1 Aug

About that “Monument to Mohammed”….

                                       


Photo credit: El Marco

“Ground Zero Mosque” (neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero)….”Cordoba House”….Park51…”Monument to Mohammed” (As Mike’s America so affectionately calls it)….

Is this really about “insensitivity” to 9/11 families, a “slap in the face”, dishonoring the memories of the victims by being a “monument to terrorism” and planting the flag of Islam on American “hallowed ground”? Or is it about striking a blow at the ones who are actually responsible for the events of 9/11? A rejection of extremism and terrorism? Or simply a much needed community center for locals living in Lower Manhattan?

The center is not at Ground Zero but two blocks away, and the Cordoba Initiative seeks to build a center, not a mosque. The center is not designed as a local mosque for a Muslim community but rather to serve the wider community.

It is meant to improve interfaith and Muslim-West relations and promote tolerance — not just to provide services to Muslims.

Yet don’t let facts stop the Islamo-conspiracists from calling it a “mosque”.

Here’s how Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf describes and defends it (Oh, but beware the Sufi Islamist engaged in the Shia practice of taqiyya!):

The project has been mischaracterized, so I want to explain clearly what it would be. Our planned 13-story community center is intended for Park Place between Church St. and West Broadway. It is not a mosque, although it will include a space for Muslim prayer services. It will have a swimming pool, basketball court, meeting rooms, a 500-seat auditorium, banquet facilities and many other things a community needs to be healthy. The center will offer theatrical programming, art exhibitions and cooking classes. These are amenities missing now from this part of the city.

And, yes, the center will have a public memorial to the victims of 9/11 as well as a meditation room where all will be welcome for quiet reflection. The center will support soul and body.

The center will be open to all regardless of religion. Like a YMCA, the 92nd St. Y or the Jewish Community Center uptown, it will admit everyone. It will be a center for all New Yorkers.

Sharif el-Gamal, CEO of SoHo Properties and lead developer of the Park 51 project, in an interview:

2. Why must the project necessarily include a mosque? Wouldn’t a general prayer area, which could be reserved in advance by any religious group, be more appropriate and compatible with the community-centric interfaith mission of the project?

We will include a September 11th memorial and quiet reflection space where people of different faith traditions and beliefs, sacred and secular, can find quiet time and solace. Park51 will also include general spaces and world-class facilities for all New Yorkers to benefit from, whether that’s a Hebrew class meeting weekly or a yoga studio looking for space on a regular basis. We’ll have an auditorium to engage large audiences, and sophisticated classroom space as well.

With respect to the mosque, which will take up only a small portion of the final space, it’s a question of meeting a need. This mosque will be open to all. There are probably one million Muslims in the tri-state area and several hundred thousand in New York City. We should understand that Muslim New Yorkers are part of the city and have been for a very long time. Just a few days ago, I stopped to pray at a midtown mosque, and the congregation was led by a New York City Police Officer. He was a Muslim serving our city, keeping us safe.

There’s hundreds of thousands of Muslim New Yorkers like him. We’re doctors, lawyers, businessmen, cab drivers, teachers and students. That’s what people need to know.

~~~

this is going to be a community center. Park51 is not a political organization. We do not have a political agenda, and we will be open to all New Yorkers. What we do not have room for are extremist views and opinions. Radical and hateful agendas will have no place in our community center or in the mosque. We are building this center for New York City, because we’re New Yorkers. We’re Americans. We have families here and futures here.

~~~

Park51 is an independent project led by Muslim Americans. This project will be separate from The Cordoba Initiative and ASMA. The next step is forming a non-profit and applying for tax-exempt status. Imam Feisal and I are serving as the project managers until then. This non-profit will be run by an Executive Director, yet to be selected, support staff, and a 23-member Board of Directors.

Imam Feisal will be one of the Directors, and will oversee the Cordoba House, which will direct the interfaith programming within Park51.. We have not yet selected the other members of the Board of Directors, but we will be picking people very carefully, based on their record of leadership, relevant experience and positive contribution to New York City and the country. The board will not be limited by religion.

