Thursday, August 19, 2010

Bigotry

“Have you no sense of decency... at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?“ Those who read this may or may not remember that these were the words spoken by the Special Counsel for the Army, Joseph N. Welch, in addressing Republican Senator, Joseph McCarthy. It led to his censure by the Senate and ultimately to the end of his career. The same words apply to the whole Republican Party today.

Only three months have passed since I wrote my “Swan Song.” I did not expect to return to the fray so soon, if ever.

But the latest outrage of the Republicans rankles so much, and tells us so much about that party, that I feel I am compelled to speak.

I know that in our society, it is the custom, to pretend that there is good and bad in both parties and that must be true. But increasingly, while I can find some warts in the Democratic Party, I have increasing difficulty in finding any redeeming qualities in that other party. In vain, I look for any voices of reason, any voices taking exception to the torrent of intolerance, hate, and lies that emanates from that flock of people. It just isn’t there.

Their constant modus operandi, and I have to admit it is good politics, is to appeal to fear, intolerance, and xenophobia. If there are any decent people left in that party, why don’t they speak out, why do they jump on the bandwagon and join the chorus.

Ever since 9/11 their surrogates, in the guise of the Heritage foundation, and others, have been trying to whip up hatred of Muslims. But until now the Republican Party has not joined in. In fact G.W. Bush urged that Muslims as a group or as a religion should not be blamed for the events of 9/11. But increasingly we have been hearing and reading, the question, “If Muslims are so opposed to terrorism, why don’t they speak out.”

But in fact, they have been speaking out, only our media doesn’t report it. According to Fareed Zakaria writing in Newsweek:

“In 2007 one of bin Laden's most prominent Saudi mentors, the preacher and scholar Salman al-Odah, wrote an open letter criticizing him for "fostering a culture of suicide bombings that has caused bloodshed and suffering, and brought ruin to entire Muslim communities and families." That same year Abdulaziz al ash-Sheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudis from engaging in jihad abroad and accused both bin Laden and Arab regimes of "transforming our youth into walking bombs to accomplish their own political and military aims." One of Al Qaeda's own top theorists, Abdul-Aziz el-Sherif, renounced its extremism, including the killing of civilians and the choosing of targets based on religion and nationality. Sherif—a longtime associate of Zawahiri who crafted what became known as Al Qaeda's guide to jihad—has called on militants to desist from terrorism, and authored a rebuttal of his former cohorts.

"Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the oldest and most prestigious school of Islamic learning, now routinely condemns jihadism. The Darul Uloom Deoband movement in India, home to the original radicalism that influenced Al Qaeda, has inveighed against suicide bombing since 2008. None of these groups or people have become pro-American or liberal, but they have become anti-jihadist.

“This might seem like an esoteric debate. But consider: the most important moderates to denounce militants have been the families of radicals. In the case of both the five young American Muslims from Virginia arrested in Pakistan last year and Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, parents were the ones to report their worries about their own children to the U.S. government—an act so stunning that it requires far more examination, and praise, than it has gotten."


But with every year that passes the Republicans use fear, xenophobia, and intolerance as weapons in pursuing their political and electoral objectives.

Now along comes an Imam who has spoken out again and again against terrorism and has sought dialogue with Christians and Jews. He has found an old building in lower Manhattan that is suitable for conversion and can be purchased at reasonable cost. And he wants to create a venue modeled after the YMCA, or the Young Men's and Young Women's Hebrew Association also known as the 92nd Street Y, which would be open to people of all faith. He aught to be applauded. But it is an opportunity to exploit the latent prejudice against all Muslims. And so the former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingridge, and a likely candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination, said, it “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust museum." Thus he equates all Muslims with the Nazis. Richard Cohen writing in the Washington Post, points out, “ Nineteen so-called ’jihadists’ crashed four airplanes that day in 2001. This is 19 out of about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, an infinitesimally tiny percentage indeed. And Gingrich goes on to say, “ there are no churches or synogogues (sic) in Saudi Arabia“ as though that is in any way relevant and rather ironic, since the Imam is extremely critical of Saudi Arabia and its form of Islam, Wahhabism.

