Opposing Mosques in America? Updated

What if it Were Happening in America? (updated)

There’s a big blogspat going on and as usual Charles Johnson is on the right side of the truth. He’s calling out the neo-nazi backgrounds, associations, and political partnerships between the Euro-Supremacist groups organizing the Pro-Koln anti-mosque movement.

The Paleosphere has risen in defense of Robert Spencer and Pamela at Atlas Shrugs who were billed by the Pro-Koln group as coming to attend or speak at the event, and now the usual obfuscations and cries of “guilt by association!”, it’s the “Soros attack machine!” and “Psyops!” are screeching across their close-knit bigotted group.

First of all here’s a hint for all conservative bloggers – before you chime in you best do some real research on the groups in Europe so you know what the heck you are talking about.

Secondly let’s put all of that Euro-Supremacist stuff aside for a moment.

Step back and look at the bigger picture. If someone were building a mosque in the US anywhere, would you support a group of Yo-Yo’s showing up to stop it?

Is it libertarian to tell someone how they may or may not use their property?

Is it constitutional in the US to stop a mosque from being built? (Think before you answer – what if it were a church, a temple, or a synagogue?)

It’s basically un-American and not a conservative value to oppose freedom of religion. Is that a politically viable stance for conservatives to support?

There you go; the big picture, please think on it.

UPDATE: Robert Spencer says he won’t go, but defends the group and attacks detractors, if he feels so strongly why doesn’t he go then?
One other note: The pro-serbia lobby in the US has had “no new mosques” as a talking point for years (at least since 2005 where you can find Jatras articles pushing that point) so don’t imagine that a similar campaign would never be mounted here. If it were it would be disastrous for Republicans.

Gegentrik also points out that some of Pro-Koln’s political opposition is as extreme: when you get extreme enough then at some point you cross over and become the mirror image of your enemy.

Addendum:

Some backgrond on people partnering with Pro-Koln:

Petra Edelmannova

Vlaams Belang

and the organizer, Manfred Rouhs.

Anti-Prop 8 Demonstration

Ringo the Gringo has a great photo essay on the anti-prop 8 demonstration at the Los Angeles civic center. The photo essay is grouped by the themes of the signs, and there were even a couple of Phelpsian counter protestors there. Please stop by to view the whole thing.

In a previous article here I outlined why the social conservative stance against gay marriage is highly counter productive.

Obama is Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense

Most Americans would not recognize the acronym “BMD” or understand its meaning, but Ballistic Missile Defense is a keystone to our strategic defense systems as well as those of NATO.

Russia, China, and a raft of third world thugs and dictators are as openly and adamantly opposed to the program as Obama is.

James Lewis at American Thinker has an article up about this, and I will take a moment here to completely underline one of the key effects of BMD for Geo-political strategy. To help you understand this effect I’m going to explain what I call the “Snapshot Bully Scenario.”

While nuclear war would be unthinkable with either Russia or China, and Ballistic Missile Defense at present isn’t designed to cope with their large arsenals, BMD does prevent the “snapshot bully” scenario. A single nuclear shot or threat of one by Russia or China against a neighbor they were trying to coerce would be unlikely, but it’s also unlikely that the response would be nuclear in return if they were given slight pretext and only one nuclear device were used or threatened. The opposition would be world wide, but it probably wouldn’t be military since that would initiate WWIII at a nuclear level. The precedent for limited nuclear weapon use was already set by the US when we used them against Japan.

What’s more likely is that Russia or China could threaten through proxy – a nuclear armed North Korea, Pakistan, India, or Iran backed by a tight alliance with either Russia or China could use the snapshot bullying tactic of a single shot or threat of a single shot to gain compliance, and that would be more likely than the direct threat scenario outlined above. Not to mention that if Iran gets nukes, it’s likely they will share the awful bounty with people like Hugo Chavez to threaten our allies in this hemisphere. Without BMD it’s likely that the Eastern European or South Asian country threatened would knuckle under to whatever demand was made under coercion from snapshot nuclear blackmail.

The current BMD program (once in place) completely removes that threat, since it makes it highly unlikely that a single shot would succeed in reaching target. Japan is already protected from snapshot scenarios, as are others in the area by their BMD batteries and ships.

China and Russia’s strategic nuclear forces also make the conventional armies of countries in East Europe and the Sub-continent of Asia somewhat useless in defending against an ally of either Russia or China, and there are many other scenarios you could imagine where the ability to defeat a single nuclear shot becomes extremely important beyond just that of the madman with a nuclear ICBM scenario most people think of.

Barack’s opposition to BMD and the space program is clearly a disaster in the making for the US and our Allies. Please write or join here and let your support of BMD be known. ( Please note that I am conservative, and oppose Barack Obama and the Democrats in general, but the MDAA is Non-partisan and supports the concept of BMD in general without lobbying for any particular technology.)

Mel Gibson’s Anti-Semitic Rant Affects His New Film Location