The mosque will be run by a separate non-profit whose Board of Directors will reflect a broad range of experience. While the mosque will be located in the planned final structure of Park51, it will be a distinct non-profit. Neither Park51 nor the mosque, which hasn’t been named yet, will tolerate any kind of illegal or un-American activity and rhetoric.

~~~

6. Why was the site’s proximity to Ground Zero considered a “selling point” [3] ? What other locations in lower Manhattan, if any, were considered that could serve the same purpose?

We are not at Ground Zero. In fact we’re as close to City Hall as we are to Ground Zero. Lower Manhattan is pretty small. You can’t see Ground Zero from our current building and on completion of our planned building some years from now, there won’t be any views of the Ground Zero memorial from the building. To honor those who were killed on September 11th, we have planned for a public memorial within our future facility as well as reflection space open to all.

Let me tell you a little bit about the history of this project. We’d been looking for at least seven years to find a space to accommodate the growing population of Muslims in lower Manhattan. We found this site in January of 2006 and getting to the finish line and acquiring the real estate was proof that persistence pays off. We had also been eager to contribute to the revitalization of lower Manhattan, in part because this is our area of business and also because as New Yorkers we wanted to give back to our city and help make it a better place to live.

Prior to purchasing our current facility at 45 Park Place, there were two mosques in lower Manhattan – although Park51 is not affiliated with either of these mosques. One was Masjid Farah, which could fit a maximum of approximately 65 people, and had to hold three or four separate prayer services on Fridays just to fit the crowds.

The second mosque, at Warren St., accommodated about 1,500 worshippers during Friday prayers – people had been praying on sidewalks because they had no room. They lost their space around May 2009. We made the move to buy 45 Park Place in July 2009 in part to offset the loss of this space. Currently, our space at 45 Park Place, accommodates around 450 people every Friday. We are also easily accessible from many different parts of Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, which was an important consideration.

At the same time, we thought, why not give back to lower Manhattan and fulfill a pressing need? We looked for a building that could grow into a community center. In Lower Manhattan, the biggest community center is at Bowery and Houston and it’s in a basement. There are new residential towers going up in lower Manhattan as we speak. Four Seasons is planning the tallest residential tower in the city a block away from our site. If you think of all of the community centers in Manhattan, they are further north. Residents need services, investment in the neighborhood, activities and opportunities. Community Board 1, which represents the residents of lower Manhattan, acknowledged the needs we were fulfilling when they gave us their clear support on two separate occasions.

~~~

Islam has a long history in lower Manhattan. And fundamentally, this project embodies the very same American values that those who attacked us on 9-11 sought to deny.

How many oppose the building of this so-called “mosque” at Ground Zero (…er…two blocks from it, I mean) out of concern that radical Islamists are behind the funding and that Rauf is not the “moderate” he portrays himself as being?


Photo by El Marco

And how much of the opposition is fueled by those who simply don’t tolerate mosque building and Islam ANYWHERE in the States? Irregardless of supposed Muslim Brotherhood connections, ties to extremists, political Islam and wahhabism, etc.?

In Tennessee:

Metro Nashville School Board member Karen Johnson is leading opposition to a new Islamic Center that would move into the vacant Carmike Theater on Bell Forge Lane in Antioch.