But it doesn’t stop there. First they ranted about the proposed Center being two blocks from “Ground Zero“ then it became in the “Shadow of Ground Zero“ and finally Rick Lazio the Republican candidate for Governor of NY referred to it as “Ground Zero is the wrong place for a mosque”. See the transcript of PBS’ Newshour. It seems to have mysteriously moved. And then he goes on to imply that the center is being financed by terrorist groups and calls for an investigation as to where the financing is coming from. Would Mr. Lazio ask for an investigation of where the financing is coming from for a synagogue or a church? It is smear by innuendo. Then Mr. Lazio resorts to the fear factor. “The question here is really whether or not we should feel -- feel safe” Does he truly believe that the center is going to attack us?

And along comes Charles Krauthammer, that voice of the Right and the GOP who compares the Muslim Cultural Center to putting a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor." To which Richard Cohen correctly points out, “But all of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and declared war on the United States. It was not a rogue act, committed by 20 or so crazed samurai, but an attack by a nation.“

But it gets worse! Krauthammer now goes on to smear the Imam. “This is a man who has called U.S. policy "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11. Talk about taking a quote out of context. What Imam Faisal Abdur Rauf was talking about was that “after the Soviets pulled out, the Saudis, our best friends in the Arab world, our staunchest ally during the Gulf War, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the newly-formed Taleban regime, and then felt that bin Laden and the Taliban were out of control. Bin Laden's faith is a strict, puritanical form of Islam called Washbasin, (sic) which was founded in the 18th century in Saudi Arabia, and is now that country's predominant ideology.“

He is critical of our close alliance with Saudi Arabia, which exports Wahhabism and feels that this is the form of Islam that creates terrorism and the US should not condone it.

I would suggest that many Americans of all faiths would agree with this and it hardly shows either that he is anti-American or that he holds sympathy to terrorists. Just the opposite.

But any distortion – any lie, in the cause of the smear and the feeding of a frenzy of intolerance.

And then along comes Abraham Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, and he gives cover to bigots and hate mongers with, "In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right." First of all no one knows how many “victims“ (presumably they mean the relatives of the victims) object to the Cultural Center (it may be a minority); and secondly, and most important, bigotry is not the right of anyone, whether victim or oppressor.

And what about the Muslim victims of 9/11 and beyond. The Daily Kos observes:

“According to one count over 60 Muslims died as a result of the 9/11 attack. But, evidently, in the RW mind those deaths do not count. Their death does not make Ground Zero hallowed ground, because, if they did, what would be the grounds for the uproar over the Islamic Center? Would anyone give it a second thought if a Jewish or Catholic community center was built where the Islamic center is planned?

“So...I am led to the conviction that this issue has nothing to do with real estate -- who builds what where -- but with the value of a human life and it seems that the right wing, the former party of family values, has decided that the life of an AMERICAN MUSLIMS and, by extension Muslim families, have no value.

“ If that is not sedition, will someone please explain it to me.“


Jannah.org estimates the number of Muslim victims at 500 to a 1000 and gives names not only of those victims but of Muslim victims of hate crimes.
And about.com tells the story of Salman Hamdani and other Muslims of which I quote only one:

“Imagine being the family of Salman Hamdani. The 23-year-old New York City police cadet was a part-time ambulance driver, incoming medical student, and devout Muslim. When he disappeared on September 11, law enforcement officials came to his family, seeking him for questioning in relation to the terrorist attacks. They allegedly believed he was somehow involved. His whereabouts were undetermined for over six months, until his remains were finally identified. He was found near the North Tower, with his EMT medical bag beside him, presumably doing everything he could to help those in need. His family could finally rest, knowing that he died the hero they always knew him to be.“


Why do we dishonor them?

