Free Markets, Free People

Pelosi wants an investigation into mosque foes

It was as inevitable as the sun rising in the east – some politician at a national level was going to call for an investigation into one side or the other of the Ground Zero Mosque debacle.

Unsurprisingly, it was Nancy Pelosi and equally unsurprising, she wants the opposition investigated:

"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And 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 that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City."

That’s right, Ms. Pelosi – it’s a local problem and the sum of your answer should have been, “that’s a local problem for the citizens of New York to sort out”.  Period.  End of statement.

But she couldn’t leave it there.  Oh, no – she has to “join” others calling for an investigation “into how this opposition to the mosque is being funded.”

Really?  Have they broken any laws?  Have they done anything other than voice their displeasure about the proposed project?  Aren’t they attempting, by mostly social pressure, to change the minds of those who want to build the mosque near what they consider hallowed ground?  If this were a union protesting, would you be eager to look into their funding?

Who and how they are funded isn’t any of your business, Madam Speaker.  And throwing that sort of rhetoric around is simply an act of attempted political intimidation.  While I may disagree with some who protest, I back their right to do so to the hilt.  It is as much “political speech” as most of the pap the Speaker of the House spews forth on a daily basis.

Why these national politicians feel the need to weigh in on this (on both sides) only reflects the apparent common assumption among all politicians that everything is a freakin’ national political issue. There are very real, important and weighty issues that deserve the time and the debate much more than this stupidity.

And, just as I agree that those who want to build the mosque have every right to do so where they choose if they own the property, I also agree that those who find it inappropriate and an “in your face” move by members of the Islamic faith have every right, within the law, to protest that decision and attempt to persuade the builders to abandon the project.

As long as the protesters fulfill their legal obligations as they protest, Madam Speaker, the issue is none of your or any other national politician’s business.  And threatening them with “investigations” only goes to point out how casually thugish our national government has become.



[tweetmeme only_single=”false”]

72 Responses to Pelosi wants an investigation into mosque foes

  • The Botox has migrated to Nannie’s “brain”.  She’s gone into full “Waxman Mode”.
    But, McQ, the Cordoba House is not a local problem.  That was silly, and obviously not true.

    • Politically and legally it certainly is.

    • Legally it is (up to a point…that point being where any Islamist connections are made).  Politically it certainly is NOT.  Not according to my use of the term “politically”.

      • Really? Then tell me, politically, what business Nancy Peolsi has in the debate.

        • In the debate?  Nannie has the same business any of us have, I guess.  Would you disagree?
          In promoting an investigation into mosque opposition?  That is just demi-tyranny.

          • An opinion isn’t “politics”. It is an opinion. Politics is about doing things. In this case it includes calling for an investigation, or other such intrusion. So again, politically, what business does Nancy Pelosi have in this kerfuffle.

          • McQ, I sometimes use words differently than you do.
            5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view <office politics> <ethnic politics>
            That was the context of my use of “politics”…kind of in line with “polity”.  I was not using it in the “power” context.  If you use the “political power” application as to Nannie, I agree.  Still, this is a political question, as I use and used that term.  Most social issues are, don’t you agree?

          • No. Many “social issues” are none of the “polity’s” business.

          • So, your position is that social issues are not the business of “the total complex of relations between people living in society”?
            Hmmm….  I could agree that many personal issues are not…  But you’d have to help me with your formulation…

          • Ragspierre: McQ’s generally pretty good, but I think he’s nitpicking here.

          • Many social issues – in fact most – are none of anyone else’s business. As for those that are, they should mostly be left to the local communities to decide – not national politicians. That was how this government was originally set up to function, if you recall.

          • You are gtoing to have to define ‘social’.

          • Oh, I DO recall, and often write about Federalism, as I know you know.
            Still, while we agree that national government has no business in many matters, national politicians…as citizens…would always have a right to express an opinion.
            I can’t think of a “social issue”…especially most…that are nobody’s business.  You’ll need to help me with this, McQ.  I’m not being obdurate…I just haven’t a clue what you are talking about.

          • I guess it all boils down to your definition of the function of a national government. I see it as an entity designed to mainly protect us from force and fraud. No where in those functions does “arbitrarily decide which side is right on social issues and enact laws to enforce that”. The founders pretty much used that model as their design for national government. Unless, of course, you can point to where in that document they decided it was Washington’s job to decide social issues or community problems, I stand by my point.

            That said, opinion isn’t the crux of the point – everyone is welcome to their opinion. It’s when threats are made or implied in cases like the GZM that national politicians step over the line and enter into an area that they have no business.

        • For her to express an opinion on this IS political. Expressing an opinon is pretty much the extent of her say in this, or should be. That said, it was a stupid move politically for her to open her yap on this issue.