Johnson launched a petition drive today for neighbors to oppose the move, even though the Islamic Center of Tennessee already has a contract in place to purchase the building.

~~~

This is the third instance of residents opposing an Islamic center or Muslim mosque from moving in this year. In Williamson County, a proposal for an Islamic Center was withdrawn after public opposition. In Murfreesboro, a proposal for a new mosque is moving forward despite vocal opposition from residents there. That proposed site is on land zone for a religious use.

Murfreesboro:

Plans for a new Islamic center south of Murfreesboro have some residents denouncing the Muslim religion and others calling the dispute one of the ugliest displays of religious intolerance in the county’s history.

Questions of whether the public was given adequate notice about the proposed mosque and community center off Bradyville Pike quickly turned into attacks on the Muslim faith during the public comment portion of Thursday’s Rutherford County Commission meeting.

“Everybody knows they are trying to kill us,” Karen Harrell said. “People are really concerned about this. Somebody has to stand up and take this country back.”

In June 2010, a Tennessee Republican candidate, Lou Ann Zelenik, opposed the Muslim community’s proposal to build a mosque in Murfreesboro, charging the Muslim center was not part of a religious movement, but a political one “designed to fracture the moral and political foundation of Middle Tennessee.”

She warned, “Until the American Muslim community find it in their hearts to separate themselves from their evil, radical counterparts, to condemn those who want to destroy our civilization and will fight against them, we are not obligated to open our society to any of them. “

Planned Temecula Valley mosque draws opposition:

“The Islamic foothold is not strong here, and we really don’t want to see their influence spread,” said Pastor Bill Rench.

“There is a concern with all the rumors you hear about sleeper cells and all that. Are we supposed to be complacent just because these people say it’s a religion of peace? Many others have said the same thing,” he said.

Leaders of the Islamic center were surprised by the level of criticism, especially from a few religious groups, saying their current makeshift mosque and Islamic community center have been in town for more than a decade and members always have felt welcome.

“Our children go to the same schools their children go to. We shop at the same stores where they shop,” said Mahmoud Harmoush, the imam of the Islamic center and an instructor at Cal State San Bernardino’s World Languages and Literatures Department.

“All of a sudden our neighbors wake up and they’re opposed to us building the Islamic center there, the mosque. I hope it’s a small group,” he said.

Also:

A recent series of unsigned emails and anonymous Web postings has called for a protest during Friday prayers outside the Islamic Center of Temecula Valley, in Riverside County. Protest organizers are upset at the Islamic group’s plans to build a new mosque to replace its current makeshift mosque.

One of the emails, obtained by CAIR, declared: “Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant [sic] on domination of the world. And it is meant to subjugate all people under Islamic law….”

The email goes on to say that Muslims “hate dogs. … Tennessee was able to stop the Mosque so bring your Bibles, flags, signs, dogs and singing voice on Friday.”

Opposition to mosques in the U.S., on the rise:

Protests about the building of mosques are relatively new, says Joe Feagin, a professor on racial and ethnic relations at Texas A and M University in College Stations.

“I don’t remember seeing any discussions of protests and attacks on mosques until 9/11,” he says.

But, since then, he says much of the discussion of Middle Eastern people is negative.

MataHarley comment #37:

INRE the Ground Zero mosque… interesting you bring that up since that caused quite the uproar in FA familia spirited debate not too long ago. However everyone that casually says “just build it elsewhere” hasn’t figured out that the trend to ban, or severely harass mosque and their included cultural centers, has been increasing post 911. TN is battling mosques in their state… any location. Boston is royally PO’d about the mosque being built there. In 2008, a senior Church of England member wanted an outright ban on mosques in Britain in fears of becoming “…an Islamic state”. In 2007, Austria’s governor of Carinthia was attempting to ban them in his province. And as of May 2008, a more than hefty amount of Euro nations i.e. Italy, France, Britan and Switzerland, were all raising a ruckus for mosque building.

@Lightbringer:

Has anyone stopped to think that building this “Islamic Community Center” in this location might be a bad idea because it represents a target?