In the words of Mayor Bloomberg:

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

"For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

"On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, 'What God do you pray to?' (Bloomberg's voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) 'What beliefs do you hold?'


Republicans have clearly decided that fanning the public's fears of rampant jihadism and prejudice against Muslims continues to be a winning strategy.

27 comments:

Janet Cooke of Philadelphia, Pensylvania said...

I'm glad you didn't wait too long to return. It's good to have your thoughts in the conversation again!

Robert Malchman of Brooklyn, NY said...

I agree wholeheartedly. This link http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/ is to the best, brief summary of why opposition to the Center is absurd.
I think one needs to go a step further, though, to address the people who say, "Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it." That is certainly true. Just because I have the right to burn an American flag on the Fourth of July doesn't mean I should. But the Islamic Cultural Center should be built. What better way of affirming America's values than to say,"Islam did not attack us. Criminals hiding behind a sorry excuse of Islam did." If this project is somehow stopped -- even by the builders choosing simply to move it somewhere else -- then the terrorists really will have won.
I am sorry for the families and friends of the victims of the attacks if this project hurts their feelings. But I think those hurt feelings emanate from a misunderstanding about who murdered their loved ones. It was not the people who want to build this Center; it was fascists who seek to polarize, divide and create war between people of different faiths. I hope the Center will be built, and I hope the people who are bothered by that fact come to see why they should not be.

Pam Tiza said...

Good to have you back, and on such a great subject. Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and maybe we would like a mosque someplace else, but we have NO reason to deny peaceful religious people the right to worship where they choose. It is imperative that we remember that it was not 'moslems:' that attacked the Trade Center but rogue elements of that religion. 'They even killed some of their own members!!!"

Arlene Linetzki of Newton, NJ said...

You are a passionate and articulate man.. and is speaking from the head and heart too. May peace be within and without, shalom ...salaam,
peace, may tolerance and love prevail.

Janise Townsend of Manhattan, N.Y. said...

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's speech at Daniel Pearl's memorial at B'nai Jeshurun: http://www.bj.org/wp-content/uploa/2010//daniel_pearl_memorial.pdf
(He's the man who heads the potential Muslim Center in Lower Manhattan.)"

Robert Aten of Alexandria, Virginia said...

I was surprised to hear from you again. Thanks. No problem with what you say.
However, it is the independent voters who are leaving us. I doubt that your paper will reach them.
Maybe you should look for a broader circulation of your work in this case.
But of course it is almost election time, and that makes our politics a little crazy

Bruno Lederer of Stamford, Conn. said...

What I find really sad, is not what the Republicans have been saying about this, but, if the polls are correct, how this is still a bigoted population, as illustrated by the opposition to the Center, the attitude towards Mexican immigration, among
other things. By misrepresenting the location of the Center, the Republicans are merely stoking the fire. The Anti-Defamation League
should certainly know better and their comments are inexcusable. If I were a member, which I am not, I would resign.

