Glen Greenwald captured it quite nicely:

The White House originally indicated it would refrain from involving itself in the dispute, and there was little pressure or controversy over that decision. There was little anger over the President's silence even among liberal critics. And given the standard attacks directed at Obama -- everything from being "soft on Terror" to being a hidden Muslim -- choosing this issue on which to take a very politically unpopular and controversial stand is commendable in the extreme.
(...)
It was Michael Bloomberg who first stood up and eloquently condemned this anti-mosque campaign for what it is, but Obama's choice to lend his voice to a vital and noble cause is a rare demonstration of principled, politically risky leadership. It's not merely a symbolic gesture, but also an important substantive stand against something quite ugly and wrong. This is an act that deserves pure praise.

>> ^radx:
Glen Greenwald captured it quite nicely: This is an act that deserves pure praise.
Hear hear!!

Agreed.

I wonder what Bush would have done/said.

The right thing for the president to do, but goodness if it isn't probably the worse luck for this particular president to have to do it, considering the republican smear campaign leading up to the election. Let's hope no crazed white trash "He's a mooslimmmmmm" teabaggers do something stupid because of this.

Religious freedom, bitches!

Great speech, brief yet powerful.

wonder if a midget will get elected oneday...

Yep, I know the christians hate it, but religious freedom ftw!

God I love the Sift. Everywhere else, the comments section on this subject is filled with the most hateful and ignorant statements possible. Here, people are mostly reasoned and informed... with a few exceptions.

Chalk up one piece of ammunition for the Republican campaign in 2012. This is too easily exploitable for them not to take advantage of it.

Last I remember, forgiveness was a Christian virtue was it not?

Reasonable people: This is freedom of speech.
Idiots: Obama is a muslim. We told you so.

lol... look at all the showmanship here.
I am against it. And before some idiot spews out crap again: I would also be against a church, synagogue or any temple there.
I hope you get the point.

@coolhund... Where? Lower Manhatten? It's not at the Twin Towers site, which seems to be one of the common mistakes that gets people riled up. It's two blocks away.

To me it doesnt matter where it is.

I'm really surprised that people are publicly voicing disapproval over this, especially those that would normally claim to support the "liberty" and "freedom" provided by the constitution. Is it really this acceptable for so many pundits to be blatantly anti-islam on national television?

This isn't even anti-religion (which at least treats all religions equally). Do these same people protest churches being built near sites attacked by christians? No, this is specifically about islam, spoken of as insensitive to people intolerant of "foreign" religions like it's something anyone should care about.

A true constitutional conservative would be celebrating the freedom of all religions to have access to the same locations, but instead we get insinuations that such freedoms should be subject to public opinion.

Perhaps we can dismiss "equal protection" as socialism...

Surprising to see him back this, honestly, given his track record on issues the Republicans like to strong-arm. But, it all makes a lick of difference to the country really: He won't appoint Elizabeth Warren to head Consumer Financial Protection, he hasn't changed the Medical Insurance Industry, the Banks are still 'too big to fail' and he's not going to shrink the Defence Budget.

Oh and I shouldn't also forget: the climate will continue to warm with his lack of action, Oil companies will continue to drill where they shouldn't and Corporations won't be stopped spending as much as they like buying Senators.

But hey, maybe at least with this news, Church and State might actually stay apart! (Right?)

America won't withstand much more of its corporate sponsored political system and weak/corrupt Presidents... and it's gonna take a lot of the world down with it.

I saw a bird once that looked like it had a broken wing, but in reality it was just flying weird because of an updraft a few meters above my head. I guess it makes sense to question whether or not I understand what's really going on in the world. Also, plums are best when they're soft, but not too soft.
>> ^BoneyD:

Surprising to see him back this, honestly, given his track record on issues the Republicans like to strong-arm. But, it all makes a lick of difference to the country really: He won't appoint Elizabeth Warren to head Consumer Financial Protection, he hasn't changed the Medical Insurance Industry, the Banks are still 'too big to fail' and he's not going to shrink the Defence Budget.
Oh and I shouldn't also forget: the climate will continue to warm with his lack of action, Oil companies will continue to drill where they shouldn't and Corporations won't be stopped spending as much as they like buying Senators.
But hey, maybe at least with this news, Church and State might actually stay apart! (Right?)
America won't withstand much more of its corporate sponsored political system and weak/corrupt Presidents... and it's gonna take a lot of the world down with it.