Yup.

It’s a fair point, and one of the reasons why I thought, “this is a really bad idea”. It’s just asking for trouble. And should a misguided nutjob vandalize/bomb the Islamic Center, it will be a feather in the cap for the global jihad movement.

And when you have Geller and the “pitchfork and torches” mob holding up some pretty inflammatory signs, it’s going to inspire some of the wrong types to think they’ll be doing a noble, patriotic, necessary act to “defend” the nation by attacking a community center, built and funded by those of the Islamic faith. Because they’ve been told it’s “a mosque”; a “slap in the face” to the family members of 9/11 victims; a “victory flag for Islam”; a “monument to mohammed”.

Mike had that thread’s comment section shut down. Lightbringer subsequently wrote #113:

@Wordsmith

To tell the truth, this will turn into a symbol to be used by the Islamists as propaganda whether it is built and remains safe, it is built and then attacked, or it gets canceled. And that is regardless of whether Rauf is in on the joke or not.

I’ve been saying this since the first post that was made on the topic. And it’s because of the volume of the opposition that has some pretty vitriolic elements to the rhetoric. The “Stop the Islamization of America” brigade has made this a win-win situation for the jihadis. If it gets built, they can claim a kind of victory because so many Americans are saying “this is a slap in the face to 9/11 victims”. No it isn’t. Unless that’s the perception you want to take and run with.

If it doesn’t get built due to the pressures of the vocal opposition (rather than on account of a legal basis), then the jihadis still win because their propaganda against the U.S.- that Muslims are persecuted by American imperialists- appears to have some merit in this.

This entry was posted in 9/11, Fanatical Islam, Ground Zero "Mosque", War On Terror. Bookmark the permalink. Sunday, August 1st, 2010 at 7:55 am
| 643 views

113 Responses to About that “Monument to Mohammed”….

  1. MataHarley says: 101

    Oh for heavens sake, Mike… why do you think it’s always about you? The Constitutional argument has nothing to do with your 1st Amendment rights. You’ve been whining about this since your first post, and have continued in higher volume. No one is restricting your voice… nor are they restricting the the SOIA voices of Geller/Spencer etal. None of you are victims. It’s Muslims you have pronounced guilty of terrorism association (or the hyperbole of taking over our government)… sans evidence… that are the victims of your venom and unproven accusations.

    What you apparently are unable to grasp is that the legal jumps have been hurdled, and the planning decision is in. You – sitting from your SC location – don’t like what the NYers have decided, so you keep pounding away at it.

    So, Mike, what do you want to do about not getting your way? Just keep whining and refusing to accept the decision? Well, if you’re attempting to coax the Cordoba Initiative into changing their minds, you’re sure way behind the eight ball with your hateful rhetoric. So what’s that going to do for you? Frankly, if you’re trying to win hearts and minds, and get them to back down voluntarily, you should follow Palin’s cue…. not Newt’s.

    And more importantly, what’s all your crying about spilt milk going to do for the perception of the conservative movement?

    Nothing good… that’s for sure.

    If the Cordoba House is built, as per approval, there’s no Constitutional infringement, and no trampling the property rights if you don’t meddlle in local zoning ordinances that are none of your concern. If you advocate usurping or reversing the decision because you don’t like your “monument to Mohammed” there, then you are dancing on *their* Constitutional rights… Not yours, theirs. Like I said, this isn’t about you. Denying them their legal rights because they are Muslim is about as anti-founding principles as you can get.

    If Geller and Spencer want to attempt to get the law reversed by getting that building classified as a landmark for the architecture, that’s fine. It’s within the scope of our laws. But let’s not play Pollyanna here… they don’t give a damn about the architecture of that building. They are doing that to stop the Cordoba House development because they are anti-Islam, pure and simple. Their legal argument may be architecture. Their emotional argument is all phobia.

    Yup… not logic on your end… only pure emotion and hysteria.

    ReplyReply
  2. @MataHarley: Excuse me Mata but I was not addressing you. I’ve heard your weak justifications for your position and have no desire to hear them again and again and again and again.

    Continuing with this personal line of attack only confirms what I have said before. And behaving like an hysteric on top of that does nothing to bolster your case.