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

Bruno Lederer hits the nail on the head when he writes, "this is still a bigoted population". Of course it is! But in fairness to this nation it must be noted that this is unfortunately true to a large extent of many populations. France, at this moment, is busy deporting Roma (colloquially known as gypsies) most likely in violation of EU open border regulations, but it is Sarkozy's desire to try to curry favor with his Right at a time when his political fortunes are on the wane.
See: http://thetvrealist.com/gossip/Sarkozy-Finds-a-Scapegoat-France-Begins-Controversial-Roma-Deportations-3330334.html
As long ago 2004 France passed a law that bans wearing conspicuous religious symbols in French public (i.e. government-operated) primary and secondary schools. While it did not specifically mention Muslims, Wikepedia comments: "The law does not mention any particular symbol, though it is considered by many to specifically target the wearing of headscarves (a khimar, considered by some to be required as part of hijab ["modesty"]) by Muslim schoolgirls. For this reason, it is occasionally referred to as the French headscarf ban in the foreign press." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools
This seems to be a rather stupid law for it prevents Muslim girls (not boys) from attending public schools, which works against assimilation, something the French ostensibly are trying to achieve.
And of course Hitler used the latent German anti-Semitism to propel himself to power.
Xenophobia is, and I am afraid always will be, a potent force. People are quick to be hostile to anything, and anyone, who they
perceive to be different from themselves, whether that is Gays, Hispanics, or Muslims. Not so long ago it included Catholics in the U.S., not to mention Jews, who suffered through periods of anti-Semitism in the U.S. The US has always been schizophrenic about immigrants; on the one hand it is the country that has accepted more immigrants than any other in the world, and on the other has had all kinds of Exclusion Acts as panic periodically spread over new immigrant groups. Contrast that with Japan who oppose all immigration and want to keep the
purity of their race. The tragedy and the outrage is that political leaders are willing to use such latent prejudices for narrow political advantage.
Of course, as we can see here, they are quick to disclaim any prejudice, and so they protest that they are not against Muslims or all Mosques, only this one. But the phoniness of this is quickly exposed when, e.g. Gingridge compares Muslims to Nazis, and others, such as Rick Lazio,
go out their way to smear the Imam of the proposed Cultural Center, who worked with the Bush Administration, and is now working with the Obama Administration, in going on diplomatic missions for the US, to preach to foreign Muslim audiences against terrorism, and as Janise Townsend points out, spoke at the funeral of the Jewish martyr, Daniel Pearl, who was killed, as all will remember, by Al Quaeda.
But in this case their actions are even more irresponsible, for as Frank Rich in the NY Times points out, they are reinforcing the
playbook of Al Quaeda who claim that this is a war between Christians and Muslims.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22rich.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=general In this context their behavior would appear help Taliban and Al Quaeda's recruitment, which amounts to to giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which by any definition, is nothing short of treason.
See also Kristoff in the Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22kristof.html?ref=columnists

Irving Lesnick of Boca Ratan, Florida said...

I thought that this one is quite correct. Our support of the jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan is as good an illustration of the danger of unintended consequences as one can find. Of course, the CIA overthrow of the Iranian republic and the installation of the Shah, which led to the current Iranian regime, and the invasion of Iraq, which greatly strengthened the current Iranian regime are close seconds.

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

Irving Lesnick' points are well taken and show the dangers of short sighted policies, though supporting the fight against the Soviet Union may have been important enough to risk later consequences. The same can't be said for the overthrow of Mosadegh and the installation of the Shah, or the invasion of Iraq. The consequences there could be foreseen, and the the consequences
far outweigh any pluses that have been, or could have been attained.

Nancy Boyman of Boca Ratan, Florida said...

If Emil Scheller is not aware of the fact that over 1,000 Israelis have been murdered since the Intafada began (despite Israel giving up the Gaza) & the fact that over 3,000 Americans were murdered on 9/11 to great cheering in Dearborn, Michigan, and that the Libyans cheered wildly when their Lockerbee killer was returned safe & sound to Libya, I think that it's grounds for even a "liberal with a death wish" like him to begin to questioning his positions.
I have a dear friend who voted for Obama. Nothing I could say about his friendships with Muslims would change her mind. HOWEVER, her sons had inherited Chrysler dealerships. They were good businesses & making money. They were closed by Obama's Chrysler Company. YOU should hear that woman now. NOW that her kids are hurt, she despises him & she even denies she voted for him. (By the way, statistical evidence clearly demonstrates that the majority of Chrysler dealerships that were closed was more dependent on the
religion, race and sex (females) of the former owners than the profitability of the closed dealerships. A law suit is on track.)
Better you should listen and hook up with Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a youngish medical doctor who served & loves his country, and wants
Muslims to publicly disavow any loyalty to:
Jihadists.@zuhdi@aifdemocracy.org - there is a web: web_list@aifdemocracy.org
Bigotry against any group is wholly unacceptable. Yet I question why the Greek Orthodox Church crushed by the south tower on 9/11 couldn't get a permit to rebuild by the same mayor who wants to build a Muslim Armory in the heart of our financial institutions.
I'D ADVISE U 2 READ THE VERY LAST CHAPTER OF "THE LION" BY NELSON DE MILLE TO SEE OUR FUTURE.

