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.?
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.
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.
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.
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.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Qu’ran, hadith, and sunna have not changed. Those are the sources that are Islam. The commands remain the same. To be Muslim requires the full execution of the commands. If people do not adhere strictly to Islam, they are not Muslim. Islam has not changed and the followers not enough.
So now you, the infidel expert, decides who is Muslim and not? Pardon me for intermixing faiths, but chutzpah, dude….
Interesting enough, Rauf emphatically disavows the 911 bombers as not being Muslim. You, obviously, pronounce them as not only Muslim, but indicative of ALL Muslims.
Gee… wonder who is more educated in Qur’an interpretation and scholarly issues of Islam… you or Rauf. Don’t help… uh… thinking…. LOL
Nice try at diversion, Mata… almost fell for it. A whole bunch of words have been put in my mouth, Alinsky would be proud.
Is Cordoba House/ 51 Park a Mosque?
@Indigo Red: You see now what I have been putting up with? Islamopolloza and dhimmiville on parade!
To some of us here, it looks like they didn’t need to.
Just because the rattlesnake didn’t bite you this time, doesn’t mean it won’t in the future.
Thanks, Mike, for the remover. Too bad it won’t work on dhimmitude.
Words “put in you mouth”? Diversion? Hey, Indigo… you brung it up when you … Mr. expert on the Qur’an… said:
If you don’t wish the focus to be on you, deciding who and who is not a Muslim in Islam’s eyes, then suggest you watch your wording. However your genuinely Alinsky tactic to isolate and divert from what you, yourself, uttered, did fall magnificently flat.
Depends on who’s looking at it, doesn’t it? Is a church, with a private school and gymnasium a church? Are Jewish Community Centers a temple? How about the 7th Day Adventists and their facilities? Or do you isolate the congregation rooms for religious sermons as separate facilities?
So by a western infidel’s simplistic vision, it is generically a “mosque”, just like most would look at a church with a school, and call it generically a church. All rooms are not, however, masjids or prayer rooms. Your point being?
I don’t care what you wish to call it. If the NYers and their local regulations say this is within laws to be developed, then I’m not going to ask them to circumvent their laws just because this development… whatever it pleases you to label it… offends you and the rest who are scared out of their whits by Muslims. Personally, any attempt to force unequal application of our laws is far more offensive to me than the presence of this building.
Oh fer heavens sake, Mike. Quit whining. Yes, it’s been quite tiresome since you decided to push this issue. But then if you had simply decided to accept our rule of law as unfortunate, but their right, and NY’s decisions instead of putting out your own anti-Islam inflammatory propaganda, perhaps you wouldn’t have had to be AQ’s useful idiot. Then the rest of us wouldn’t have had to try and counter your emotions with simple founding principles, our Constitution and rule of law.
But perhaps one of these days you’ll be tired of being Zawahiri’s pawn, and we can actually focus more united efforts on the real creeping problem of socialism in our Congress and WH.
For example, Mike, on another thread you say:
What’s your favorite expression of late on this? Oh yes… WRONG WRONG AND WRONG! yeah, you’re soooo eloquent. LOL
OBL and Zawahiri have made great pains to make all US policy and military action appear that it’s a “war on Islam”.
You, along with your fellow conservatives who disdain our rule of law and NY’s local decisions, have handed them that victory. They now have about 8 or 9 threads to pick thru, and copy/paste ample anti-Islam statements and hateful rhetoric against all Muslims to prove they have been right all along.
And you’ve handed the lib/progs that same fodder for midterms.
@MataHarley whines: “Yes, it’s been quite tiresome since you decided to push this issue. “
ME push the issue? How many posts are there on this topic today that paint opponents of Mohammed’s Victory Monument in a negative light?
The only thing you guys have proved is that you have mastered the basic computer skill of cutting and pasting. If they ever make that an Olympic sport, you guys will win the Gold, Silver and Bronze.
I haven’t heard anything original from the lot of you.
Stubbornness and verbosity are no substitute for being right.
Another Newtie:
“The Central Front is the United States.” If we fail to understand the danger we will lose this war.
