“KKK Hall to be built at Gettysburg”
Bookworm on Aug 03 2010 at 9:31 am | Filed under: 9/11, Islam, Jihad, Media matters, Muslim violence
I was thinking of headlines to rival the one I saw this morning:
For true parallelism, you can’t have as the new occupier the same person or entity that caused the deaths at the site. Instead, you have to have the fellow-travelers, the ideological descendants, the spiritual soul mates, the ones who have never given up on or repented the original theory leading to the massacre. These are my ideas:
KKK Meeting Hall to be built near Gettysburg site
Neo-Nazis build recreation center at Auschwitz
Pol Pot family to build resort center on “Killing Fields”
Of course, were any of the above to happen, one would hear the roar of outrage from one end of the media and the self-anointed elite to the other (especially if the first was to happen). However, in an age that sees the political elite driven in equal parts by political correctness and a never-acknowledged fear of the violence that lies at the heart of Islam, the bureaucrats approve this desecration and the media stays silent.
And it is a desecration, because this mosque is about conquest. This is not a mosque that is being urged on the site by sheer coincidence or as an act of contrition. It is being financed and built by the ideological soul mates of the same men who hijacked four planes; crashed into two towers, one low-lowing building, and a field; and caused almost 3,000 deaths on a single horrible morning. The conquerors march and the quislings bow. Feh.
Email This Post To A Friend
82 Responses to ““KKK Hall to be built at Gettysburg””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Add another headline: Dome limits on Greek Church
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/nine-years-later-church-at-ground-zero-still-not-rebuilt-but-mad-rush-to-build-islamic-supremacist-m.html
“Fred Phelps is raising money to build a church next door to Stonewall”
Prime real estate and I guess a 501(c). Bottom line, the terrorists, that would be Islamic Muslim terrorists, not to be confused with moderate terrorists, hijacked American planes, destroyed American property, murdered Americans (majority) and the reward is a tax-free mosque. It’s feh all right, it’s all feh’ed up.
I am really curious as to what union will have the gall to raze the existing building and what union will have the chutzpah to build 13 stories of ‘up yours’.
Feisal Abdul Rauf is chairman of a tax-exempt foundation….
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/imam-faisal-ground-zero-mosque-money-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett.html
Book (and all),
I don’t particularly like Islam and what it stands for. And, I don’t want the mosque, cultural center or whatever it is built there either. We are a nation of laws, and being conservative, I believe we cannot ignore those laws when they don’t favor our point of view. Of everything I have read; I cannot find a single legal reason that this mosque should be blocked. If I am missing something please educate me. I am not asking this to be difficult, I honestly cannot see any legal way this can (or should be) blocked.
Sean
That is an excellent question, Sean. My suspicion is that the applicable municipal codes give the commission a fair amount of leeway. Most communities have codes that prevent buildings that are inconsistent with community standards — not just aesthetic, but also cultural. If this was indeed a request for a KKK Hall, whether at Gettysburg or anywhere else, I’m sure that the Commission would readily have found a fig leaf behind which to hide to prevent the building from going up.
What’s so irritating here is that the Commission, rather than engaging in that struggle, even if it ultimately would have failed, instead openly embraced the notion of a mosque at Ground Zero. Keep in mind that, sometimes, mere opposition is enough. An outraged citizenry, led by an equally outraged Commission, might have been the barking dog that simply scared the Islamists away. As it was, though, the Commission willingly rolled over and played dead — and that is the message we Americans should hate to send and that the Islamists love to receive.
But you are correct — as a building, qua building, there is little to stop it aside from compliance with building codes.
Then I guess my follow-up would be: should it be blocked simply because a majority of citizens don’t like it? I would support putting it to a vote of the residents of Manhattan. My sense is they would support it though.
What I find depressing is if this gets approved and green lighted, this Mosque will be built before any memorial is built at ground zero.
As has been said, if it were the KKK or Fred Phelps, a fig leaf would be found, and the building permit would be denied…..
Why are there so many good dhimmis ready to offer their necks to the Islamists…..?
This “mosque” is a victory monument, and will be seen as such all over the Muslim world….will be present ourselves as the “strong horse” or not? For G-d’s sake, we can see exactly what happens when we’re perceived as the “weak horse”!!
Well gee whiz Earl, thanks for straightening that up. “What if’s” do not make a legal argument. Nor do I buy the comparison that the proposed mosque is the same as a KKK or Fred Phelps project. The KKK is not a religion and Fred Phelps represents extremist strain of Christianity. Now if the “Crimson Jihad” wanted to build the mosque there I might agree with the comparison. Sure, the analogy gets me worked up and angry on an emotional level, but damn it, I’m trying to use logic here.
Not sure if following the constitution and laws of our nation makes one a dhimmi. But that’s just me I guess. This nation was founded on some pretty strong principles, one of which is freedom of religion. If we deny one religion its rights simply because we don’t like some of them or what some of them have to say, then we are not living up to our own principles… are we? Seems to that is a victory for the bad guys.
So what your saying is the way we present ourselves as the “strong horse” is to deny certain classes of citizens their rights? Seems to me that’s what Saudi Arabia and Iran does. Do we really want to open that door here (even more than it already has been)?
Outside of emotional arguments and some shaky accusations, I have read or seen nothing that would justify legally denying the building of this mosque. Nothing.
The best way to show them how we are the “strong horse” is to win on the battlefield. That is a different subject and one I’m sure we could both agree on.
Sean
Well, Sean….if you check into the background and public positions of the imam in question, then (I’m assuming that Islam is truly the “religion of peace” that so many are telling us) what we have here is a “Fred Phelps” of Islam wanting to build a mosque close by the site where his co-extremists brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001. Just as there are “extremist strain(s) of Christianity”, there are extremist strains of Islam, and this guy represents one…on that basis alone, I would look for a fig leaf that would allow us to deny him the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero while staying within our laws and Constitution.
As for the importance of the U.S. projecting an image of the “strong horse”, what you and I think will do that is completely irrelevant, since *we* are not the audience being addressed. And it is clear, historically as well as from contemporary chatter, that establishing a mosque on the territory of a defeated enemy is a powerful motif in Islam. The current proposal is to call this one “Cordoba”, and again if you read history, you’ll know the connotation of that name. There is simply no question that this particular imam is out to erect a monument to victory in Manhattan, and if we allow him to do it, we are acting as dhimmis.
I guess if I saw all religions being treated alike, I might be more likely to buy your argument, but that is NOT what we see. Christians are denied permission to build churches all the time in this country – for reasons of zoning primarily, but for others as well. Some churches have had their land taken away via eminent domain in order that a retailer could use the property and increase the sales tax income for the city or county…and on and on. You and I might disagree with any one of these, but they are not ALL violations of the Constitution, and to exempt this particular imam and his grandiose plans for Ground Zero will leave no doubt in the minds of the watching world as to what is going on….bin Laden and his crew will NOT be saying anything similar to “Look at the U.S. honoring their traditions and sticking by their Constitution.” Are you nuts? They will spread the word of this capitulation and it will embolden all those with commitments similar to this imam….they will see us as approaching ripeness for plucking. The various kinds of pressures will continue – minarets, amplified calls to prayer five times/day by the muezzin, sharia for “the community”, etc. etc. etc. And each time we fold, it will be harder to stand firm the next time, and “creeping sharia” will be our fate, just as you can see in various countries in Europe.
So, I vote “No”, and I hope there is enough rationality and willingness to face the facts left in this country that we decide to remain what we have always been – the most tolerant country in the world for those who will come over here and adopt our Constitution as the guide for their lives. Those who will not do this should be deported to somewhere they will be more comfortable – we should NOT allow them to change our country to suit themselves. And if that be bigotry, make the most of it!
Since we can’t build one huge honkin’ Cathedral in Mecca, I’m in favor of using every possible avenue of the law, no matter how gray, to block the mosque. I’m sure there are plenty of gray areas that can be used. Let them sue. Let it all wind through the courts for years, and years, and years.
I would slip through an ordinance that mandates the following:
Only two sidewalk food vendors are allowed on the sidewalk in front of the mosque at any one time:
1. The first must vend hot dogs make by Hebrew National
2. The second must offer Memphis-style BBQ pork ribs
“Since we can’t build one huge honkin’ Cathedral in Mecca”
You can do it. It just won’t be called a cathedral. But a mosque. Like the Hagia Sophia. The Arabs are perfectly fine with you bankrolling a mosque for them at Mecca
Charles Martel – you are hereby in charge of obtaining the food permits.
I, OTOH, would like to be in charge of the concrete mix, blue prints and any union that has the cojones to work on the ‘up yours’ project. I hereby state that I have limited knowledge of the following:
* how to mix concrete … I have, however, worked with a caulking gun and Silly Putty.
* blue prints – Yes, I own several blouses with several hues of blue.
* union – the closest I have had to deal with a union was Union Station.
* cojones – somewhat qualified, if you consider ‘iron ovaries’ the female counterpart.
p.s. make sure the vendors are a good distance from the construction site
Well Earl, I haven’t seen anything, other than some hard to prove claims, that would tie this guy to extremist Islam or to the 9/11 hijackers. Just because someone on the internet says so doesn’t make it so. Not to mention it’s easy to make accusations and to play the 6-degrees of separation game tying all Muslims to jihdis. But for a lot of people just being a muslim is enough of a link I guess. Hell, isn’t that what we object to as Tea Party supporters with the whole racism thing? If you have something more damning I would be happy to read it (and I mean it too). But my sense is if there was a legal or national security reason to block it, it would have been done already.