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

I find this comment by Nancy Boyman irrelevant and irrational

Nancy Boyman of Boca Ratan, Florida said...

I suggest that you go to YouTube-Muslim Ceremony-SERIOUSLY, I have no words for this! This was sent to me by a child survivor of the Holocaust.
Moreover, I think that Bush couldn't do anything right for Democrats after he "stole" the election. I just happen to recall that when I voted for JFK in 1960, I was jubilant that the dead voted early & often for JFK in Chicago. No wonder Nixon was a psychological mess!!! The election was stolen by the Chicago thugs - Mayor Daly's gang.
I think that Al Franken - who had the votes from a district where the ballots rode around in the trunk of a car for a week, AND then were counted PLUS the prisoners who's votes were counted - but were the soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, & other places counted?
He's a complete schmuck and doesn't have anything to offer the Senate.
I think tampering with votes is wholly anti-American. I personally am sick of ACORN & their chukka sticks, and Emil Scheller should be too. An active Democrat who marched with MLK, Jr. testified that ACORN scared voters in Philadelphia. Holder said no.
In Nazi Germany, in 1933 Jews voted for Hitler, because they would be beaten if they didn't vote for him. Do you want Nazi Germany again?
Totalitarians come from the right & left. Nobody is holy. No party is holy. The parties are filled with thieves, crooks, whoring men, creeps and pedophiles.
Nancy Pelosi fought for a raise in minimum wage for all employers. Good! Why was Del Monte exempted? Ask that woman why was her husband's company exempted from the law? Laws should be for all. Healthcare, social security, pensions, etc. should be passed for ALL Americans.
She's a immoral whore. Most Nancy's are straight arrows - but not Pelosi.

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

Even though I found Nancy Boyman's rants for the most part both irrelevant and irrational I wrote to her as follows:
"First allow me to compliment you. Most people in the age we live in avoid reading commentary that they disagree with. My experience is they simply ask to be taken off the distribution list. That is not the case with you. You have been receiving my commentaries for years now and have never closed your ears. That distinguishes you from so many others in a very positive way.
"However, your response is way off the mark. Let me take your points one by one.
"You say: 'If you're not aware of the fact that over 1,000 Israelis have been murdered since the Intifada began (despite Israel giving up the Gaza).'
"The Intifada in which Israel lost 1,000 people occurred in the year 2000 and ended in 2005, long before Israel withdrew its highly vulnerable settlements in Gaza. However the Palestinians lost between 3 and 4000. But in any case what possible relevance does this have on the issue of building a
Muslim Cultural Center in lower Manhattan.
"Nor do I see what relevance the death of 3,000 Americans including many Muslims being murdered by al Quaeda bears on the issue. Muslims in general and particularly Muslims who have forcefully spoken out against the jihadists are hardly to blame. The Imam in question even worked in the Bush Administration going on diplomatic missions for the US State Department.
"You say, there was great cheering in Dearborn, Michigan, after 9/11. A very few stupid kids did cheer and display banners in Dearborn. How does that form a basis for slandering the 1 to 7 million Muslims living in the U.S. or the approximately 1 billion throughout the world.
"As for the cheering in Libya they are the worst of the worst and Quadafi is a war criminal. So what does that have to do with anything.
"As for the Greek Orthodox Church - it too has nothing to do with anything. There is no bigotry involved. Nobody objects to their building anywhere, but they want to build on land owned by the Port Authority. In order to do so, like all the other builders they have to work out an arrangement with that Authority, which as all the other builders have found out is not easy.
"Finally you bring up Chrysler - the greatest irrelevancy of all. What in heavens name has that to do with the Cultural center. But I will respond in any case. If Chrysler hadn't been helped to stay alive all the dealerships would have been out of business. The way it worked out only some went out of
business and Obama had nothing to do with selecting the dealerships that were to be dissolved.
"Your second e-mail rant is even more off point, and so I will not take the time to answer it.
"Please keep an open mind and stick to the point at issue in the future instead of going off on an irrelevant rant.
I did not expect that this would change her mindset. I did expect a response that would address the points I had made. That was naive on my part. The response consisted of more ranting and while it may be unfair to tar the all the people who have shown bigotry toward Muslims with the brush of Nancy's ranting, I believe it is instructive.