I don't understand all the anger over this. It's not even an issue. At all. Ever.

I was probably unclear in my comment, I think it's wonderful that he's coming out in support of our moderate Muslim brothers and sisters. This is the kind of understanding between the cultures that we need to foster.

My point was that it's not like it makes up for Obama's appauling Presidency to date. He's not been progressive at all, delivering more for the right-wing and his corporate sponsors than I think anyone predicted he would.

For once, Obama says something that actually isn't entirely stupid. It is too bad that his sudden attack of, "Hey this isn't something the Federal government does..." is so selective and horribly misapplied. The reason the GOP will score a massive PR win over this issue is NOT because Obama is approving a Mosque on the grounds of religious freedom as an aspect of the Bill of Rights. Obama will get hammered because he's standing up for ONE aspect of freedom while he's been relentlessly undermining just about every other aspect of American freedom and Constitutional rights.

He's for the Mosque - but he's against Arizona's right to enforce the law. He's for the Mosque - but he's against the right of the people of California to make their own laws. He's for the Mosque - but he's against the Bill of Rights when it applies to freedom of religious expression for Christians in schools or other places. He's for freedom when it comes to Mosques - but he's against it when it comes to the free market, people buying insurance, and on and on and on...

That's why he's going to get hammered. Not because of his CORRECT position on freedom of religion for the mosque - but because of his WRONG positions on freedoms for just about everything else. P.S. This isn't a federal issue anway. None of his business. The only people that deserve a flogging are the numbnutz on the NY housing board who decided to say the site was not a historical landmark. It was the only site on that whole block not designated as a historical landmark, and they deliberately chose not to make it one against the will of the people of their own state just to make some odd statement (which was NOT freedom of religion).

This is just classless.

*fail

There. I did it. Even though I'd like to add a *dar k...I won't.

(oh, and how about some *controversy )

EDIT: And before I get flamed on LiberalSift...I went ahead and Sifted my response to you via Newt Gingrich
http://videosift.com/video/Gingrich-I-m-Deeply-Worried

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Fail) - requested by tedbater.

I don't understand your "response." Gingrich said nothing that was even remotely connected to the issue at hand--building an Islamic community center in New York. All he talked about was the "War on Terror." So I don't get what you're saying unless, of course, you are trying to say that all Islamic believers are terrorists or potential terrorists.

And unless the Dems lose a bunch of seats in the upcoming election because of this, I think it's a bit premature to tag this as "fail." So could you please remove that tag? And also, if you have an angry political statement to make, could you please not hijack the tags in someone else's video to make it but use the comments section or post your own video like everyone else does?

>> ^tedbater:

This is just classless.
fail
There. I did it. Even though I'd like to add a dar k...I won't.
(oh, and how about some controversy )
EDIT: And before I get flamed on LiberalSift...I went ahead and Sifted my response to you via Newt Gingrich
http://videosift.com/video/Gingrich-I-m-Deeply-Worried

ya, really, adding the fail tag on this one shows partisanship that I thought didn't exist with sift administration

>> ^Engels:

ya, really, adding the fail tag on this one shows partisanship that I thought didn't exist with sift administration


Channels and Tags have nothing to do with site administration.

>^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
-He's for the Mosque - but he's against the right of the people of California to make their own laws.

So it's an attack on freedom for a Federal Judge to rule that a state amendment violates individual freedoms under the federal constitution? Are you arguing that denying homosexuals the right to marry other homosexuals somehow increases freedom?


-He's for the Mosque - but he's against the Bill of Rights when it applies to freedom of religious expression for Christians in schools or other places.

Only in public institutions as far as I know. Kids are "free" to pray, it just can't be initiated or led by the public school employees. Would you want your kids' teachers to set aside time for everyone to pray to Vishnu?


-He's for freedom when it comes to Mosques - but he's against it when it comes to the free market, people buying insurance...

The individual mandate was proposed and supported by conservatives, at least until Obama decided to do it too. Now it's suddenly anti-freedom when a Democrat does it.