Obfuscation.
MataHarley, is Codoba House a mosque?
I answered your question, Indigo. Are there some words there you are having a hard time understanding? Got a link to a great online dictionary.
Yes, Mike. This all began back on June 1st with Curt’s post… you immediately began with the taunting of Wordsmith in the 5th comment, and degenerated into your usual unimpressive bluster. It’s escalated since then… with Drjohn’s tribute to Geller and Islamification of America, followed by your two posts. By that time, you took to deleting Aye’s comments and anyone who supported him, telling him quite overtly that if he wanted his comments to remain, he could start his own post.
Consider yourself pretty much the instigator of all this, Mike. You’ve bullied, edited, censored, and now reduced to whining and the herd mentality. Been quite something to watch, ya know. Rather sad. Sorry to be leaving and seeing you in this light. But this was my unfinished business. And after today, it’s back to the grind and schedule that doesn’t include blogging time. But I’m not thinking you’ll be shedding any tears… LOL
As a matter of fact, this needs to be moved here, since it’s pertinent to my above comment: Just posted by Wordsmith on the post Aye started after your paranoid censorship:
@MataHarley: Continuing to mischaracterize the opposition to this mosque reveals the total lack of any foundation of truth underlying your position.
Just in case you were wondering that makes YOU WRONG, WRONG and even MORE WRONG!
I hope that Burka doesn’t bind!
@Mike’s America:
Actually, the opposition is characterizing themselves just fine, all on their own. Ya’lls comments stand there exposed in all its Islamophobic glory for all the world to see. Unlike you, no selective censorship happening in my posts.
@MataHarley: Your arguments are reduced to twaddle. I’ve had two posts on the subject and mentioned it briefly in a third.
Meanwhile, you and the dhimmi battalion have waged an unceasing tirade directed at any and all who find this mosque objectionable.
You’ve gone beyond respecting differences of opinion to paint opponents in the most negative light imaginable.
As coarse and direct as I may often be, I could learn lessons from you all.
Frankly, I’ve held back on what I COULD say on this issue and limited myself to three posts.
But considering the blizzard of bloviation coming from your triad, I may be forced to request equal time and continue posting.
Perhaps a series highlighting the fine points in Newt’s speech which you all have ignored.
Oh, and we better save Cary’s follow up comment for posterity before it goes *kapoof*:
The missing words, MataHarley, are YES or NO.
It’s a simple question. Is Cordoba House a mosque?
@Mike’s America:
Mike, I agree that my comments have deteriorated and have become disrespectful and insulting. But do you ever question your own posting style when it comes to debating those you disagree with? Do you ever wonder why you get into so many spats and end up offending others and how things escalate from there?
@Wordsmith: After the civil war your triad launched against the readers you are going to lecture ME on manners?
As I said once before, you really should do stand up comedy.
You lost this argument a long time ago and you’re just mad about it. You let your ego get the better of you.
And I do expect better from you. You should be an example to the rest of us, not an inciter of the kind of incivility you claim to deplore.
But then, as your triad has said throughout this debate, my opinion must be illegitimate because any opposition to this mosque is prima facie based on bigotry, intolerance, ignorance, anti-constitutionalist fear mongering.
So, that leaves you with the ability to ignore my opinion and get away with the hypocrisy of the pot calling the kettle black.
It’s too bad that I don’t feel I can return to that thread, which originally had TWO topics presented by the the author, both of which I was participating in. The first one took a lot more thought to write about, and I ran out of time. Then, upon returning, I got caught up in the second, very easy topic to take a stance on (if you respect the First Amendment), as it was where the thread was at the time.
@Indigo Red:
What I said is:
I’m sure if you read really slow, you’ll figure it out. If not, too bad for you.
So, you, MataHarley, believe the proposed structure to be a mosque.
Incidently, you lost the argument when you started with the ad hominem attacks. You were already in attack mode when I got here, so I let it slide.
I, MataHarley, will call it a mosque if that’s what you want to call it, Indigo. Makes no matter to me. If someone else wants to call it a community center or cultural center, I’ll call it that too. I will ID a building with a prayer room, and other community amenities, in it anyway someone else wants to ID it, so we both know what the heck we’re talking about.