Historically speaking, you are correct about where Muslims choose to build their mosques and the meaning they see in that. But does that justify us in denying Muslim US citizens their rights here?
Also, it seems to me that the Great Mosque of Corduba was a lot of things. I guess it depends on ones interpretation I guess. From what I have read, the Great Mosque of Corduba is a mixture of both Christian and Muslim architecture. One could interpret the meaning of the name as an attempt to come together. And unless I am completely wrong here (and I might very well be), the original church was purchased from Christians and converted to a mosque sometime around 600 AD. My point here is one can interpret things many different ways depending on their point of view.
I actually haven’t seen anything that would indicate that Christian churches construction proposals are being turned down because they are Christian. They may me a symptom of a greater problem with the abuse of eminent domain; which I oppose on all levels. And I would answer that more wrongs do not make a right.
“bin Laden and his crew will NOT be saying anything similar to “Look at the U.S. honoring their traditions and sticking by their Constitution.” Are you nuts? They will spread the word of this capitulation and it will embolden all those with commitments similar to this imam….they will see us as approaching ripeness for plucking. The various kinds of pressures will continue – minarets, amplified calls to prayer five times/day by the muezzin, sharia for “the community”, etc. etc. etc. And each time we fold, it will be harder to stand firm the next time, and “creeping sharia” will be our fate, just as you can see in various countries in Europe.”
How do answer this… it looks hysterical. Outside of intelligence, who really gives a crap what Bin Laden has to say? If it gets more of them to come out of their caves to face the 5.56 judgement all the more better for us. Creeping Sharia? Gimme a break. Do you realize what they would have to do to get the US to accept Sharia law: they would have to change the constitution (constitutional congress) and get enough states to vote to accept the changes or violently over throw our government? Even so, does that justify ignoring our own constitution and laws based simply on a general dislike and/or fear (rational or not)? And that is what I am asking here, and you have not answered it to my satisfaction.
I do agree with you on your last point though. If I were given the opportunity to vote on it I would vote “no” and if they block the building of the mosque through judicious use of codes; all the power to them. They just better be ready to defend the constitutionality of it. That’s all I ask.
Like I said before, I don’t like Islam and what it represents in the world. But I’m not willing to let my dislike of that religion cloud my judgement and ignore the rule of law. I’m all for our military going over wherever they are hiding and showing them what it means to be the “strong horse”. Hell, if they aren’t listening that’s their problem; they’ll get the message one way or the other.
Sean
Naahhh. We’ll never tolerate that shariah stuff here in the US…
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/world/americas/07iht-muslims.4.7022566.html?_r=1
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-special-treatment-from-schools_N.htm
“they would have to change the constitution (constitutional congress) and get enough states to vote to accept the changes or violently over throw our government? ”
Government’s already in their pocket and they don’t need to change the Constitution when Democrats ignore it anyways. And elections won’t kick out big government. That’s going to be there whether you win or lose elections. So Islam doesn’t need to overturn much of anything to get Shariah here because the work has been done for them.
Just like in Britain, they can get the local government to institute shariah. They don’t need much of anything themselves. After all, a lot of their funds come from Western charities and welfare. Including Palestinian aid..
All they need are activist judges. Look at the Prop 8 decision – the Judge uses two amendments that unquestionably did not refer to changing the definition of marriage – in fact, at the time the two amendments were written, sodomy was a crime in most if not all states. It’s like today – when some are saying felons are being denied rights because they’re not allowed to vote. Well duh. As Y says – they don’t have to change the Constitution – they just ignore it and make it up as they go along.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/advocates-anti-shariah-measures-alarmed-judges-ruling/
Felons are denied rights because due process found them guilty. It’s how people can get deprived of life too. And you don’t need a DemonRat infestation to make everybody into corporate workers locked into debt peonage. Due process can do that as well, because due process is the process of justice, not individual greed or corruption.
We always knew the Democrats had nothing against slavery, torture, sex tourism, or anything else evil and corrupt. Roman Polansky’s lust for defenseless little girls included. They are an infestation that must be purged and terminated down to the very roots of their existence. Because they will not allow the rule of law, due process, to limit their predations.
They will not allow it to stop them from controlling every moment of your life, from the very instance fo your birth to the end of your life’s journey. They will control, they will decide, and none of it will be under the restrictions of due process. They will make you slaves to their rich boys and girls and you will get absolutely no say. It’s march or die. An individual is not born free, when it is they who decide whether you get aborted or not. An individual, whether they be man or woman, cannot live a life of dignity and full potential under the tyranny of venal and corrupt rulers. They who hold supreme power over the arms of the state, to bludgeon to death any competitor or human obstacle.
Tanks rolling over protesters in Tienanmen will be the least of people’s worries once the New Aristocracy gain full power in this nation.
Tanks rolling over protesters in Tienanmen will be the least of people’s worries once the New Aristocracy gain full power in this nation.
They’re well on their way. The appointment of Kagan puts us one judge away.
Well, I stand corrected, were teetering on the edge of shredding the constitution and having beheadings and stoning on the streets. Come on, seriously. So a couple of public universities give special treatment to special class. Nothing new, that’s been going on for years. Separate issue; identity politics is a cancer in our public universities that needs to be corrected. Hardly proof of a vast muslim conspiracy to replace our constitution with sharia. Sorry Y, not buying it. Even though I agree that the direction our country is going towards the nanny state and socialism is wrong, we are far from a dictatorship that is bowing to the will of Muslims. Our government is not in their pocket; our current leadership, whom was legally elected whether we like it or not, is playing a lot nicer with Islamic countries than I would like. So yeah, maybe the republicans can get their act together and elect a real leader (doubt it) and change the direction of the country and the strategy for the GWOT. Local governments are still not above the law, and as such cannot adopt sharia law just because they want to. They ignore it at their own peril. As far as prop 8, it is going through the process… which is exactly what is supposed to happen. It is the job of the judicial branch to determine the constitutionality of any law… popular or not. Just because a majority votes for some law doesn’t make it constitutional. Prop 8 will eventually make it to the Supreme Court and be resolved there one way or the other. I don’t think that rises to the level of proof that supports the argument that we are in danger of canning the constitution and adopting sharia law. Nor does it justify denying the rights to Muslim citizens or any other unpopular group of citizens. Suek, you cite one incident in New Jersey Family Court where a judge made an obviously bad ruling. In the same article, New Jersey’s Appellate Court overturned the judges ruling. So in the article you cite as an example of activist judges also provides proof that our judicial system has layers to correct bad rulings. It doesn’t make your case at all. It actually makes my case that as flawed as our system is, it works. I asked earlier for proof that this Iman has questionable associations or ties to an extremist brand of Islam… none has been provided. I have read quite a bit on this, and like I said, outside of some opinion and hardly provable accusations, I have seen nothing that indicates that the Iman is an extremist… nothing. Al l I get is here say and guilty for being a muslim. We all laugh and snicker at the BDS and Troofers with their wild conspiracies, but in reality, our side has its own brand of that when we actually believe and support this sort of stuff. I agree with most of you on most issues, but I seriously question what it means to be a conservative when I see conservatives openly support denying rights or manipulating existing laws as a way to deny rights to a group of citizens simply because we find their religious beliefs distasteful. Is that what it means to be a conservative now? We just abandon the principle of the rule of law when it is convenient? We support guilt by association and guilty before proven innocent? We support the denial of rights of groups of citizens simply because a small percentage of them are extremists and violent (most of which don’t even live in this country). Look, I’m not doing this to be difficult. I am honestly troubled by this. I don’t want that mosques built either. But I can see no reason to block it… especially in light that it has been (or will be) approved by the city leaders and the builders are following all the pertinent codes and laws. And none of you have provided me any justification to change my position. Sean
Well, I stand corrected, were teetering on the edge of shredding the constitution and having beheadings and stoning on the streets. Come on, seriously. So a couple of public universities give special treatment to special class. Nothing new, that’s been going on for years. Separate issue; identity politics is a cancer in our public universities that needs to be corrected. Hardly proof of a vast muslim conspiracy to replace our constitution with sharia.
Sorry Y, not buying it. Even though I agree that the direction our country is going towards the nanny state and socialism is wrong, we are far from a dictatorship that is bowing to the will of Muslims. Our government is not in their pocket; our current leadership, whom was legally elected whether we like it or not, is playing a lot nicer with Islamic countries than I would like. So yeah, maybe the republicans can get their act together and elect a real leader (doubt it) and change the direction of the country and the strategy for the GWOT.
Local governments are still not above the law, and as such cannot adopt sharia law just because they want to. They ignore it at their own peril.
As far as prop 8, it is going through the process… which is exactly what is supposed to happen. It is the job of the judicial branch to determine the constitutionality of any law… popular or not. Just because a majority votes for some law doesn’t make it constitutional. Prop 8 will eventually make it to the Supreme Court and be resolved there one way or the other. I don’t think that rises to the level of proof that supports the argument that we are in danger of canning the constitution and adopting sharia law. Nor does it justify denying the rights to Muslim citizens or any other unpopular group of citizens.
Suek, you cite one incident in New Jersey Family Court where a judge made an obviously bad ruling. In the same article, New Jersey’s Appellate Court overturned the judges ruling. So in the article you cite as an example of activist judges also provides proof that our judicial system has layers to correct bad rulings. It doesn’t make your case at all. It actually makes my case that as flawed as our system is, it works.