Obama did the right thing with the mosque pseudo-issue, but conservatives can't actually commend him for it. No, instead they change the subject to other decisions they don't like. I'm sure allowing homosexuals to serve in the military will somehow be an attack on liberty as well (assuming he gets around to it).

I could list lots of decisions Obama has made that I don't agree with, but he got it right on this one and I hope to see more of it.

Does Hussein Soetoro also back a Shinto shrine right next to the USS Arizona Memorial?

This is the paradox of a free society: how to allow a death-cult founded by a pedophile/gigolo/warlord that demands conversion or death to all infidels, to build a symbolic conquering mosque near the site of yet another islamic crime?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Hurry November 2nd.

Other pieces of chalk include the out-of-control spending, socialized death panels health care, coming higher taxes, radical leftists snuck onto the "Supreme" Court, unemployment...

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

Chalk up one piece of ammunition for the Republican campaign in 2012. This is too easily exploitable for them not to take advantage of it.


Hurry November 2nd!

*nochannel

*Religion
*Politics
*Controversy
*Equality

This video has been removed from all channels (Religion, Politics, Controversy, Fail, Equality) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by thinker247. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Equality, Politics, Religion) - requested by thinker247.

So it's an attack on freedom for a Federal Judge to rule that a state amendment violates individual freedoms under the federal constitution? California... Homosexuals... Prayer... Insurance...

Arizona, California, Misouri, Florida... It doesn't matter. There are MANY examples, and the point is Obama's hyocrisy. He selectively chooses to stomp on things he doesn't like, while at the same time he gives free passes to real violations. The Black Panther case was a blatant violation of civil rights - but his administration dismissed it because in thier OPINION black people can't violate the civil rights of others.

The mosque is simply one note in the sad litany of his hypocrisy. He approves the mosque on the basis of limited involvement in city/state government as well as the bill of rights? This comes off as hypocritical to anyone who hears it given his extensive record of ignoring the rights in order to force feed his agenda at national, state, local, and individual levels.

Arizona wants to enforce legitimate laws & protect citizens? Louisiana wants to build sand berms? BP wants to bring in non-union oil skimmers? Texas want to lift my oil drilling ban? It's against the constitution to force people to buy my Obama brand insurance? Banks are refusing to take my TARP money? The people don't want my financial reform bill? The people don't want my Health Care reform bill? The people don't want my Cap & Tax schemes? The people don't want my plan for illegal amnesty? Bah! I'm Barak Hussain Obama and I disallow such freedoms in MY America!

Oh - but you radial Cordoba freaks can build your mosque at Ground Zero. No, you don't have to disclose where money comes from. No, I don't care this is a documented terrorist tactic. No I don't care Germany just shut down Cordobas because they were terror cells. No, I don't care that by definition a mosque can't possibly be a "community outreach center".

Anyone with eyes, ears, and a brain knows clearly that Obama LOVES to violate the constitution and interfere with state/local policy. But now all of a sudden he changes his mind and state's rights and religious freedom matter? Anyone living through this nightmare dud of a president knows he's being a two-faced slimeball on the issue and that his motivation is his personal bias. That's why he's getting shellaqued in the ratings, the polls, and even (albiet reluctantly) in the press.

I could list lots of decisions Obama has made that I don't agree with, but he got it right on this one and I hope to see more of it.

You won't. This was a biased decision to favor an opinion/ideology that he sympathizes with. As evidenced by just about EVERY other thing he's ever done, Obama will do the exact opposite on any issue he finds politically convenient.

I must be the only Prog/Lib in America that is pissed about this (Cordoba House). Obama is awesome at waxing poetic, but the magic has worn off, for me.

You hear that crashing sound? It's Obama's polls after this. If they build this I'm gonna drop leaflets of cartoon Mohammed all over NYC!

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker
Arizona, California, Misouri, Florida... It doesn't matter. There are MANY examples, and the point is Obama's hyocrisy. He selectively chooses to stomp on things he doesn't like, while at the same time he gives free passes to real violations.

What is Obama stomping in California? Are you talking about the federal judge ruling that Prop 8 violates the equal protection clause of the constitution? Obama has mostly respected California state laws regarding medical marijuana, which seems like something conservatives would normally support (states' rights and such). We'll see how he feels about legalization in November though.

