.
BTW, we know that Simple Sarah said you can see Russia from Alaska and not her house, it was a joke by Tina Fey (who saved America). Thanks for the info, let me know when you find out water is wet and think no one else knows this. I love it when people learn things and think they have the Rosetta Stone or something.
He is an equal opportunity offender.
He doesn't mind trashing the Constitution, alienating peaceful Muslims, or insulting Jewish persons.
I didn't mention other groups he has insulted because he's already finished that job.
And to think that many on the right bypass Gingrich and Palin and identify President Obama as being the primary cause of divisiveness in this country is truly amazing when the president has attacked no one.
On another note but related when Ronald Reagan visited the cemetary that also contained the remains of NAZI SS soldiers was he also paying tribute to them...The hyprocrisy in logic here is blinding.
Its also complicated by the fact that these jihadists have been able to blend in with the rest of society and pass as any other person, let alone any other Muslim or Arab. Heck, not even all of them have been Arab.
Here's the point: this isolated group is unlike any we've ever seen. You can't blame all Muslims, but you can say it is only Muslims who do these things. We are in a bit of a bind, because we clearly cannot, and should not, blame all Muslims. But then what? Backing off won't appease the jihadists. They want us gone, or to submit to them, no matter what we do.
I am not suggesting the answer--because I don't know the optimum answer-- only raising the questions.
Oh, and on a different note, I can say in full confidence that inferring that Reagan was paying tribte the Nazis is not necessarily true, and that even if it were, I think the hommage to men fighting fairly and honorably under orders is a far cry different than what the terrorists do.
Now, I also understand we've had our own moments of domestic terror, Bill Ayers comes to mind along with the unibomber, but its pretty clear that only Muslims were flying the planes that hit the towers and the Pentagon. Its also clear that a distinct pattern has emerged that suggests it is indeed Muslims who is in question here.
Now, what country did the Russians invade and have the US support the insurgents? How much aid, weapons and training did we give the Afghans right up until 1989? How much aid after that (see George Crile's book or the movie if you're pressed for time)?
US Christian groups have proselytized in Muslim countries since there has been a US (see Michael Oren's book). To not very much effect.
But this is different. They are here, they are free and they can do what they want providing they conform to local property regulations. So, despite your attempt at "rational" you seem to have an irrational approach to the backers of the mosque in question. Were they behind the WTC attack? The one at the Pentagon? Funding, weapons, aid? I mean, other than your seeming inchoate fear of all Muslims, I don;t see the rational part of your conservatism. Just the nativist part.
What Muslim nation has invaded us? That's kind of irrelevant, since once can wage war without invading. This war is about terror, aka fear. They don't have to invade to get what they want-- they can intimidate. This is a far cry from even 30/40 years ago.
I agree that the way we handled this area in the previous century has proven a mistake. There's a lot to this thought, but ultimately it does not change the present truth-- there is a group that wants us utterly destroyed. We can play the guilt game, or we can stand up to them.
These people are here, yes, but as I have written at length elsewhere, I, personally, approach the question from a different starting point than you. I approach the issue from the aspect of what this group SHOULD do, not what they can or cannot do. It becomes an entirely different question when viewed from that vantage point because you must also ask what it is this facility is intended to do, what the objections are about, and what alternatives are available that help meet the objectives. BTW, I understand the objectives of this facility are for it to be a place for peoples of all cultures and ideas come together in a meaningful way, and in a sense to find some sort of reconcilliation among cultures.
The starting point I propose also leads to different answers.
Should we slap all sorts of restriction on Hindus, particularly Tamils, because they may be suicide bombers?
I would hazard a guess that every religion has its fair share of homicidal nutters quite willing to pervert that religion to suit their own purposes. Is that a justification to suppress all religions?
Failure to see past xenophobic stereotypes will only serve to inflame the tensions that already exist.
The other questions you ask are pretty simply answered with a no, and your last statement I would agree with. I would, though, suggest that failure to 'connect the dots' leaads to trouble.
Well, here's a newsflash: THEY ARE THE COMMUNITY. That's why they're BUILDING A COMMUNITY CENTER.
You guys on MMFA are right. You have every right to spew whatever kind of nonsense you want, and we are free to comment on it.
What about the millions of Americans who were deeply affected by 9/11/01? Do they not matter?
Talk about being a schmuck...!