I asked earlier for proof that this Iman has questionable associations or ties to an extremist brand of Islam… none has been provided. I have read quite a bit on this, and like I said, outside of some opinion and hardly provable accusations, I have seen nothing that indicates that the Iman is an extremist… nothing. Al l I get is here say and guilty for being a muslim.
We all laugh and snicker at the BDS and Troofers with their wild conspiracies, but in reality, our side has its own brand of that when we actually believe and support this sort of stuff. I agree with most of you on most issues, but I seriously question what it means to be a conservative when I see conservatives openly support denying rights or manipulating existing laws as a way to deny rights to a group of citizens simply because we find their religious beliefs distasteful. Is that what it means to be a conservative now? We just abandon the principle of the rule of law when it is convenient? We support guilt by association and guilty before proven innocent? We support the denial of rights of groups of citizens simply because a small percentage of them are extremists and violent (most of which don’t even live in this country)?
Look, I’m not doing this to be difficult. I am honestly troubled by this. I don’t want that mosques built either. But I can see no reason to block it… especially in light that it has been (or will be) approved by the city leaders and the builders are following all the pertinent codes and laws. And none of you have provided me any justification to change my position.
Sean
Please disregard #20… having issues with formatting on my end.
Sean
@Sadie and Y: Ok, that’s a bit of a reach don’t you think? We’re one step from Tienanmen Square because Kagan has been confirmed? Come on you guys… seriously, you can do better than that. For sake of argument here assuming what you say has some merit: then maybe our side should start winning some elections then. That’s how ones party steers the direction of the country. But we won’t do that sounding like paranoid conspiracy theorists. How to sway people to our POVis a subject of another thread.
Sean
Spiff580
Your raise reasonable questions. If only there were reasonable answers before the mosque is built. The Pelosi loop …”you’ll know what’s in the bill once it passes”. Religious buildings have the economic benefit of being classified a 501 (c) and we have yet to hear how this mega million dollar project is to be funded and by whom.
Faisal has been playing ‘hide n’ seek’ with Claudia Rosett.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/imam-faisal-ground-zero-mosque-money-opinions-columnists-claudia-rosett.html
Kagan’s appointment is certainly questionable on several points. No experience wearing black and too much experience with social justice. suek’s point is well taken, while the New Jersey’s Appellate Court overturned the verdict, appeals if not in the case, may well end up in the Supreme Court. One more opening and another Obama appointee and conspiracy theories will be the least of our problems.
<B>Come on, seriously.</b>
The issue of insurgency, counter-insurgency, society’s instability levels, and people’s willingness to destroy the status quo to replace it with what they perceive to be a better rendition of good government is a complicated subject. It would be complicated looking from the future into the past, but we’re stuck right in the middle of one such incident.
Insurgency and counter-insurgency are not clones of each other or of all such conflicts. Everything has its own particular flavor based upon the participants, local rules, and what they are fighting over.
<B>Hardly proof of a vast muslim conspiracy to replace our constitution with sharia.</b>
That would be based in Saudi Arabia. They’re the ones big on Shariah or at least exporting it so that terrorists don’t off the Royal Princes of Saud.
Leftists are allied with Muslims precisely because Leftists don’t care about Shariah or religion. Just as Leftists weren’t allied with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia because they liked Stalin and Hitler. They ally with groups because it gives them power. It allows them to crush their domestic enemies in the US and rule over more people. You don’t need to look any deeper than that. Alliances are based upon mutual interests. That’s all that is needed.
<B>we are far from a dictatorship that is bowing to the will of Muslims</b>
Britain doesn’t have a dictatorship. They have a Ruling Class of bureaucrats and aristocrats. Same difference. All free societies are free in their own way, but unfree societies always mirror each other’s dysfunctions. You don’t need a dictatorship. Any dysfunctional regime will do.
<B>Our government is not in their pocket</b>
You remember how the security director cleared the Saudi’s flight back to SA on 9/11? He is a Democrat. And he did it because he had a cozy alliance with the Sauds in terms of contracts and consulting jobs. Just as Hollywood is beholden to foreign interests because they get their funding overseas, so is the case that government bureacrats obey whomever pays them. That can be a domestic political party, like Democrats, but it can also be foreign organizations.
<B>Local governments are still not above the law, and as such cannot adopt sharia law just because they want to. </b>
They may have a reason to want to soon enough. Should the American miltiary refuse to obey or partially obfuscate or stall after receiving orders to suppress dissent, the Regime may wish to call in some strike breakers like Muslim shock troops to facilitate the New Black Panthers. Ideologically, they share much in common, jihad Muslims and Black Panthers. Ft. Hood did substantial damage. But a more complete and organized homegrown force can take out an entire unit’s family housing, whether for hostage or slaughter either one works.
Right before Ft. Hood happened, I was pondering how Obama would attack military bases in order to hold military families hostage in order to enforce Obama directives on crushing civilian protests with military power. I was told that military bases were “hardened”. In reality, of course, they are not as “hard” to attack as people think. As witnessed at Ft. Hood. Love inside jobs. But this fact is also very transparent. MIlitary members at military bases Are Not Armed. Never, ever, armed.
Right now they, the regime, don’t have a reason to want to take such proactive decisions, so it doesn’t matter whether they can or cannot adopt sharia law. They aren’t going to try in an active sense. It’s not something we need to worry about for the immediate future.
<B>Just because a majority votes for some law doesn’t make it constitutional.</b>
The Constitution never wrote gays need something called marriage and not civil unions. Don’t think that was ever written in the Constitution, perchance. A majority of 51% may be effy on the whole Constitution issue. A majority of 71%, however, is another issue entirely.
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
That’s Article 5. A supermajority of votes is not the same as 51% or an even lower plurality Of course, the people voting aren’t amending the Constitution, so forms need not be followed. But they don’t have to amend the Constitution. Because the Constitution does not give the judicial branch any powers to “make things up” as they go along in terms of legal rights for gays or their relationships. Three fourths. 75%. The judicial branch is very powerful if they want and have wiped out that many votes on a perfectly Constitutional vote. Too powerful for the nation’s good.
<B>I don’t think that rises to the level of proof that supports the argument that we are in danger of canning the constitution and adopting sharia law.</b>
The proof is not a general proof. It is a specific proof about Obama and regime. On that question, the conclusion is already certain.
<B>I have seen nothing that indicates that the Iman is an extremist… nothing. </b>
Obama’s not an extremist too. Or, at least, that’s what people thought when they elected them. People are not as hard to fool as they believe. In this war being waged on America, both internal and external, the truth is not so easy to discern. It won’t be enough to just get “proof” to contest one side of the debate against the other. The fog of war precludes finding out the real truth. Yet the war must be waged regardless. And collateral damage will be a given, not an option that can be avoided entirely, completely.
This is not a court of law issue. But if it was, proof will be sealed. Which requires time to be exposed. You don’t know everything about the Imam because the Imam hasn’t given you anything of worth to see. There’s no reason to believe the Imam doesn’t have anything worth seeing, however. Plenty of reason to believe he is hiding something with this proactive 9/11 Mosque.
<B>Al l I get is here say and guilty for being a muslim.</b>
Ask him if Muslims built the Mosque called the Hagia Sophia. Enemies are guilty of being enemies. Whether they are Muslim, American, Private Gay US Army private that targeted Afghans for the execution squad, does not matter in the least. Enemies are enemies, not allies or neutrals. The only question is whether he is an enemy or not. Not whether he is muslim or not.
<B>Sorry Y, not buying it.</b>
Under this regime, you won’t have to. They’ll just take the money out of your account and buy it for you.
<B>And none of you have provided me any justification to change my position. Sean</b>
The strategic justification is simple. People will die because Muslims conquerors get inspiration from the might of Allah, represented by the presence of Muslim forces on American soil. Do you understand why McChrystal went out of his way to tell his forces to reduce civilian casualties to Zero? Even while knowing that this is difficult and can get American troops killed. It is because regardless of whether it is right or wrong, dead civilians bring more power to the enemy. And more power to the enemy is always a bad thing. It is always justified to decrease the enemy’s power. Regardless of what methods are used or not.
The question of military necessity only concerns whether the action taken or not is effective or not in ending the war sooner. Reducing the power of Islam will end the war sooner. Locking up Japanese Americans under FDR the President for Life tyrant, did not do much to benefit the American war effort at all. Hell, the entire State Department was rife with Communists spies and traitors. Should have locked them all up and executed them, and left the Japanese Americans alone.
I wouldn’t say elections are meaningless. But they also aren’t as important as most people think, either.
<B>then maybe our side should start winning some elections then.</b>
<B>But we won’t do that sounding like paranoid conspiracy theorists.</b>
You should hear Ayers, Alinsky, and Communist Party members in private conversations. They sound like they are conspiring to destroy America, in their private conversations. Because they are. It’s not hard for them to present another image to the public though. One that is moderate, sane, and appeals to the stupidities and prejudices of the masses.
What makes you think that what I say here won’t be modified into something appropriately soothing and moderate if I was speaking to a national or more public audience? You think I would tell them that the End Is Nigh? No. I wouldn’t say any such thing at all. Deception is not about lying. It’s about getting people to think the right thoughts and to make the right choices. And best of all, those people would have thought it was their idea all along.