Nancy Boyman of Boca Ratan, Florida said...

B 4 u write another word, please read the very last chapter of "the Lion" by Nelson deMille. It clearly proves the point I have made since 1983, when I saw the mosque alongside I-75 outside of Dearborn. I was horrified all those years ago because I was raised in Long Beach, NY, which was home
to many Mafia chieftains. They too had concrete walls with long, narrow slits. I saw this & I got nervous. My sister told me to stop being a jerk. On 9/11 she called to apologize - a similar mosque was built on the western side of I-75, but in Ohio.
Since then I have noted that many mosques are built in strategic spots - in NYC near the Triborough Bridges. In Miami in the 2nd road off I-95 going to the Miami Airport, but closer to the U of Miami major hospitals.
I fear that the Muslims will build an armory in the center of the US financial district and the heart of NYC's government,including the Police Dept. Headquarters. UNLESS u can prove me wrong, that the Muslims don't want to someday attack and control NY Harbor, the bridges and tunnels, the NY
Stock Exchange, City Hall, the Federal buildings, the gold storage facilities, I think that you bear the burden of proof since you are in favor of the Mosque.
As a note to you, when the Marines were killed in Lebanon because they were kept in a valley, we both said to each other that our cat Peanuts should have been the general. Peanuts knew without going to West Point - ALWAYS TAKE THE HIGH GROUND.
And I say to u an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cures. CAN U PROVE THAT THE MUSLIMS DON'T MEAN TO DO HARM FROM THE MOSQUE ARMORY? CAN U POSSIBLY BE WRONG? I DON'T WANT THE US OR NYC TO PAY THE PRICE FOR YOUR NAIVETE.
NO U CAN'T."

Sonya Youngblood of San Antonio, Texas said...

Again, Emil Scheller is the beacon in this hazy fog of lies and untruths regarding bigotry against Muslims. It is enlightening to read the rants of others who rely on irrational arguments based in fear. I am so pleased to see Emil is still in the saddle and sharing dialogues so we can all be a little more educated in the topics of our time on this spinning ball we call earth!

Frank Diprima of of Morristown, NJ said...

While Nancy Boyman's allegation that Kennedy stole that election from Nixon is irrelevant to the building of the Mosque it is based on the oft-repeated misconception that Daley stole the election for JFK. Kennedy was awarded 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219. A third party candidate, a neo-Dixiecrat named Harry Byrd, won 15 electoral votes. Nixon's 219 included California, which was awarded to Nixon in mid-November after the absentee votes were counted. A total of 269 were needed for a clear electoral majority to
keep the election out of the House of Representatives, where the Democrats had solid control. Illinois had 27 electoral votes. So if it flipped, Kennedy would still have had 276 electoral votes, enough to keep the election out of the House of Representatives. So Nixon would have needed another state to flip, one with at least 9 electoral votes. Texas (24 electoral votes)? It went by a solid 45,000 vote popular majority for JFK/LBJ, five times their margin in Illinois, and many challenges moved only a few dozen votes in Texas. If a lesser state with fewer electoral votes than Texas but more than nine electoral votes (Missouri?)flipped with Illinois, that would have sent the election into the House of Representatives, where the Democrats held overwhelming majorities, both in the outgoing Congress and in the incoming Congress; Kennedy would have been handily elected by the House of Representatives.
The most thorough on-line piece on this false claim that Daley stole the election is by David Greenberg at http://www.slate.com/id/91350,
titled "Was Nixon Robbed: the Legend of the Stolen 1960 Presidential Election." I guess the phenomenon of the right wing making up its own reality is not a new one, and one might want to point that out to friend Nancy, is entitled to her own opinion but not her own facts.
Emil Scheller covered the "Ground Zero Mosque" issue very well, and I would just add one observation. Timothy McVeigh was a Fundamentalist Christian, and blew up the government building in Oklahoma City in the name of his religion. Imagine telling Christians or even just Fundamentalist Christians that they could no longer build a church in Oklahoma City. How would the frantic right wing have lined up on that one?
McVeigh, by the way, was the intellectual father of the Tea Party, having claimed that his motive in blowing up the federal building is that he wanted to send the federal government a message because the federal government was becoming too powerful.