    ReplyReply
  3. MataHarley says: 103

    Mike’sA: We are a nation of laws and I intend to uphold the most precious rights granted by the Constitution: the right to free speech.

    …snip…

    Excuse me Mata but I was not addressing you. I’ve heard your weak justifications for your position and have no desire to hear them again and again and again and again.

    ROTFLMAO! what was that you were saying about the 1st Amendment again, Mike? Rather sanctimonious coming from you… the guy with the trigger finger on delete, and a penchant for sending commenters he doesn’t like to “time out”

    ReplyReply
  4. MataHarley says: 104

    @Indigo Red…

    But here your arguement was religious and it makes a big difference if the structure is aor is not a mosque. If it’s a mosque, then 1st Amendment right extend; if it isn’t, then religious arguements are irrelevent.

    As I said in both my first comment, which you say you read:

    Like it or not, this is a property owners issue… period. If the property is zoned for their intended use, then to prohibit it because of their religion is about as anti-American as you can get. Just as banning speech because you don’t like the content is anti-American.

    and again in the 2nd comment,

    If you will re’read my comment, very slowly, you will find that my objections to this is because it is an ugly, anti-property rights movement that is extremely short sighted and hypocritical. If you can deny building owners their rights to develop within current zoning regulations because of their religion, or your personal opinions about what they are building, then your future is seriously in jeopardy when someone moves in next door to you, and wants to prohibit you building your Reagan monument in your front yard…. or starting a Christian community center.

    My point is that the 1st Amendment freedom of religion comes into play by denying them their legal right to build because they are Muslim. That abrogation of their Constitutional rights exists whether you call it a mosque, or a MickeyD’s. Therefore the endeavor to block this building has everything to do with freedom of religion.

    The double talk, misdirection, the obfuscation invites questions and suspicion. The lack of clarity about financing and denial of any links to the Muslim Brotherhood is troublesome despite increasing evidence, circumstancial at present, that Rauf is being financed by arms of the MB, Hamas, and Hizbollah.

    Sorry… it’s not your fault that I’ve been there, done that, on the financing multiple times as well. There are so many threads, and so many comments that, as I pointed out, this is the problem with you jumping into the middle of the movie and expecting to know the plot line.

    Financing reference #1 on July 18th:

    As I stated before, if they found that the funds were traced to terrorist groups, I would oppose it. But then, since that money would be illegal to use, I’m doubting it would go thru were that found to be true. Under normal circumstances, I’d find it appalling that anyone that seeks to develop controversial property – which a portion of the population opposes – must be subjected to an investigation. Definitely not a precedent I want to start. But I don’t have a major problem in this case. Investigate away. Most lenders require papertrails for funds used to close any real estate transaction, to prevent loan fraud. But that may not be the case with Shariah financing, as this mosque is apt to have.

    Financing reference #2 on Jul 28th, in response to those demanding disclosure of funds:

    Secondly, there’s some bizarre demand from the naysayers that the funding *must* be disclosed. Again, this dances in an area of the law that makes me very uncomfortable. The source of funds is a privacy issue, and the only entities that legally require disclosure are any lending institution, paper trailing the borrowers funds (so they aren’t parties to loan fraud)… and the IRS in annual filings.

    We the public have no right to know, unless of course, you want to trash privacy rights along with freedom of religion and property rights. Get serious…. if you are building a retail store, and your neighbors object, should they have the right to demand where your funding is coming from strictly because they don’t like you? Hang, for all we know, you could be using mattress money, or have mafia/drug cartel funding.

    Which then brings us to the reality of banking, post George W. Bush. Many forget that he clamped down very hard on known terrorist funding, freezing accounts and assets. You simply cannot walk into banks with wads of cash, and deposit that cash under the int’l radar. Also at risk is any lending institution, who’s butt is on the line along with the Cordoba Initiative, if funds are found to be from terrorist origins.