<B> Ok, that’s a bit of a reach don’t you think?</b>
As for Sadie’s comment, I’ll have to let her speak for herself on this issue. As she is well and able to do.
Sadie,
Thanks
I don’t believe there is any legal requirement that builders have to disclose where their funding comes from… even in the case of tax exempt religious buildings… but I could be wrong on that. Nor do they have to answer Claudia Rosett’s questions. I would bet in her case they sense a hostile point of view and choose not to engage… perhaps that is short sighted on their part and/or they do have something to hide. I don’t know. She asks valid questions… but he is under no legal obligation to answer them. Nor does my or your suspicions qualify as facts.
Also, under Bush, a lot of work was done to freeze up funding from terrorist and terrorist supporting organizations. One would assume that had he had questionable associations it would have discovered by now and dealt with. Un-provable suspicions do not qualify nor compel him legally respond.
I agree Kagan’s confirmation is disappointing, but hardly a sign that we are approaching a Tiananmen square incident or some kind of “New Aristocracy”. It will take more than a liberal supreme court to scrap the constitution.
Sean
>>We just abandon the principle of the rule of law when it is convenient? >> (re the mosque)
Who has proposed that the rule of law be abandoned? If you’re not aware that things are done entirely legally – and the Prop 8 is an obvious one – and still be within laws that have been written, then you’re very foolish.
A very local example: In the area in which I live, there _was_ a one acre minimum for new homes. For a number of years, a developer requested that the minimum be lowered, and the county board denied his request. Then one year, it happened that two particular members of the board went on vacation at the same time. The request was again presented, and wonder of wonders…it passed! Was the rule of law abandoned? Nope – but it sure was bent out of shape, imo. Such things happen. In the mosque case, there was a vote by the committee to designate historical buildings. It could have designated the building as an historical building, and the mosque would have been denied. It wasn’t…although there are historical buildings/areas with less historical importance. So…I wonder who’s on that committee. How do they get _on_ the committee. Are they elected, or appointed? Do you know? I don’t. And I haven’t heard anything else about it. Why have there been roadblocks in the way of the rebuilding of St.Nicholas Church? Who’s responsible for that?
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about. It’s all perfectly legal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/nyregion/19church.html?_r=1
And an “oh yeah”…
Spiff580…
You seem like a straightforward sort of person. You probably play a pretty mean game of checkers. How are you at chess?
Chess was originally a Persian game, I understand…
It will take more than a liberal supreme court to scrap the constitution.
…And it only took one California judge to overturn Prop 8 [example here, not opinion on the merits] that will send it to the Supreme Court, which short circuits votes, voices and the Constitution.
I had a friend that set up a 501 (c) a charity for the purpose of fund raising for cancer. It took more than a year, jumping hoops and no shortage of legal paper and filings. In other words, everything had to be out front, neat, legal, etc. No dodge ball, no hide n’ seek and no 501 (c) until. Of course, she didn’t have Mayor Bloomberg on her side announcing “he doesn’t care where the money comes from”. A liberal mayor can do just as much damage as a liberal court.
Look Y, I’m not getting into this with you; it’s all theory and conjecture. That being said, nothing you say here would justify denying Muslim US citizens their rights under the constitution simply because you are able to string together some related and unrelated facts, historical references and insurgency and counterinsurgency theory to support the idea that we are at war with all of Islam and that we are actively losing that fight (yes I know, you said more than that). And that’s what we are talking about here… isn’t it?
I however am not a lawyer or legal scholar, so like I said I may be wrong here. But I do believe that even if 90% of the citizens voted in favor of an unconstitutional law the Supreme Court would still have the power and duty to overturn the law. I agree the constitution does not address gay marriage, or marriage for that matter. I believe the debate here is whether or not marriage is a right and whether or not denying that right to gays is unconstitutional. That is what we are sorting out. I have my personal beliefs, but they don’t matter in the end. Agree or not, the process is working on prop 8 and like it or not it will be resolved (we probably wont like it).
Y, if what you see is true; when the time comes I’ll stand beside you to defend our way of life. But I really honestly think your reaching here. It’s not that I dont understand what you are saying, it has more to do with that there is nothing to argue back with. You belive in the conspiracy… I do not. I’m not blind, sleeping or brainwashed… I just belive in the KISS principle and Occams Razor is all.
Sean
The National Review’s website that as Harvard Law School dean, Kagan “became the champion of sharia.”
The rest here…
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/elena-kagan-pro-sharia.html
@Suek,
I don’t believe that I am “foolish”. But what I seeing am proposed here is blocking the construction by twisting and manipulating codes simply because people don’t like Islam. I would not support that… just like I would not support using eminent domain to obtain property for a private retailer (or using building codes to block a WalMart). And pointing to examples of similar abuse will not convince me that it is ok when it favors my POV. I think I am consistent there.
I guess, from my POV, using laws as they were not intended is also a way to “abandoning the rule of law”. I apologize if the observation is inaccurate, but I didn’t necessarily mean you all though, it was more of an observation of general opinion from all over. So I apologize for implying that to you all… it was unwarranted.
I’m an engineer in the real world, that may be why I am looking at things the way I do. Oh, I don’t really enjoy checkers all that much. I used to enjoy chess, haven’t played it in a long time. I do enjoy strategy games on the PC… like Rome and Empire.
Sean
@Sadie #29,
Yep, and now it moves to the next level in the legal system.
Remember I said for building I don’t think they are required to show funding sources. I imagine to get the 501(C) status they do have to show funding… which, as I said before under Bush, questionable sources were scrutinized and frozen.
I imagine it helps that they have scummy politicians backing them up and it helped expedite things… but I believe they have been planning this for a couple of years though. More than enough time to get all legal obstacles sorted out.
And yep, liberal pols suck. More reason for our side to win.
Sean
<B>That being said, nothing you say here would justify denying Muslim US citizens their rights under the constitution simply because you are able to string together some related and unrelated facts</b>
I don’t have to say anything here to justify that. You’ll see what happens as time goes on. Whether they approve or disapprove of the building, future events will be decided by the combatants involved. We are only spectators for now.
<B>denying Muslim US citizens their rights under the constitution</b>
Special rights you mean. Since the rest of us don’t have the rights of Muslims in the US, citizen or not. You seem to think that you can protect your own status by protecting other people. You forgot that this doesn’t work on enemies, only allies or neutrals. See, it’s the details of the game. It’s easy to figure out that you need to win and to win you need to get to the finish line, but how is full of details.
Lots of people have believed that if they just go along with the status quo, that the US Constitution will stand paramount and protect them, if only they believe in it and support it. They forgot that allowing enemies to operate in the US to destroy the US Constitution, doesn’t meet the definition of “support”. People keep believing in false salvation like that and they’ll get what they are getting now. Unemployment, economic and ecological disaster, and serfdom. There will be no US Constitution if you allow insurgents free reign because you’re afraid of some blowback or collateral damage. For the Constitution to protect you and Muslims, you must protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Just assuming out of hand that Muslims or Americans are “okay” is not going to cut it.
Issues are clearer on foreign insurgencies, but a lot of people don’t know the proper way to deal with domestic insurgencies.
<B>And that’s what we are talking about here… isn’t it?</b>
There’s more than Islam involved here. There’s other factions, like reform minded Iranians, reform minded Sufis, and traitorous Americans, Democrats or not. When considering Mosque on GZero, you have to consider more than simply the threat of Islam. Islam wouldn’t be such a problem, if it wasn’t for all the other issues America has.
<B>But I do believe that even if 90% of the citizens voted in favor of an unconstitutional law the Supreme Court would still have the power and duty to overturn the law.</b>
I’m not arguing about democracy vs constitutional republics. This issue involves solely judicial fiat in ruling on law and voting that is perfectly Constitutional and protected by the Constitution. The number of reverses of California’s district on this is legion. They know it will be reversed. They just want to cost people money, that government doesn’t have to pay for. Which stokes up people’s anger and makes them fight for gay rights or something.
<B>Agree or not, the process is working on prop 8</b>
The enemy is using the process against us, in plain speak. So over the last few decades, people thought community organizing was just community service and grassroots democracy. Well, we found out recently that it was something a lot more serious than that. That it was a process designed to use the protections of the US Constitution to overturn and dismantle the protections of the Constitution. Obama has now nationalized businesses. More than that, he stole businesses from Republicans and gave it to their Democrat competitors. How’s that for “Constitutional property protections”. Without a declaration of war or an emergency decree or martial law. Those may be coming along soon, though. Obama is taking over the economy, healthcare, and making demands of people’s behavior to conform to government regimentation.
Nobody thought that it was going to get this serious, just because some Leftists followed the US Constitution and exercised their freedom of protest and speech. But they should have if they had listened to Bella Dodd and others like her who knew what these people were up to. The point is, just cause something is working, doesn’t mean the ingredient hasn’t been added to it to make it explode while working.
Vigilance is required for counter sabotage. And just cause things are going okay, NOW, doesn’t mean much in preventing sabotage.
“Y, if what you see is true; when the time comes I’ll stand beside you to defend our way of life. ”
And I don’t doubt that. But I suspect that while I spent 7 years researching this issue on the net and observing human behavior to ascertain truth or fiction of research, you haven’t spent nearly as long studying espionage, deception, war, and insurgency. There’s no substitute for that knowledge. You shouldn’t be convinced just because I say so. You had to have spent the time reaching that conclusion on your own.