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

I wasn't going to rebut Nancy Boyman's irrelevancy's but now that Frank Diprima has done so I thought that maybe another irrelevant falsehood should not be ignored. The claim about Nancy Pelosi exempting Del Monte from the the minimum wage law is dealt with by snopes at: http://www.snopes.com/politics/pelosi/americansamoa.asp

Louise Mayo of Pittsburgh, Pensylvania said...

I am glad to see Emil back again with all the interesting (and weird) reactions by various readers. It's absolutely useless to respond to the nuttiness of the extreme right. There is no factual material that will alter their certainties. Unfortunately, they do have an impact on the perceptions of ordinary (non-crazy) people. I have been campaigning here in PA for Joe Sestak, a terrific admirable candidate with an unimpeachable record. I was amazed by some of the comments by Democratic voters. One was worried about Obama and Israel -- when I asked which of his policies they disliked, I got - "I don't know, I feel it in my gut." I think this Obama is really a Muslim constant barrage penetrates the psyche even of some people who profess not to believe that.

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

It's good to hear from Loise Mayo and to have her input. I haven't finished with the "interesting (and weird) reactions by various readers". I still have one more from someone who is a career Navy man.
I interact with extreme right not because I hope to convince them - that is most likely beyond my power - but rather for the elucidation of more open-minded readers, who I assume would find the exchanges interesting and make them aware of the mentality of that group. The weirder the arguments get, the more, I believe, they discredit themselves. It is always easier for someone or a group to discredit themselves than for someone else to discredit them.
As for Obama and Israel - this is not the crazies of the Right - though it surely includes them - but rather Jews of our generation who have formed a bond with Israel that is akin to the relationship the Communists used to have with the Soviet Union. An unquestioning adherence to the policies of the Israeli government no matter how offensive it might be, or at least should be to the liberal or even humanitarian mind. I say the Jews of our generation because recent polls of young American Jews have shown a lack of support for the State of Israel,(See:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/jun/10/failure-american-jewish-establishment/?pagination=false)
which poses more of a threat to its survival than external enemies. To this older generation Obama pressuring Israel on any issue is unacceptable. They expect American policy to be 100% supportive no matter what, and think that this has always been so. Their memory is short. They do not remember that Eisenhower threatened sanction against Israel in 1956 to force it to withdraw from the Suez Canal.
As for Obama being a Muslim that is not as crazy as it sounds and not as crazy as the Birthers campaign. The reasoning goes Obama was born to a Muslim father and under Muslim law a child takes the religion of the father, ergo he was born a Muslim. This is of course the reverse in Judaism where the child takes the religion of the mother. The fact that he has worshiped in a Christian church all his life is irrelevant to them. Of course what his religion is should not even be relevant, but their hate for Obama and their hate for Muslims, makes it convenient to equate the two.
If Louise feels that any of what I said is off the mark I would appreciate hearing from her again.

Army man said...

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: FOUO
Please delete me from your mailing list."

Navy man said...