In Arizona Obama is saying that those laws violate the supremacy clause of that US Constitution. Of course the "stomping" he is doing involves challenging the laws in court, which seems like a "legitimate" way of going about it. If the supreme court disagrees then so be it.

I'll spare further itemization.

You talk about Obama doing unpopular things, but you've also said in the past that the right thing should be done even if it is highly unpopular (it was in reference to slashing social security/medicare/military). Obviously you disagree with him on what is right, but I'm surprised to see you dwell on poll numbers to such a degree regarding public policy decisions.


...dud of a president knows he's being a two-faced slimeball...

I know I've seen you criticize others for name-calling as being intellectually lazy. You like to do the same for public figures you disagree with (especially Obama for some reason). You might find more people receptive to your ideas without the extra garbage cluttering it up.



No, you don't have to disclose where money comes from.

Fiscal issues are some of my biggest complaints about Democrats. Yes, it's nice to want to help people, but there just isn't enough talk on the liberal end about the budget. Hopefully this is an area where more Americans will demand attention (without the social-conservative baggage).


You won't.

We're spending too much on the wars... we shouldn't be trying to win a military victory in Afghanistan. We've lost more people in the wars than the attacks that led to them. I wish Obama would rely less on military power, but I believe he will continue for political reasons.

I also think Obama is pushing stimulus because he fears what would happen to his popularity if he chose a plan that involved large spending cuts or if he allowed a large employer to go out of business. I'm not sure he would do something he thought was right if he also thought doing so would lead to conservatives gaining significant ground.

The man isn't perfect, but in the last election he was faaar better than the alternative. I can only imagine what McCain would do about the Mosque or anything else given his recent behavior. If conservatives put someone sane up there then I might vote for them, but at this point it isn't looking too likely.

Maybe Jesse Ventura will run. ;-)

*nochannel
*news
*politics
*religion
*equality
*controversy

This video has been removed from all channels (Religion, Politics, Controversy, Equality) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by NetRunner. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Equality, News, Politics, Religion) - requested by NetRunner.

>> ^Psychologic:

Fiscal issues are some of my biggest complaints about Democrats. Yes, it's nice to want to help people, but there just isn't enough talk on the liberal end about the budget. Hopefully this is an area where more Americans will demand attention (without the social-conservative baggage).

FYI, the biggest deficit reducing bill passed in decades was health care reform.

Why are you pissed about the Cordoba House?
>> ^Fletch:

I must be the only Prog/Lib in America that is pissed about this (Cordoba House). Obama is awesome at waxing poetic, but the magic has worn off, for me.

FYI, the biggest deficit reducing bill passed in decades was health care reform

To start with - Obama increased the deficit from 0.5T to 1.5T in 18 months. Yeah - he's a REAL Deficit Hero that one (gag)...

1. The CBO has reported that HCR is going to cost hundreds of billions more than projected. This is what government programs do best. They come up with farcical, imaginary 'projections' to get votes and then ignore them and run overbudget by bazillions.

2. Using the CBOs kindest, most favorable, most unrealistic & biased analysis to date - the HCR will only reduce the deficit by only 100 billion dollars in a 10 years. 10 billion a year. The U.S. Federal Goverment loses 10 billion dollars farting in a bathroom. The 'deficit reduction' aspect of HCR is a bad joke even if it isn't all a completely lie (which it is).

3. This of course assumes the program doesn't GREATLY run over costs - which would be a first in the annals of government. Far more likely is the outcome that HCR will run vastly over-budget and will ADD to the U.S. deficit by becoming a massive social entitlement.

4. We didn't need HCR to strip human freedom from citizens to reduce the deficit. We could have done that by slashing governmenet budgets across the board.

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
1. The CBO has reported that HCR is going to cost hundreds of billions more than projected.
2. [...] the HCR will only reduce the deficit by only 100 billion dollars in a 10 years.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

"On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act [...] CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. "


3. This of course assumes the program doesn't GREATLY run over costs

Certainly a possibility, but we'll see. If it overruns its costs then it might break even, but that's still a better scenario than the wars and upper-income tax cuts which increase the deficit no matter what happens. Why aren't conservatives worried about those costs?