That’s what defectors from the Left did. They reached their conclusion on their own. Not because somebody “told” them to go do X.
“I would not support that… just like I would not support using eminent domain to obtain property for a private retailer (or using building codes to block a WalMart). ”
The simple fact is that they already do this. In order for the law to equally protect us, it has to apply equally. It is bad enough that KELO stands. But if KELO stands and the government selectively uses it to punish dissidents while rewarding internal enemies of the US, then it’s much much worse. It’s better for the law to apply fairly and equally to everybody in making them miserable than excluding some Special Group.
If you can change KELO, that’s good. But so long as it stands, it should be applicable to all, no exceptions. It is bad enough that law is an arse and that it sucks. But it shouldn’t have to suck for some while others are protected by “political influence” from its effects. That’s beyond simple incompetence and unfairness.
“I just belive in the KISS principle and Occams Razor is all.”
Democrats have said that they are doing this, including ignoring the law, making stuff up as they go along, conspiring with each other (JournoList), and making sure the poor and blacks stay impoverished. On the KISS principle, I just believe they are being truthful. And that defectors from their ranks are being truthful as well when they say that the Democrats are actually doing what they say they are doing.
“But I really honestly think your reaching here. ”
That’s perfectly fine. I’m not troubled because people find it hard to believe. I wouldn’t have believed it in 2003 or 2002 or 2001 or 1999 for that matter. But I do believe it now, in 2010.
“like Rome and Empire. ”
You mean Rome Total War and Empire Total War?
Btw, on another topic, have you checked out any anime titles you found of import?
@Y: I’ll have to get back to you on some of this.
Yeah, I enjoy the Total War series; haven’t played much of Empire yet though. Rome is by far my favorite though.
Haven’t seen any anime lately; I have been meaning to check out what you have suggesyed before. If you get a chance, look up the Battleship Yamato (Starblazers) trailer on YouTube. They’re making a live action version in Japan that looks pretty cool.
Sean
I may have mentioned this before, but Rome Barbarorum was a really good historical and tactical mod. A lot of interesting background text on each historical unit, for every culture. It was like an Ancient History lesson.
All kinds of stuff about the Celts and other tribes. First time I knew the Celts had moved all the way to what we call today Turkey.
Well, folks – I’ve been reading the comments above, and the overwhelming feeling I get is….Head….Sand…..
Denying permission for construction near our (completely secular) “sacred spaces” is common – it’s done all the time around Civil War battlefields, for instance, and I belong to a couple of organizations involved in such defense of these spaces.
The same thing could be done with the mosque near Ground Zero, and no one’s constitutional rights would be violated…. On the other hand, the rights and interests of the vast majority of Americans are being violated by the Mayor and his cohorts in NYC government. Apparently, every building in the block where the mosque is to be built is on the list of historic places, and a number are far less worthy than the one at issue.
Something is going on in NYC, and it is not ONLY their interests at stake. Any more than Gettysburg is an issue for the residents of PA to deal with on their own.
We are at war, and a representative of the enemy is attempting to put a monument to victory next to the exact location where his most successful attack was pulled off. Anyone got an idea what the answer would be if we asked to build a Christian church near the wreckage left as a monument to the bombing of Hiroshima? This is of the same caliber of insult.
spiff580 said (many posts earlier)
> Hardly proof of a vast muslim conspiracy to replace our constitution with sharia. Sorry Y, not buying it.
and
> But what I seeing am proposed here is blocking the construction by twisting and manipulating codes simply because people don’t like Islam.
I am one of those advocating “twisting and manipulating codes”, but it is hardly for the reason that “I don’t like Islam”. That is a massive oversimplification and a deliberate attempt to tar and feather me (and us) with the usual motive of hatred. (As in the left crying racism at every one of their opponents!
I am not against the building of mosques by Muslims. But I am against the building of *this* particular mosque, by *this* particular group, headed by *this* particular man. Where you, spiff580, see noble intention, I am absolutely convinced of ulterior and treacherous motive. There is no vast conspiracy, but there is a conspiracy afoot by these particular people. This group is composed of Muslim supremacists. They fully intend to rub our noses in 9-11. They see it as a part of the natural order of the world, because for them, the natural order of the world has *them* on top of us, foot/boot firmly on neck.
I do not believe all Muslims wish that. Why do YOU believe that ALL Muslims are kind, gentle wonderful sheep, just wanting to share the meadow with everyone else? There are bad actors in every crowd, and *this* particular group is a nasty group of bad actors.
As to the “vast conspiracy”… well, I think most Muslims, like most people, just want to live happy, comfortable lives. They’re not engaged in the day to day jihad against the rest of world, looking at every moment to advance the cause of Sharia. But – statistically speaking – they are more comfortable with Sharia than with Western law, because Sharia is a part of their religious and cultural identity. They will simply go along with the program: Of course Sharia should be enforced in their communities; it’s only natural! Of course, given a large enough population, Sharia should hold sway across the entire state; it’s only natural!
When I look where Islam, today, is most robust, I see a very active, aggressive form of totalitarian Islam. The moderates – whereever they may be – are silent and cowed. This virulent, aggressive totalitarian Islam has roots in the 30′s and 40′s with movement leaders who allied themselves with the Nazis. They were natural allies to the Nazis, far more so than Italy or Japan. Those in that particular movement birthed the radical jihadists of our day, and their nature, and their goals, haven’t changed one bit. All of the rest of us are *still* the ones who shall be ruled by the iron boot and crushed, whether it be by the Hitlerian State or the Theocratic Imam. The problem is their certainty of their own superiority over the rest of us, and their willingness to enforce it, especially via any level of violence.
Before I go off to do Saturday stuff ….
Several clerics from Al-Azhar have rejected the construction of a mosque near New York’s Ground Zero.
A member of the Al-Azhar Islamic Research Center, Dr. Abd Al-Muwati Biyumi, said that the mosque’s construction could connect Islam and 9/11, while Islam is innocent of the deed.
He also called the plan a “Zionist plot.”
Source: Al-Masri Al-Yawm, Egypt, August 5, 2010
http://www.thememriblog.org/blog_personal/en/29156.htm
@Mike
“That is a massive oversimplification and a deliberate attempt to tar and feather me (and us) with the usual motive of hatred.”
Sorry you took it so personally, as I didn’t name you personally, so it was not a deliberate attempt to tar and feather you personally. I can’t help it if you interpret motives that are not there. In addition, I don’t think it was a “massive over simplification” either. From the gist of opinions I have been reading on this and other sites I got the impression that a lot of conservative did want to manipulate the laws to block the construction of the site after it was already approved by the planning council. I did say my interpretation may have been wrong and simply asked the question.
“Where you, spiff580, see noble intention, I am absolutely convinced of ulterior and treacherous motive.”
I never said I saw noble intention here. Absence of specific proof otherwise I can only take the Imam at his word. In fact, I thought I was quite clear that I don’t want the mosque built there (please go back and read what I said before putting words in my mouth). Please provide proof of the Imam’s “ulterior and treacherous motives”; I am more than willing to read them and modify my opinion.
“Why do YOU believe that ALL Muslims are kind, gentle wonderful sheep, just wanting to share the meadow with everyone else?”
I don’t and I never said I did. If you go back and read what I said at the very beginning I don’t particularly care for Islam as a religion and what it represents in the world. But, under the law, all US citizens (including Muslim citizens) are innocent before proven guilty… unless you are advocating separate laws for Muslim citizens (sort of an anti-Sharia). So outside of having some opinions that we disagree with this guy has done nothing wrong (legally) and has followed all the rules.
“well, I think most Muslims, like most people, just want to live happy, comfortable lives.”
Agreed.
You defend your support of bending and twisting laws to deny the building of these mosques and claim it is not because you just don’t like Islam. But provide no evidence to why it should be blocked, other than pointing out that radical Islam is bad. Great, we agree, but you haven’t made the case that this particular Imam is directly or indirectly associated with radical Islamists. He may have made some public statements that we don’t agree with (or even find offensive), but I don’t think they are proof that he is a radical Islamist nor is that solid justification to block the construction.
To be clear again: I do not support the building of the Corduba Center near Ground Zero. I do not like Islam (in fact I dislike quite intensely) and what it represents in this world. But I am not willing to compromise my core values or the rule of law (and that includes bending and twisting laws). I think I am consistent here. I think the willingness to bend and twist laws to deny certain groups their rights is a far greater threat than a stupid and offensive mosque built near ground zero.
Thanks,
Sean
The issue on evidence is that it’s being blocked by numerous organizations and for disparate reasons. Government, so called journalists, and Islamic factions all have their particular motivations here.
So Spiff will get his evidence. Like people said about obama in 2009. Wait and see. Maybe he’ll be good for this nation.
Maybe.
@Earl
“Well, folks – I’ve been reading the comments above, and the overwhelming feeling I get is….Head….Sand…..”
Really? Wow, just asking the questions means ones head is in the sand now. Wow. I would argue that going along with the pack and not questioning would be a “head in the sand” moment. Are you sure you support open debate or do you only want to agree in a vacuum? Trying not to take that personally; hard not to though as I am the only one asking the questions.
“Denying permission for construction near our (completely secular) “sacred spaces” is common – it’s done all the time around Civil War battlefields, for instance, and I belong to a couple of organizations involved in such defense of these spaces.”
So it will be ok to block the building of a Christian church near ground zero on these grounds as well? Would you support the grabbing of all buildings damaged on 9/11 and denying any private organization the use of the building on the grounds it is historical place? Do you really want to open that door?