Please remove my email address from your mailing list. "Shalom"

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

After getting the input from the two military people set forth above, I wrote to them and said,
"As you requested I have removed your name form my distribution list and you will not hear from me again.
"However, before I go please do me the favor of explaining your views to me.
"I assume you asked to be taken of my distribution list because you vehemently disagrees with my views on Muslims. I find this very puzzling because you are a member of our Armed Services who have been fighting for years side by side with Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia, which houses the most extreme version of Islam, Wahhabism, is and has been
a military ally of ours under every Administration, both Democratic and Republican, for many decades.
"Given that history, I find it hard to understand how any member of our armed forces can be indiscriminately anti-Muslim.
"Please let me hear from you."

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

The Army man didn't respond and the Navy man wrote the following:
"For the sake of brevity... Here goes... You are correct in acknowledging the fact that I am a COMBAT Veteran.
"In fact, I flew from Bahrain to the US for retirement in 1974... had spent some time in that area, and know there is ZERO tolerance for Christian or Jewish culture in Saudi Arabia and other MUSLIM countries... I'll be tolerant of Muslims when the POPE can visit Mecca or better yet when there is "Quid Pro Quo" regarding religious tolerance. When Turkey returns the Blue Mosque to the Orthodox Christian Church, that will be a start...
"You should look into TIQQUIA (spell?) and SHARIA - their authorization and justification.
"Both political parties have mistakenly believed that they can reach out to the MUSLIM world. I DO NOT hold that belief.
"Wishing you good health.
Shalom,"
I was disappointed at this response because as seems to consistently be the case it totally ignored the points I had made. But even standing on their own they make not sense, because I can't see what the policies of Saudi Arabia or Turkey or any other country have to do with how we treat Americans. Why, in heavens name, we should mimic the intolerant policies of other countries escapes me.
This is not a matter of reciprocity. We are not talking about citizens of those countries. We are talking about American citizens many of many of whom were born in the US.

Mimi Simone of Teaneck, NJ said...

I'm not sure it pays to respond to (I'm struggling for an appropriate categorization of this Nancy Boyman's state of mind) bizarre letters like these.
Someone like this has fixed ideas and is not open to any deviation to her position. Who knows where she gets her ideas!"

Robert Aten of Alexandria, Virginia said...

My experience with the US military is that at the full Col. level they have enough experience so that if they started with those views they have learned how to conceal them. Younger officers probably are likely to have the views you cite.

Emil Scheller of Fort Lee, NJ said...

The bigotry which has reared its ugly head has become the mantra of the Right. It is obviously not about the Mosque at ground zero; nor is it about a Mosque near ground zero, or about a Cultural Center near ground zero. These are but excuses to hide the willingness to exploit latent bigotry to further political ends.
Bigotry whether racial, ethnic, or religious should have no place in 21st century America and those who wrap themselves in the flag in order to sow bigotry should
earn the contempt which they so richly deserve.
In the words of George Washington:
"...a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance -- but generously affording to all Liberty of conscience, ..."
And in the words of President Eisenhower spoken at the the opening of the Islamic Center on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington.
“And I should like to assure you, my Islamic friends, that under the American Constitution, under American tradition, and in American hearts, this Center, this place of worship, is just as welcome as could be a similar edifice of any other religion. Indeed, America would fight with her whole strength for your right to have here your own church and worship according to your own conscience. This concept is indeed a part of America, and
without that concept we would be something else than what we are.”
And President Bush speaking at a Mosque in Washington D.C. after 9/11 declared:
"... the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday's attacks, and so were Muslims all across the world.
"Both Americans, our Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslim in nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens. These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith, and it's important for my
fellow Americans to understand that.
"The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Quran itself: 'In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil, for that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.' The face of terrorist is not the true faith
of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace, they represent evil and war.
"When we think of Islam, we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that's made brothers and sisters out of every race, out of every race." http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/1/gen.bush.muslim.trans/
Finnaly allow me to quote from that great Greek playright Euripides: "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad" (From Medea)