        • Seems to me that the 9/11 attack wasn’t just an attack on a bunch of individuals and businesses and wasn’t  just an attack on New Yorkers.  It was first and foremost an attack on Americans and American territory & people who deal with America.
          So if an issue with 9/11 overtones comes up, its not undue for national politics to at least consider whether or not it has a place on the issue.

          • Right.  It was  a very calculated attack on our culture and way of life.  We seem to have forgotten…even here…how successful it was.
            It was aimed at the places it was to impose maximum damage on our economy and our ability to fight.
            Our response was not a “local” NYC matter, either.  How odd that anyone would suggest this is a “local zoning matter” as did Pelosi…and others who ought to know better.

  • Well, God must be smiling today.
    Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama’s rescue
    This solves about everything.

  • Pelosi should investigate a private sector job and not subject us to her parasitic existance.

  • “Are you serious?  Are you serious?” – I think that quote says it all about the powers to do anything at all this woman thinks has been given to her by her constituents from San Fransisco California – the rest of the country be damned.
    The sooner she is removed from that position of power, the safer we all are.  They can continue to elect her to represent them (she’s probably a good representation of her constituency too) , but removing her as Speaker is an absolute necessity.

  • The Cordoba House developers refuse to meet with Governor Paterson.
    I thought this was all about opening a “dialogue”.

      • Yeah, what was the chance of them deciding to be neighborly and backing down.
        ZERO.  I guess the muezzin can hope the Fajr will waken the winos and street people sleeping on the grates, since that’s about the only people in that district who will hear a morning call to prayer.
        But remember Rags, we’re the ones being intolerant, we’re the ones being unreasonable, we’re the ones who need to be investigated for God knows what reason.

  • The weird thing is that she makes a response to the questions about the mosque that was bound to create additional controversy (and thus more attention) and then complains that it wasn’t the best time to be asking questions about it.  Why not just dismiss the issue and ask that they remain on topic (so to speak) instead of tossing fuel on the fire and wondering why it’s gotten so warm all of a sudden?

  • Well said McQ! Exactly on target.—–CONEY

  • I think the Cordoba House should be built at the contentious location only if there is a “Welcome All Jews” sign out front.

  • Those like Obama and Pelosi who adopt a holier-than-thou pose that they are defending freedom of religion in the mosque controversy had better be prepared as fervently to defend freedom of speech if the mosque is built, and it is picketed nonstop with cartoons of Mohammed and pictures of the WTC in flames.

    If built, that mosque will become ground zero in the free world for opposition to jihad. It will not be pretty. There will be dialog, but not what the mosque builders imagine. There will be freedom of speech, but not what Obama and Pelosi will support.

    • Those supporing it in fact are doing to get in our face. Protests will be presented to show our “intolerance”. If they don’t get the protests, they will have to engage in further provacation.

      • Sure, but that doesn’t mean they’ve calculated correctly. Bin Laden attacked the WTC to get in our face. It didn’t work out so well for him.

        I think we are seeing the collapse of the “What will they say about us? Why do they hate us? What if they say call us racists?” meme.  After a while it becomes an empty threat.

        Besides such protests would be more of a communication to rally the rest of America and the West. In the case of the GZM, the leftist/elite response that “we must be sensitive to Muslim sensitivities” would fall flat because of the mosque proves that Muslims care not a whit  for anyone else’s sensitivities.

        • Sure, but that doesn’t mean they’ve calculated correctly. Bin Laden attacked the WTC to get in our face. It didn’t work out so well for him.

          His ultimate goal, besides “punishing the infidels”, was to increase the influence of his group and their allies over the Muslim world.  I think he succeeded in the latter.  US and allied troops are being used to “retake” places, which frequently resort back to Taliban control once they leave.  Any successes in Afghanistan comes at a high price (in human lives and US taxpayer dollars), especially since it is so often fleeting.
          As far as succeeding in “punishing the infidels,” I think many Al Qaeda/Taliban types and their fanboys regard 9/11, Bali, 7/7 London, et al. to be rousing successes.  Thousands killed, tens of millions wetting their pants in terror, governments overreacting and becoming less popular by suppressing their own populations’ freedoms.
          Maybe Osama expected something bigger (more widespread devastating terrorist incidents) and faster defeats of the foreign invaders (a la the USSR), but I have to think he’s got to be pretty happy right now…if he is actually alive.

  • Next up, I expect to hear …

    We have to build the mosque so we can see what is inside it.