“The same thing could be done with the mosque near Ground Zero, and no one’s constitutional rights would be violated…. ”
Not sure I agree. But that would be something for the courts to decide I guess. Especially if the only reason it is blocked is because the builders are Muslim (or Christian or WalMart).
“Apparently, every building in the block where the mosque is to be built is on the list of historic places, and a number are far less worthy than the one at issue.”
That is not what I have read… if you don’t mind please provide a reference. I’d be interested to read that and it would probably change my opinion if it were true.
“We are at war, and a representative of the enemy is attempting to put a monument to victory next to the exact location where his most successful attack was pulled off. ”
Really? Is that only because he is a Muslim? Has he said he is aligned with Al Qaeda? Have there been any public or private statements that would indicate as such? Any evidence outside of opinion or here say?
“Anyone got an idea what the answer would be if we asked to build a Christian church near the wreckage left as a monument to the bombing of Hiroshima?“
I don’t recall, but it seems to me that it wasn’t “Christians” that specifically bombed Hiroshima. I don’t recall anything in history about the Pope claiming responsibility for Hiroshima… I might be wrong though. Nor would any Christian organizations want to build a church near Hiroshima for the specific reason as a monument to the bombing. So the example seems a bit… odd.
Sean
Ultimately, Spiff has to act on his own conscience. He’s standing on principle, which is good. It doesn’t matter whether I think it is the right decision based upon the right data.
Essentially, the friction here between Spiff and Mike’s view is that Mike takes issue with Spiff’s descriptions of anti-Islamic sentiment as being the leading motivation for Mike and some other people, while Spiff takes issue with claims that the Islamic Imam here is terrorist affiliated with evidence.
Now, some of us, due to personal experience and personal judgment, deem the decision on the Mosque to be a sign of things to come. That’s based upon our conscience and beliefs. Spiff comes from a different perspective. That’s okay and workable, because Spiff doesn’t come from a place hostile to us.
There’s some time yet before the whole Mosque issue becomes static. And anything can change there, including the 2010 elections. So I recommend people to have patience and wait.
“So it will be ok to block the building of a Christian church near ground zero on these grounds as well? Would you support the grabbing of all buildings damaged on 9/11 and denying any private organization the use of the building on the grounds it is historical place? Do you really want to open that door? ”
Christians would be fine getting blocked from government zones, parks, or what not. What they really find offensive is that they are the ones singled out for a beating while Muslims and other extremist sects get the royalty treatment. Even as Muslims are offensive, intolerant, hang gays, and like Shariah.
“Nor would any Christian organizations want to build a church near Hiroshima for the specific reason as a monument to the bombing. So the example seems a bit… odd.”
A better example is simply a US base instead. The Japanese wanted the US base on Okinawa because Japanese have racist prejudices about Okinawans so it seemed to them like a fitting place for foreigners. And the US had problems with that. They didn’t need their base near Hiroshima or Nagasaki. They weren’t trying to prove a point that they were victorious conquerors. Islam, however, is different.
Correction, US had no problems.
Suppose the US declared war on islam? Would that change your position, Spiff? (I’m not suggesting that we do that…but suppose we did)
I think this is part of the problem – we’re at war with _somebody_ but at the moment, it’s just the “jihadists”, and nobody is willing to stand up and say “Hey … I’m a jihadist”. Well…not in the US, anyway. When we went to war with Germany, it wasn’t with the German _people_. When we went to war with Japan, it wasn’t with the Japanese _people_. The problem in this war is that we can’t really declare war against a _nation_, so it devolves into a war on a group of people who belong to the same religion. And that’s a problem.
As far as I’m concerned, the SC “bent and twisted” the Constitution when they made the Kelo decision. But the good goes along with the bad. If they can change the rules, then we can play by the changed rules. Prior to Kelo, I would have said private property rights trump society rights. The SC has changed that – so we get to play the game as well. Change the rules back again, and the game changes again. We’re not the ones “bending and changing” the laws, imo.
@Y
I found the Barbarian expansion a good upgrade. My favorite unit was the Plumbatari (sp?), which I believe were from the Eastern Roman Empire. The Roman method of infantry fighting was quite effective.
“So Spiff will get his evidence. Like people said about obama in 2009. Wait and see. Maybe he’ll be good for this nation.”
Actually, Y, I only want the evidence that this particular Imam is a bad guy so that I can support the blocking of the mosque on more than the simple grounds that I don’t like Islam. I asked you all to help me see this and the best I can get from most of you is that I am a “dhimmi”, brainwashed, asleep, blind, “head in the sand” and so forth.
I don’t have a “wait and see” attitude on this… more like an “I don’t like but I really can’t do anything about it attitude”. Same went for Obama… he was elected legally, and as such, he is my CIC. Here is hoping to 2012 being a change in leadership (clink).
I don’t feel like this should be relevant to the debate but I will put it out there to provide some perspective to my background. I spent a little time overseas serving in Iraq as an AF Security Forces member. I sat at a gate and tower for 12-hour days searching Iraqi citizens and vehicles that were coming on base to work. I will never claim to have sacrificed as much as the Army/Marine dude who went out on patrol every day, but I have put my money where my mouth is. I also got a good glimpse of how crappy Islam is and how shitty the life for people who live in Islamic countries is. So yeah, I don’t particularly care for Islam and the fact that it is because of the religion I was separated from my family for a bit. So, yes, I do take some offense to people saying or implying my “head is in the sand” simply because I don’t immediately fall in line.
I agree that we are at war with radical Islam. And we should fight it both around the world and here at home. But I am not convinced that this particular case falls under the domestic part. Nor would I support a strategy of violating (or twisting) of or our laws as a strategy in that fight. I would argue, that although it may put us at a disadvantage at times, it is our laws and the rule of law that makes this a great country (even with Obama in charge).
“Christians would be fine getting blocked from government zones, parks, or what not.”
Agreed, but that was not my point thought… I asked if he (Earl) would support that.
“ What they really find offensive is that they are the ones singled out for a beating while Muslims and other extremist sects get the royalty treatment. Even as Muslims are offensive, intolerant, hang gays, and like Shariah.”
Agreed… that’s another issue altogether and one I think we would all agree on.
@Suek…
You are absolutely right (I think)… I need to review the Kelo decision, my memory is lacking on that. I’m not sure how one could use the Kelo decision at this late in the game to block the building. And wouldn’t they need some good reasoning to block it other than a general dislike of the Imam and Islam in general? Like I said, I haven’t seen anything concrete that would connect this guy with Jihadists.
In addition, I’m not sure I could get behind the abuse of eminent domain law… even if it is legal at this point. I would rather see more time and energy fighting it… not providing it more historical precedence. But, I would not hold it against those of you who would support… I would only ask that you consider your reasoning behind it is all.
Sean
“I asked you all to help me see this and the best I can get from most of you is that I am a “dhimmi”, brainwashed, asleep, blind, “head in the sand” and so forth.”
The reason why you got those responses is due to implying or stating the claim that you knew people’s motivations here as only being anti-Islam, because that’s how you decided it was going to be for yourself if you went against the Mosque on the circumstance alone.
It’s a personal space issue. People usually are fine with you stating what you believe to be the case and what you are willing to do. But they’re not fine if you then cross the line and tell them what they are thinking and feeling. Not if they didn’t agree to it beforehand.
Just as you do not like other people distorting your beliefs and feelings to be other than what you know them to be, the same is true for other people. Now I say this not because I’m casting blame, but because I’m simply stating a truth about all humans, which just happens to include you at the moment.
On the topic of personal space vs other people’s space, which was taught to me by various bouncers and other people who have seen too many arguments to recall all of them, you always have the right to determine what you yourself are thinking and feeling. So if someone steps into your space and invades it, tries to claim it as their own, to do with as they see fit, of course you’ll get angry and try to defend your space. The issue is, the emotion of anger or whatever a person is feeling, at that moment distorts people’s perception of space. What they see as their space can be distorted such that while telling people to get off their property, they somehow end up chasing the guy into the guy’s private property. This then initiates a counter-attack, as the other guy now refuses to keep running.
So we get this back and forth and it tends to escalate when neither side knows what’s actually going on.
On the internet, people can’t get into your space, unless they somehow hack you or you let them in. That’s why I didn’t take your comments, Spiff, as being about me personally. Because it didn’t matter to me what you thought people’s motivations here were. It didn’t affect me unless I wanted it to affect me. But that’s just me. Other people feel and think differently. However, words and which words you use and whether the subject is you stating what you believe and will or will not do, vs what you think other people will, should, or cannot do, can indeed change how other people perceive the issue.
>>“ What they really find offensive is that they are the ones singled out for a beating while Muslims and other extremist sects get the royalty treatment. Even as Muslims are offensive, intolerant, hang gays, and like Shariah.”
Agreed… that’s another issue altogether and one I think we would all agree on.>>
_Why_ is that another issue altogether?? Why should muslims and other extremist sects get the royalty treatment, and Christians get the shaft? _That’s_ what’s going on here. Then you turn around and say that it’s “another issue altogether and that Christians “shouldn’t” be giving muslims the same attitude/treatment.
That’s illogical.
Let’s face it…muslims kill people who insult them. Christians don’t (aside from criminals who may _say_ they’re Christians, but their actions belie them). So it’s much safer to deny law-abiding Christians who play by the rules than muslims who are very practiced in deceit and corruption – in addition to being threatening.