    While there are always transactions that can fall under the radar, this is no low profile transaction. If the feds had/have any reason to suspect that Rauf, his mosque, or the Cordoba Initiative was financially involved with terrorists, they would have full reason to investigate. Short of that probable cause, no property owner owes the public personal financial information to satisfy their demands. And you’d better hope that remains the case in the future. Again.. “they came for the communists…”

    Financing reference #3 from Jul 30th an excerpt when trying to summarize this whole distorted malarkey:

    For those that wish to alter laws in order to achieve their goal to reverse NYC’s planning council decision, the creativity has no end. Demands they investigate property owners’ finances. Just if they are Muslim? Or any commercial developer? Or is public opinion the measuring stick that infringes on privacy laws, and demands that all financing is made public? If there is probable cause for financial investigation, I’m all for it. If not, that’s another ugly precedent to set.

    Fact is, the Imam Rauf has been a NYC resident, and leader of a mosque for decades there. Never has this mosque been on the radar of Homeland Security, or they would have been the first to make sure terrorist funds are frozen, and had an eyeball raised. This is no low profile property deal.

    Now allow me to apologize for being terse with you, Indigo. But as you can see, this is a long battle spanning months. It gets extremely frustrating for someone new to enter the fray with some sort of lecture we’ve already heard, and assume we’ve never addressed that portion of debate. We have to back up, fill you in, and start all over again. Granted there’s a lot of reading because of the volume of the comments, but the archives and categories link at the top of the post labeled “Ground Zero Mosque” will take you to all of them. After all, if you are planning on entering a debate, you should read up on the opposition’s “on the issues” statements. Then you may have a better handle on what Mike’sA “is dealing with here”….

    ReplyReply
  5. Mike says: 105

    @Mike’s America: @Mike’s America:
    Mike I absolutely understand and feel for St.Nicholas not being able to rebuild after being there years even before the Trade Towers were erected. I want to write a story about this, but my only issue is that, do I wish to bring the quiet and humble Greek Orthodox Church into this turmoil? Well time will tell… And undoubtedly if it were to come out, this would be the time, as religion and community are being challenged. I wish well to all the parties and communities involved that they will listen, and be offered attention and that there will be full understanding amongst the people in such lame times.

    ReplyReply
  6. MIKE’S AMERICA: hi, you know that the MAYOR BLOOMBERG went abroad to make
    some business deals with the MUSLIMS and this CORDOBA might have been one of the deals:
    THE GREEK CHURCH should have been taken care of,being directly involved in the terrorist attack
    they have been push aside, might be because the deal of CORDOBA was their priority to
    PUSH ahead of the GREEK CHURCH who where there way before the 9/11 who should have the first priority,to be fix and restored.
    there seem to be A flaw there: SOME LAWERS could check this up for the GREEK CHURCH and the community of all faiths that where assisting the CHURCH,THEY SURELY HAVE A PRIORITY
    OF EXPECTING quick resolve on their conflict, and MAYOR BLOMMBERG should PERSONALY
    LOOK INTO it to speed up their rights of ancestry on that location,
    WHICH IS THE SOONER THE BETTER.

    ReplyReply
  7. MataHarley says: 107

    Mike, if you want to “write a story about this”, I suggest you dig a little deeper than the misinformation bandied about in order to make it seem St. Nicholas was suffering from discrimination. You’ll find links to some details in a prior comment… the 2nd time I had to bring the facts to light.

    From a March 2009 article in the NYTs INRE the battle between Port Authority and St. Nicholas:

    But the two sides never came to final terms. After months of negotiations, the Port Authority, which is overseeing reconstruction at ground zero, ended its talks with the church on Monday, saying that the church had sought increasingly costly concessions.

    Complaints, of course, abound on both sides.

    …. snip….

    “We made an extraordinarily generous offer to resolve this issue and spent eight months trying to finalize that offer, and the church wanted even more on top of that,” said Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the Port Authority. “They have now given us no choice but to move on to ensure the site is not delayed. The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building.”

