Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam.  The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong.  But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right.  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.

The Muslim community center in New York is just one of a number of planned mosques and Islamic centers around the country about which a slew of conservatives have drummed up controversy by arguing — with no shortage of inflammatory language – against their existence or placement. The Anti-Defamation League, which describes itself as “the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry,” is making a puzzling move by aligning themselves, however obliquely, with some of the hate speech of those who have come out against the proposed Islamic Center.

Video after the jump:

“This just in — a poll conducted on a handful of Cubans by The Castro polling group finds that democracy is bad,” one commenter wrote.

Fair enough.

Yesterday, Rasmussen — a conservative polling shop — released the results of a similar survey. Strangely enough, they came up with similar numbers.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Adults are at least somewhat concerned about their safety in the presence of those who have “concealed carry” gun permits. Fifty-eight percent (58%) don’t share that concern.

But 47% oppose so-called “open carry” laws that would allow citizens to openly wear their guns in public. Forty-one percent (41%) favor laws. Several states are currently wrestling with this issue.

Comments?

“Politicians who are doing the bidding of the gun lobby, and businesses who worry about offending gun rights extremists, should look at this data and be aware that there is potentially a large price to pay with voters and customers alike,” said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “Having more guns in public places not only puts more people at risk, it clearly makes people feel less safe.”

The key results:

• Fifty-two percent oppose allowing people in general, not just those connected to law enforcement, to carry loaded guns openly in public;

• Fifty percent feel less safe knowing that people not connected to law enforcement can carry guns in public, while 38 percent feel more safe.

• Fifty-one percent said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who makes it easier for people to carry loaded guns in public, compared to 27 percent who were more likely to support such a candidate. Fully 63 percent of women said they were less likely to vote for a candidate who loosens laws on carrying guns in public.

The numbers are based on a survey of 600 registered voters in late April. The poll was conducted by Lake Research Partners, a Democratic polling firm.

“The election rules that were recently announced by this regime leave no opportunity for legitimate political dialogue because they prevent key stakeholders from participating, making the upcoming elections a charade,” Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who sponsored the resolution, said in a statement Friday. “The U.S. expects the military regime to dramatically expand political participation and create an environment free from fear and intimidation before we will consider elections in Burma as anything but a farce.”

Trouble is, Burma’s leaders haven’t cared what the United States thinks of them for decades, and they have no reason to start now. Despite being cut off from most of the West, Than Shwe and his minions have done just fine for themselves by forging lucrative gem, oil and timber deals with China, Thailand and other Southeast Asian neighbors, who’ve shown zero inclination to jeopardize those trade relations over something as petty as human rights.

Meanwhile, Suu Kyi’s pro-democracy party announced this week that it has chosen to disband rather than participate in an election that would require the party to accept the nullification of the 1990 vote that should have swept it into power.

But don’t tell that to Jordan Freeman. The West Virginia-based filmmaker and environmental activist recently conducted this interview with a Massey deep miner. And while the identity of the miner is concealed, his message is nonetheless pretty damning.

“Production was the name of the game,” he says. “At all costs we’ve got to get X amount of footage outside at the end of every shift — for what they would say to be, to where they could stay in the business, to keep the revenue rolling.

“For me, I felt like that lump of coal was important than a human being’s life.”

With more and more stories appearing like this, it’s getting tougher and tougher for Massey to lay a credible claim to their alleged commitment to safety.

Here, for example, is a video of Alabama militiaman Mike Vanderboegh telling reporters that there will be “consequences” if policymakers try to restrict gun rights.

Vanderboegh: I’m calling on the government to understand that there are going to be consequences to pushing people like us any farther back.

Questioner: More Ruby Ridges? More Wacos?

Vanderboegh: Precisely.

From comments like that, you’d think that the House was about to tighten D.C.’s gun laws, rather than gutting them.

There were calls to close it in the wake of the 1999 shootings at Columbine High School, and there were more calls to close it in 2007, following the shooting massacre at Virginia Tech. But so far, Congress has done nothing to address the gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed gun vendors to sell firearms without performing background checks on the buyers. And the inaction hasn’t gone unnoticed by some of the victims’ families.

Take Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed 11 years ago tomorrow at Columbine. He’s got a letter running today in both the the Denver Post and Boulder Daily Camera urging Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) to put his weight behind the Senate proposal that would close the gun show loophole.

[Congress1] “Shortly after the tragedy at Columbine, 70% of Coloradans voted to close this dangerous loophole, but in many other states the loophole remains — including every state surrounding Colorado,” Mauser writes. “That means that Coloradans can still easily be victimized by guns brought here from other states. We need a federal law to close the Gun Show Loophole for good, just like we have in Colorado.”

Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado’s other upper-chamber Democrat, has endorsed the proposal, but Udall has so far resisted. A call to Udall’s office requesting comment was not immediately returned.

He’s not the only Democrat being targeted today. Six voices related to the Virginia Tech tragedy — including a survivor, and parents of both survivors and those killed — have a letter of their own in today’s Richmond Times Dispatch, calling on Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner, both Democrats of Virginia, to sign on to the same bill.

“Everyday in the United States, 35 people are murdered with guns — that’s a Virginia Tech sized massacre every single day,” the parents write. “We have seen first hand the incredible toll that gaps in the federal background check system have on public safety … Don’t let another day go by.”

Calls and emails to Webb’s and Warner’s offices were not immediately returned.

Under current law, licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks to ensure that prospective buyers are legally eligible to own firearms. Felons, illegal immigrants and the severely mentally ill, for example, are prohibited from owning guns. These guidelines apply to licensed dealers in all contexts, including gun shows. But unlicensed dealers at gun shows — or anywhere else — are under no obligation to follow them.

The Columbine shooters bought three of their guns by exploiting the loophole. More recently, last month’s Pentagon shooter did the same, purchasing at least one of his firearms at a Nevada gun show despite a history of severe mental illness that might have prevented the sale had the vendor done a background check.

Gun reform has been a thorny issue for the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress. And the reason is clear. Although Democrats hold significant majorities in both chambers, they owe those gains largely to more moderate members, who in recent elections have won seats in a number of conservative-leaning, historically Republican districts. Indeed, when Attorney General Eric Holder last year announced his support for renewal of the assault weapons ban, 65 House Democrats wrote to the White House attacking the proposal. And that was in a non-election year.

“Law-abiding Americans use these guns for all the same reasons they use any other kind of gun — competitive shooting, hunting and defending their homes and families,” the Democrats wrote.

But don’t accuse Congress of doing nothing in the area of gun reform. This week, the House is expected to pass a D.C. voting rights bill that also includes language gutting the District’s strict gun control laws.

Americans from all walks of life are gathering in Washington today to remind members of Congress that although DC residents pay federal taxes and serve honorably in our armed services, they do not have a vote in Congress or full autonomy over local issues.  And so I urge Congress to finally pass legislation that provides DC residents with voting representation and to take steps to improve the Home Rule Charter.

The bill — which also gives Utah another House member — passed the Senate last year, but not before Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) successfully attached an amendment scrapping most of D.C.’s strict gun laws. Realizing that moderate Democrats in the House would support that provision, liberal House leaders have refused to bring the bill to the floor, leaving it idle for the last 14 months.

Earlier this week, there was a breakthrough: Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), a fierce opponent of the Ensign amendment, reluctantly agreed to accept some version of it for the sake of giving the District more voice in Congress.

“It is now clear that the gun amendment can be passed as a stand-alone bill or attached to another piece of legislation, and we see no better opportunity in sight for voting rights for our residents,” she said.

The New York Times disagrees. In an editorial today, the paper argues that the elimination of the gun restrictions is too high a price to pay for the underlying bill.

“The legislation would intrude on home-rule prerogatives by repealing the district’s restrictions on semiautomatic weapons, rolling back requirements for registering most guns and even dropping existing criminal penalties for owners of unregistered firearms,” the Times says.”It is a cynical, sickening compromise.”

The House ethics committee has drafted rules that for the first time would define gay married couples as “spouses” for the purposes of filling out their annual Congressional financial disclosure forms.

The proposed change is found in new draft instructions for those financial disclosure forms, which lawmakers and senior staffers have to file annually, Roll Call discovered. The language says:

Same-Sex Marriages: In 2009, there were a total of four states which issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont. (New Hampshire and the District of Columbia began issuing such licenses effective in 2010). If you and your spouse were issued a marriage license by any of these states and were subsequently legally married in that state, you must disclose all required spousal information on your Financial Disclosure Statement.

But don’t be surprised if the draft language doesn’t make it into the final version. The proposal is already taking heat from both gay rights groups and those opposed to gay marriage. Roll Call explains:

For gay rights activists, the disclosure requirement is an attempt to saddle gay couples with some of the obligations of marriage without providing the full benefits of marriage, such as the right to file joint federal tax returns.

Meanwhile, gay marriage opponents say this is a case of one committee trying to override all of Congress.

Tom McClusky, vice president of Family Research Council Action, the legislative arm of the FRC, said the Defense of Marriage Act is explicit in prohibiting federal entities from equating gay partners with opposite-sex married couples.

None of Congress’ openly gay lawmakers would be affected by the change, Roll Call notes, because none is legally married in his or her state.