>>I’m not sure how one could use the Kelo decision at this late in the game to block the building.>>
You couldn’t – not directly. But the Kelo decision gave local governments and societies a voice in how property is used. Prior to Kelo, government could only take land for public use. After Kelo, governments could take land if it “benefitted” the community. That’s actually a huge difference. Kelo allowed governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another private owner. In my opinion, that’s _exactly_ what the Constitution intended to protect us from – it’s the ultimate corruption…the lack of governmental protection of private property ownership.
On a lesser scale, zoning is also a form of “taking” of property. It limits what an owner can do with his property. We pretty much accept zoning as ok – but in fact, it is a form of taking. In my area, for example, there was a property of a couple hundred acres that was originally was on the outskirts of town, but which had become surrounded by “town”. The property had been in the same family for at least 3 generations, and they still farmed it. The city rezoned the land from Ag to Residential (whichever level is the most dense), which caused the taxes to jump to a level that made it unreasonable to continue farming. The owner protested, but they city passed the rezoning anyway. The farmer was financially forced to sell the land to a developer. IMO, that was a taking – even if the farmer came out financially fine. It was not his choice to sell the land – it was a forced decision…forced by zoning.
>>But, I would not hold it against those of you who would support… I would only ask that you consider your reasoning behind it is all.>>
Assuming that none here are in favor of doing anything illegal – what reasoning should we consider?
“The reason why you got those responses is due to implying or stating the claim that you knew people’s motivations here as only being anti-Islam…”
Y, I appreciate your comments. I never stated or made any claim that I knew people’s motivations. I may have implied it on some level, but considering the responses I was pretty clear from the beginning that based on what I had read lead me to my own interpretation. I was asking the question that has been bugging me from the time this became an issue. In fact, I believe what happened to me is exactly what you claim I did… people assumed I was a “dhimmi” or had my “head in the sand”. I may have responded to some with some snark, but from the beginning I was respectful.
But what are the other reasons to block this? No one has told me verifiable and provable reason this mosque should be blocked at this point. The best I got is that Islam has a history of this sort of thing and that it will send a message to the Muslim world as a victory. All possibly true, but hardly a reason to break (or bend) our own laws and deny someone their rights.
I’m not arguing for it mind you. I’m just not arguing against it. The way I see it, we can’t win this one. It’s one of those moments, assuming everything we all fear about this guy is true, where our own freedom, values and laws will be used against us.
Instead of trying to find a way to block it maybe we should be talking about a way to respond to it. I read somewhere that some developer is looking to open up a gay bar specializing in outreach to closeted gay Muslim men.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/09/greg-gutfeld-im-raising-money-to-build-a-muslim-gay-bar-next-to-the-ground-zero-mosque/
And I thought the idea of an FBI satellite and military recruiting office next door was funny as well.
I fully support utilizing our right to assemble and free speech to protest and put pressure on the Imam to move the location.
Sean
Why should we _not_ be trying to block it? Assuming legal efforts, of course. I don’t understand why we shouldn’t be trying every means legally possible…
Also:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/muslims_speak_out_against_the.html
“Why is that another issue altogether?? Why should muslims and other extremist sects get the royalty treatment, and Christians get the shaft?”
Because it is not within the scope of this debate. I don’t agree with any group getting special treatment. I don’t agree with identity politics on any level. Therefore I would not support targeting Muslims for special treatment, both positive and negative. I don’t claim it isn’t happening, only that I personally won’t provide historical precedence for its continued use by partaking in it as a strategy against a group that I don’t particularly like. That’s all.
“Let’s face it…muslims kill people who insult them. Christians don’t (aside from criminals who may say they’re Christians, but their actions belie them).”
Agreed… and if they do it here the full force of the law is brought upon them. So far as I can tell we are not giving Muslims who commit violent crimes here any special treatment. The media may choose to ignore the Muslimness, but our law enforcements still goes after them regardless of who they worship.
“So it’s much safer to deny law-abiding Christians who play by the rules than muslims who are very practiced in deceit and corruption – in addition to being threatening.”
So because it is happening to Christians we should fully get behind doing it to Muslims? Seems to me the right strategy should be to oppose denial of rights of all citizens, regardless of their religion. Two wrongs do not make a right.
“Assuming that none here are in favor of doing anything illegal – what reasoning should we consider?”
That’s what I have been asking. I don’t have an answer for you.
Question for you: you make the implication that Muslims are extremists and that they kill people. Do you see no difference between radical Islam and other Muslim? Are all Muslim suspect simply because they are Muslim. I only ask this because it gives me a frame of reference as to where you are coming from.
Sean
Just a few thoughts on the give n’ take above.
All well and good to seek logic and laws, but this works best when we’re all using the same logic and law. The problem is that Islam does not and is in fact tweaking them. Bookworm, in another post nicely pointed out that Islam is not just a religion, it is also a political system [forgive me, Bookworm for bringing down your post to a simple sentence].
We are not working off the same page. When we make a decision to buy a car, we do it on past performance reports. When we buy a home, we investigate the school system, the neighborhood and what the area provides in services. If I may parallel Islam to the Blue Book on vehicles – it’s a lemon. 1400 years later, it still runs on fumes, is accident prone and a high risk vehicle to insure. There is no braking system built in and this is where the rubber meets the road (or doesn’t). Non muslims are non entities, just annoying pedestrians crossing the road.
“Why should we not be trying to block it? Assuming legal efforts, of course. I don’t understand why we shouldn’t be trying every means legally possible…”
Because, unless I am missing something here, the Imam has met all the legal requirements and was approved by the local planning commission to proceed. So at this point, outside of changing the laws and/or twisting and bending existing laws, there is nothing we can do legally to block it.
“If I may parallel Islam to the Blue Book on vehicles – it’s a lemon. 1400 years later, it still runs on fumes, is accident prone and a high risk vehicle to insure. There is no braking system built in and this is where the rubber meets the road (or doesn’t). Non muslims are non entities, just annoying pedestrians crossing the road.”
But in our system, we cannot legally judge an individual citizen, based on the actions of others. We must look at the individual separately and judge him/her on their actions/words alone; innocent before proven guilty. Am I wrong here? Am I missing something?
Am I missing something?
We are not judging an individual. If GM put out one bad vehicle which required a recall and continued to produce all other cars with a excellent performance level – I’d say, no, don’t judge the company one one designer flaw.
We are not dealing with one vehicle or one person – we have problems with the CEO, who just gave the design engineer a raise. We are not condemning the workers on the assembly line. There are, I am sure plenty of moderate muslims, unfortunately their union does not allow for input.
Christianity has evolved into many voices, Protestants, Baptists, etc. Judaism has morphed beyond orthodox into conservative and reform movements. Islam separated into Sunni, Shi’ite and Wahhabi. Have any of the three branches of Islam evolved into a moderate voice. NO. To the contrary, Wahabbi, the last of the three is the most extreme, with the most money and the most influence. Islam does not desire or need to meet ‘legal requirements’ only those laws that are defined by the Koran and Shariah law.
That’s not what I am asking though. Our legal system cannot judge this Imam based on the actions or words of other Muslims.
On a personal level I will look at every Muslim I meet with suspicion… that would be the wise and security minded thing to do (as I was told never trust a fat Iraqi with a skinny neck).
>>innocent before proven guilty>>
Only in a court of law. Applying this standard to daily life leads to foolish risk taking.
You want to know where I come from: I believe that taqqiya exists, and is practiced by those jihadists who wish to establish islamic dominance in the US. I think that determining which muslims are lying and which are not is beyond my capability, so I distrust all of them. I understand that this is “un-American” and to some extent offensive – but I also believe that it is my only protection – the nation’s only protection. I know it’s unfair to those who simply wish to live their lives in freedom – but I also think they’ll understand.
I stand with Sadie.
>>So at this point, outside of changing the laws and/or twisting and bending existing laws, there is nothing we can do legally to block it.>>
So you say. People bend and twist laws all the time. As long as the courts allow and as far as I’m concerned every possible roadblock is fair game. When the end game is reached, then the outcome will be whatever it is. Until then, I say fight with whatever tools are at hand. (Usual disclaimers)
PS…
I watched the OJ trial. The court said he was innocent. I say he was guilty. Only God and OJ know the truth…but any action I took (if such an opportunity arose) would be based on my own judgment. The law and society have to look after themselves.
@Spiff580
I understand what you are asking and in many ways it’s asking for the impossible. We make decisions based on the known or proven beyond a doubt in a court of law. Rauf does not condemn Hamas nor to the best of my knowledge has he overtly supported Hamas. Rauf straddles questions like an Arabian cowboy. He claims to be a bridge builder and yet does not burn any bridges. So, in a sense he prefers a double decker bridge. He decides whether he takes the upper or lower to cross into dialogue. He has proven to be non-committal.
That’s not what I am asking though. Our legal system cannot judge this Imam based on the actions or words of other Muslims.
Rauf or el-Gamal or Amr Moussa – the players are out of the same deck of cards. If Rauf ‘s intentions were honorable. He could have called for a community meeting, drawing in all faiths into a dialogue to seek some sort of collective thought, bargaining or action. He did not. His actions or distractions call them what you may speak for themselves. I have heard the voices of a few ‘assembly line workers’. I have not heard one imam suggest that building is poisonous, unless it was to blame the Jews. Of course, we can judge Rauf – all of his actions are lack thereof are based on known associations. I won’t fill up much more on this post and allow the links and my comments below speak for itself.