    • The “conservative” Parker wrote in the WaPo that we should build it because we don’t want to…or something.  The spinach rationale…

  • Back in 2004 Steven Den Beste was writing some of the best commentary on the current collision of Islam with the West. He said it could not be explained in terms of two sides, but required at least three. He called these sides: Islamism, empiricism, and p-idealism.

    Den Beste wasn’t happy with any of these terms. Islamism is imperfect but clear enough. By the other two he meant engineering/free-market Westerners on one hand and leftist/academic/elite types on the other.  According to Den Beste, Islamists and p-idealists are instinctively making common cause against empiricists.

    That’s why we keep having these odd disconnects where Obama, ostensibly the President of the United States, sides with Muslims, Europeans, and leftist thugs against the American Right who he seems to consider his real enemy. As well as feminsts and gays sides with Palestinians against Israel, while ignoring the treatment of women and gays in the Muslim world. Etc., etc.
    See . It’s still a good read.
    I do miss Steven Den Beste.

  • This just in on the other half of the Congressional bobal heads …

    • Williams claimed that on two occasions he delivered to Reid at least $10,000 in cash from Mustang Ranch owner Joe Conforte as early as 1970, during Reid’s lieutenant governor campaign. The lie detection test, dated May 30, confirms the veracity of Williams’ statements that Reid built part of his campaign war chest with his ties to Conforte.

  • Those supporting the mosque or opposing the opposition to it are backing a lose-lose proposition. Their best hope is that the mosque builders quietly back down and build somewhere else, if they build at all.

    • Tell you what, we really do owe the builders a thank you note.  Because we’re FINALLY seeing people start to get fed up with not only the 1-way nature of our “dialogue” with Islam, but also with the reflexive attitude of the holier-than-thous so quick to denigrate opposition to anything mylti-culti.

      This one Mosque is worth 15, maybe 20 provocations in terms of speeding along the process of large-scale pushback. 

      • I agree. I think this is classic over-reach on the part of these Muslims and our elites that is opening American eyes and stiffening American resolve against what Andrew McCarthy calls, “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.”

  • The blogosphere is hyperactive with Ground Zero Mosque posts.  It’s impossible for one person to keep up with them (I’ve tried!).  If you use <i>Google Blog Search</i> for ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ set to the last hour, they come up faster than you can comment on them.

    Most of the posts seem to be against the Victory Mosque, but many of these bloggers are working on gut feel only, and are obviously not Islamically Aware, being confused about the true nature of Islam and regarding it as just another religion.  

    If we counterjihadists all spent an hour a day commenting on recent posts and pointing the bloggers in the right direction, then we could do a great educational job.  You can find links to resources <a href=”

  • Over at NRO Victor Davis Hanson offers a sparkling piece on “‘The Cynical Brilliance of Imam Rauf” with the subhead: “There are thousands of sites where the imam could locate his monument to interfaith tolerance. But away from Ground Zero, the irony would be lost.”

    As always VDH is a worth a read. Nonetheless, I wonder if Imam Rauf has been too clever by half. It looks more likely that the GZ Mosque will boomerang on Democrats and American Muslims. Some of them realize it and are speaking out against the GZM.

    But if Rauf’s ultimate desire was to stir the pot and get everyone angry, while calling it “Improving Muslim-West Relations”, then Rauf is an artist and a master.

  • Now it looks like Nancy Pelosi will  have to investigate Howard Dean who has come out advising against the GZM.

    Surely Democratic fratricide is not in Obama’s, Pelosi’s or Rauf’s interests, especially against the backdrop of the upcoming midterm elections.

    Yet here we are. Well played!

  • I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded…

    Possibly she can get JaNo to issue a DHS report branding opponents as potential terrorism threats.  It would be typical for the regime.

  • I see it as an entity designed to mainly protect us from force and fraud. No where in those functions does “arbitrarily decide which side is right on social issues and enact laws to enforce that”.

    And I KIND OF agree with that…especially with that “mainly” qualifier.  I also KIND OF disagree with your use of “arbitrarily decide” as respects a democratic process, or even a GOOD court ruling.
    The Commerce Clause was PRECISELY intended to give the Feds the ability to intervene in commercially-rooted problems between the states (AOT).  I dunno if those fit your “social issues” definition, partly because I have not idea what that is yet.
    The General Welfare power was ALSO intended to go beyond our AGREED “MAINLY” functions of the Federal government.  I think it was intended to allow MOSTLY for infrastructure development, based on history.  It certainly never was intended to have the expansive meaning tortured out of it by modern Collectivists.
    But, McQ, please…just give me an example of a “social issue” that you think is nobody’s business.  That would help.

    • Gay marriage.

      Who someone else marries doesn’t violate a single right of yours.


      People should be perfectly free to discriminate against whomever they wish – and pay the social (and business) consequences.