4. We didn't need HCR to strip human freedom from citizens to reduce the deficit.

That evil Obama stealing conservative ideas again. He still hasn't learned that it's only constitutional when Republicans do it.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

He's for the Mosque - but he's against Arizona's right to enforce the law. He's for the Mosque - but he's against the right of the people of California to make their own laws. He's for the Mosque - but he's against the Bill of Rights when it applies to freedom of religious expression for Christians in schools or other places. He's for freedom when it comes to Mosques - but he's against it when it comes to the free market, people buying insurance, and on and on and on...

AZ's new anti-Mexican law gives the state the power to arrest anyone and hold them until they prove they are legal (presumably up to the usual Habeus Corpus limits). It doesn't matter that it's meant to be used against illegals; an officer can claim he has "reasonable suspicion" of anyone. I don't like my government having that much power. Lucky for me, I don't live in AZ.

The people of CA can and do make their own laws, but they have to be constitutional. It's amazing how many "conservatives" are just fine with more government when it agrees with their feelings.

If you're referring to a specific incident re: religious expression, I must have missed it.

You're free to not buy insurance, you just won't get your tax credit.

[edit]: I almost forgot... Opinions about the Mosque from anyone who isn't a Manhattan resident shouldn't matter, and "Manhatians" are in favor of it from the polls I've found.

In Arizona Obama is saying that those laws violate the supremacy clause of that US Constitution.

Which most courts and lawyers agree is a complete BS position. Even his own people have said that what Arizona is doing violate NO LAW, but the best argument they can come up with is the equivalent of saying, "If the Federal government chooses NOT to enforce a law, then the States have no authority to enforce it either..." The only way the Federal challenge will pass is in a stacked puppet court.

Of course the "stomping" he is doing involves challenging the laws in court, which seems like a "legitimate" way of going about it. If the supreme court disagrees then so be it.

Yes - the Federal government suing a state that is trying to enforce FEDERAL law is perfectly normal...

I know I've seen you criticize others for name-calling as being intellectually lazy.

This is true - when referring to forum members. Public figures get no such free pass from me. I generally try to avoid eggregiousness in the practice, but Obama's behavior is such that there really is no 'nice' way to describe it. He isn't just being quaintly, politely offbeat. He is deliberately governing against the will of the people, and lying through his teeth about how he justifies it.

If conservatives put someone sane up there then I might vote for them, but at this point it isn't looking too likely.

It'd be nice. Won't hold my breath. The GOP doesn't want a real fiscal conservative in charge any more than the Democrats do.

On March 20, 2010, CBO released its final cost estimate for the reconciliation act [...] CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

Those are old numbers. Here are the current ones (May 2010)...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/114xx/doc11490/LewisLtr_HR3590.pdf

In short - the $143 billion (over 10 years) was reduced by 115 billion. So even according to the CBO (and their estimates are questionable at best) the 'deficit reduction' will only be 28 billion over 10 years. 2.8 billion a year. And we're supposed to be exicted about this paltry figure that we bought with personal freedom?

That evil Obama stealing conservative ideas again. He still hasn't learned that it's only constitutional when Republicans do it.

The origins of this are not 'conservative' so please, no falsehood. This was a 'compromise' from a GOP funded group. It is not a conservative approach. Government mandates are not conservative. They are decidedly liberal and leftist - no matter where they originate from.

AZ's new anti-Mexican law

It isn't anti-Mexican. It is "pro-enforcement" of laws that are already perfectly legal, and indeed are the FEDERAL norm. 28 other states are currently in the process of producing identical laws, or very similar ones. I hope they do. I hope every state passes laws that REQUIRE all persons who are stopped by the police - for ANY REASON - to produce valid documents that prove citizenship. And if the person can't prove citizenship - throw them in jail until they can provide that evidence. And if they can't come up with the evidence, then out of the country they go. I have no problem with that. It isn't racist. It isn't 'anti Mexican'. It is pro-enforcement. Boo-freaking-hoo. The only people who would be afraid of such a simple, common sense approach are illegals - and they deserve no consideration no matter what country they originated from.