Surprise, no surprise as it turns out the site is half owned by Con Ed, who leased to Sharif el-Gamal (camel in English). Keep in mind the entire area was demolished, that which was not demolished was left in economic chaos. This when the ‘arab carpetbaggers’ begin or more accurately continues …. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/half_baked_mosque_8ItuaW0WIByZa5xZ0rCmpJ el-Gamal is into real estate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soho_Properties and his cousin, Amr Moussa, is into real estate of the political realm and this where the real story reveals itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amr_Moussa
Has anybody asked GAPFU (Gay American Pig Farmers Union) if it would like to rent the space next door for a payday check cashing outlet?
@Charles,
I could get behind that. Check this out below:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/09/greg-gutfeld-im-raising-money-to-build-a-muslim-gay-bar-next-to-the-ground-zero-mosque/
Sean
I think we can put it to rest now with 18 seconds of music ;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdsW4O7VGR0&feature=player_embedded
Agreed; found this on Ace of Spades website. Good for some laughs if you like Star Wars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NATeU-r0GDU&feature=player_embedded
Sean
@Sadie,
I’m sorry, I missed your second to last post, so I feel like I need to respond to it before I put it to rest.
“I understand what you are asking and in many ways it’s asking for the impossible. ”
Actually, what I am asking for is not impossible. What I am asking or saying is that we keep to our conservative values of the rule of law. Sometimes that means we have to accept things we dont like.
You are asking this builder (and other Muslims) to meet requirements that we don’t require or expect from other groups or religions. I don’t believe we have passed a law that requires Muslims to meet special codes and requirements to build mosques or grants or denies them rights. You are asking them to prove negative.
“If Rauf ‘s intentions were honorable. He could have called for a community meeting, drawing in all faiths into a dialogue to seek some sort of collective thought, bargaining or action.”
I agree; but there is no law or regulation that requires such. Nor is this a valid reason to block it legally.
“Surprise, no surprise as it turns out the site is half owned by Con Ed, who leased to Sharif el-Gamal (camel in English). Keep in mind the entire area was demolished, that which was not demolished was left in economic chaos. This when the ‘arab carpetbaggers’ begin or more accurately continues”
Interesting; I’m not sure how this makes your point that the guy is a bad guy. One could say they are hiding it for some reason… not sure why. On the other hand, maybe they just made a mistake and assumed they owned it or had rights to build there. I work in the design and construction of flood control projects in California. I see crap like this all the time… especially in urbanized areas. Sometimes it’s hard to tell who owns what properties and whether or not you have right of way to work there. It’s a freaking legal nightmare. Hell, after 10-years of being a civil engineer I do more lawyer stuff than I do actual engineering. Sorry Book, but I have a low opinion of lawyers… at least the ones involved in public work projects, environmental regulations (ESPICAILLY), and so forth. J
So what? One of the partners is the nephew of the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. Hardly a smoking gun here… or is the Arab League officially considered a terrorist group now? Or is there some provable ties that Moussa to Al Qaeda?
My point here where you see evil intentions in everything, I don’t. I never said I see noble intentions mind you. I’m just not willing to condemn without proof… and so far the case has not been made.
Is it because I have my “head in the sand” or is it the fact that the burden of proof has not been met? This is where Suek and I will never agree. Sure, personally I don’t trust Islam and view all Muslims (and their actions) with suspicion… but our legal system cannot. Personal feelings and suspicions are not enough.
So what? One of the partners is the nephew of the Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa. Hardly a smoking gun here… or is the Arab League officially considered a terrorist group now?
YES, by me. Officially declared, NO. Then, again, I consider the UN to be a terrorist group.
I reiterate here, that Islam and the West are not working off the same legal system page. Islam allows taqiyya (lying) to advance or protect Islamic interests.
There were no mistakes in the lease. I understand enough about Islam to understand that there is no rush to a caliphate, just a slow, steady and plodding course from foot baths at the U of Michigan to Zaytuna College in Berkeley.
We’ll agree to disagree. I appreciate that you have stuck to your original talking point and me, I’ll stick with my personal feelings, suspicions and own personal experiences. Like you, a spent some time in the middle east but without a helmet or flak jacket and had to take a calculated risk going to work every day. It was suspicions and personal feelings that kept me intact along with luck.
I don’t think we disagree all that much in principle actually. I just think the legal system on this has been exhausted is all. But then again it appears it’s going to a vote again … perhaps it will be shot down or delayed as it appears they have not met all of the legal requirements (i.e. they actually don’t own the property – I find that highly amusing).
I never want to go anywhere in the Middle East (again) without a flak jacket, helmet or weapon. You have my respect there. J
Have a good one.
Sean
Tell me how _this_ is justified:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/free_speech_lawsuit_nyc_bans_9.html
Yes, they finally permitted it – under threat of a lawsuit. What’s up with that?
Then you have people talking about separation of church and state, and this floats to the top:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/taxpayer_funding_that_builds_a.html
Then last but not least (this time around) is this question:
http://www.frumforum.com/is-the-911-mosque-a-publicity-stunt
I understand that the NY governor has offered State property if they’ll just move the darn thing. Now how’s about _that_ for cha ching bling! So now _taxpayers_ dollars may go into the mosque???
If anybody’s minding the store…my last comment (4:37) is waiting moderation. I had three links in it…
Havent come through yet. Hope all is well on your end. Looking forward to reading them
BTW thanks for putting up with me… I know I’m being kind of difficult and perhaps stubborn.
Stubborn, eh. No problem. I have 4 sons and one daughter. All of whom are stubborn. My mother used to say “You know, dear… they didn’t get it out of the gutter!”
Do you listen to Dennis Praeger? One of his favorite expressions is “I prefer clarity to agreement”. I’m with him. Nobody agrees 100% with anybody, I don’t think. Maybe on individual issues, but even then, the agreement may come from different perspectives. So we may disagree. That’s ok – but I do like to find out just exactly what the nub of disagreement _is_. Sometimes that can be really because we haven’t figured out just exactly where _we_ stand on the particulars. Discussion – and disagreement – help clarify the issues, both for ourselves and between us and others.
I’ll post the links separately – that will usually go through.
Hers’s the first:
Tell me how _this_ is justified:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/free_speech_lawsuit_nyc_bans_9.html
Yes, they finally permitted it – under threat of a lawsuit. What’s up with that?
Here’s the second:
Then you have people talking about separation of church and state, and this floats to the top: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/taxpayer_funding_that_builds_a.html
And then this one:
Then last but not least (this time around) is this question:
http://www.frumforum.com/is-the-911-mosque-a-publicity-stunt
I understand that the NY governor has offered State property if they’ll just move the darn thing. Now how’s about _that_ for cha ching bling! So now _taxpayers_ dollars may go into the mosque???
If you’re of a mind and have time over the weekend, you might do a search on Flopping Aces
on the mosque (9/11 mosque, maybe?). There have been at least 5 different articles by various authors there with _extensive_ (nearly 200 responses each) comments – and yes – I’ve been among them.
I still haven’t figured out exactly what the problem is. I think it’s basically because it’s very American to accept people as they present themselves until they prove otherwise. The fact that _some_ muslims have already proven themselves otherwise is irrelevant – we want to believe each individual is innocent until proven guilty. For some of us, their 1400 year history is proof enough – considering the options – to assume guilt, especially since we’re _not_ talking about a court of law. For others it isn’t. I _think_ that’s the basic underlying disagreement…but I’m not really sure. By the way – here’s another question that comes up within the discussion – should there be any limits to tolerance?
The last article so far has been on the suggestion/intent (I’m not sure if he’s serious or not – I think he is) of Greg Gutfield to open a gay bar next door to the proposed mosque. The names for the bar that people have come up with….holey moley!!! Creative, offensive, funny – _all_ of the above!
It’s better to be stubborn than to let the Left and government walk all over you.
Indeed.
Think about it… are you “stubborn” or just “sticking to your guns”? What’s the difference between “stubbornness” and “perseverence”?
When does stubbornness become a fault?
Heh…
No answers. Let me give you the simple one:
_You’re_ stubborn. _I’m_ resolute.
Hey All,
I appreciate all your comments. Sorry if I came off like I was feeling sorry for myself. I was more just saying thanks for putting up with me. :) I haven’t had a lot of time to look at the new stuff yet.
I did read an article from back in June that connected this Imam with the organization that was behind the commando incident with Israel a few months back. That is interesting and a bit troubling.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/imam_unmosqued_0XbZMwCvHAVdRZEKgx29AK
Not good. But then again, I never said I liked the guy either. Just not sure what we can do at this point outside of exerting public pressure.
Sean
Suek,
I’ll get back to you. Just been busy last couple of days.
Sean
Spiff…
That was a joke.
As in…”I’m careful with money. You’re a cheapskate”…
And many others…we have lots of terms that have both a “good” and a “bad” connotation. Invariably in discussions, “I’m ” the “good” one, “you’re” the “bad” one. Human nature.
Busy is good…!
I don’t know why Charles Krauthammer’s shouldn’t be the last word on this….
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243668/sacrilege-ground-zero-charles-krauthammer
Maybe Krauthammer can’t be the last word because Jack Cashill asks the question that Obama and every other shill for the Victory Mosque ought to be forced to answer:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/if_timothy_mcveigh_had_been_a.html