    Last July, the Port Authority and the Greek Orthodox Church announced a tentative plan to rebuild the church just east of its original site, at Liberty and Greenwich Streets. The authority agreed to provide the church with land for a 24,000-square-foot house of worship, far larger than the original, and $20 million. Since the church would be built in a park over the bomb-screening center, the authority also agreed to pay up to $40 million for a blast-proof platform and foundation.

    In recent negotiations, the authority cut the size of the church slightly and told church officials that its dome could not rise higher than the trade center memorial. The church, in turn, wanted the right to review plans for both the garage with the bomb-screening center and the park, something the authority was unwilling to provide. More important, authority officials said, the church wanted the $20 million up front, rather than in stages. Officials said they feared that the church, which has raised about $2 million for its new building, would come back to the authority for more.

    Port Authority doesn’t want security plans revealed for the lower levels they need, and the church was demanding money up front, plus the plans.

    Also try another article this month on the battle between Port Authority and St. Nicholas.

    Point is… there’s nothing about St. Nicholas that is a denial for religions reasons. It’s all about demands and not coming to agreement for necessary security.

    ReplyReply
  8. Patvann says: 108

    Ever get that “bit o’ barf” taste in the back of your throat?

    ReplyReply
  9. MIKE’S AMERICA: MATA has a right idea there ,I want to add, that there must be quite a few consrvatives on that labor worker,so the diplomatie in engaging is important to keep in mind,
    on both sides of ChURCH peoples and the other side. if I may. bye.

    ReplyReply
  10. MataHarley says: 110

    @Patvann…. waaaaay too often lately, Patvann. Crap comes out in the news… we find out later it’s all a bunch of hooey, but not before it gets the citizenry up in arms and lies fixated as truth. I swear I cringe everytime I hear Rush or Hannity start talking about St. Nicholas. I have to wonder, if these two don’t bother to find out the story, what can any of us depend upon, save ourselves?

    Of course, reading the Port Authority’s comments, I had to laugh at the benign interpretation “Mike” above made in his comment above… “…do I wish to bring the quiet and humble Greek Orthodox Church into this turmoil? Sounds like they were being quite pushy, as a matter of fact.

    ReplyReply
  11. Patvann says: 111

    @Mata

    It seems bigger than that, though.
    Extreme sides seem to be being taken, when the actual “gravity” of this situation is so much less than any actual harm ever incurred upon us.

    I know in my heart, that the path of violence is the direction the Neo-comms are hoping for, and I see Pelosi rubbing her hands together every time ANYONE on the conservative-side ever utters it, even rhetorically.

    Their only way out of the mess they’ve induced, is to divert and divide us by instigating violence…And so far it’s working according to THEIR plan.

    Lowest common denominator thinking is only cool when fuckin with fractions.

    ReplyReply
  12. MataHarley says: 112

    Yes, Patvann… couldn’t agree more. The nation wouldn’t spiral into the economic toilet, nor would all we women be wearing hijabs or burkas, if Cordoba House got built. Nor would that happen if the mosques the GOP candidates are protesting in TN, NJ, and two in California as part of their campaign platform got built. Frankly, the damage has already been done and the two lowest common denominators – the lib/progs and jihadists – have won. The conservative “leaders”, blogs and comments are filled with exactly what they want to see.

    Now it’s to see what the collateral damage is in Nov as the real “clear and present danger” – the Dems and Obama – continue to tank the US economy, and encroach deeper into the private sector. Interesting that the WH gave instructions to incumbents last week not to tout their admin’s “accomplishments”, and instead keep preying on the fear of GOP taking over Congress. Do conservatives drive a truck thru that opening? Nope…

    ReplyReply
  13. MATA: HI, THE CORDOBA ISSUE, Is the last drop in the bucket ,that trigger these protests
    FROM all over AMERICA,ITS not FA or any other BLOGS, who only tell it as it is,
    IT is entwine with what the GOVERNMENT is doing, both are taken into one problem for all AMERICA
    TO express the best way they can ,in respect to their right of FREEDOM of SPEECH given by the CONSTITUTION, THE PEOPLE are the most tolerant on the planet, THEY took a STAND and
    EXPRESS their views, THIS is doing it the MODERATE way,
    BECAUSE they are A SUPERPOWER waking up to ABUSE, LOCAL AND FOREIGN,
    THEY earn the right to speak with BLOOD and PAIN.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>