As I said, I’ve no clue what your point is. And I hate to say it, but I don’t care what your point is.
Gotta love all you guys with your “you lost the argument” bit. What I wish you would have done was gone back thru all the threads first by using the categories above. What you came in with was nothing more than some replaying the first scene of a movie that was halfway over. There’s already been tons of lectures by non-Muslims, intent on regaling us all about what is and isn’t a Muslim. Nor is this anything new since major pundits do the same.
But then, to catch up on it all would have taken days…
But so you know, this was my first comment on this subject back in the beginning of June. I had never posted one comment on this subject before… ever. Nor have I ever done a post on that subject. My last contributing post to FA was done on July 11th, INRE the AZ legal battles.
If you follow that thread, you will see how the tone went downhill immediately by the first response to me. It has not improved since then.
MataHarley, you have argued a religious point throughout, Rauf is to be trusted, that he is telling the truth, he knows more about Islam, and we should believe him. You say the Cordoba House is, in fact, a mosque when Imam Rauf very clearly says it is not a mosque. Apparently, you don’t even believe him. Why should I or anyone else be persuaded by your arguements to believe Rauf when you don’t?
And I agree with your first comment back in June, it is a local zoning issue. 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. And if indeed it isn’t a mosque as Rauf says it isn’t, why put a mosque on the top floor in the first place?
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. New York rabbis standing up for Rauf’s character is nothing new and convincing as rabbis vouched for Yassir Arafat, too. There were, in fact, American rabbis who stood up for Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Just because they’re rabbis doesn’t mean they are exceptional judges of men’s characters.
Rauf’s arguements don’t add up -, first it’s mosque, then it’s not; they have complete financing, then they don’t; the money men are non-terror related, but the money trail is indicating they are. All this looks pretty much like we are being lied to, which makes Rauf a liar, a Muslim practicing taqiyya, a man not to be trusted.
Lastly, you point out that you were unduly assailed after your first comment and it went downhill from there. So, that gave you license to do the same to me? Not right, just not right. All I wrote in my first comment did not justify so rapid a response unless skimming was the primary metric minus any serious comprehension.
@Indigo Red…
As I said in both my first comment, which you say you read:
and again in the 2nd comment,
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.
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:
Financing reference #2 on Jul 28th, in response to those demanding disclosure of funds:
Financing reference #3 from Jul 30th an excerpt when trying to summarize this whole distorted malarkey:
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”….
@Indigo Red: You might find this interesting:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4299704/panel-plus-81/
It’s the Panel Plus discussion from Fox News Sunday which includes some great comments from Bill Kristol, Liz Cheney and even Juan Williams regarding the Ground Zero Mosque.
Liz was especially hard on Rauf’s radical ties. Kristol makes the point, as I have, that if these so-called moderate Muslims really are the bringers of peace and interfaith understanding they claim to be that they should see how this mosque would be better built elsewhere. Juan agreed surprisingly.
Wow! Quite the firefight going on here.
It seems to me that the root of this firefight relates to what I posted today: “The Dualism of Islam.” I’d post the video here in this comments thread except that I don’t know how to do so. Sorry.
Some here might also do well to read this article by Gadi Adelman.
In my view, if Muslims wanting to build this center in Manhattan really cared about building bridges, they’d build the center somewhere else.
Now, specifically about this firefight at FA….It is obvious to me, one who doesn’t frequent this site as ofter as I’d like to because of family circumstances, that you folks are at an impasse over this issue of the Islamic Center in Manhattan. Those who know me are well aware of my views regarding Islam — not that I’m happy to have such a negative view. Rather, I’m a realist, I think. It is difficult to reconcile the many hateful teachings of Islam with Muslims I personally know, Muslims who are hospitable and a joy to be around. But the personality traits of a particular group of people do not an ideology make (or define).
Juan Williams joins us Islamophobes:
Juan Williams Opposes Ground Zero Mosque
➡ Will any of this fury aid, or prevent, the construction of this proposed building?
What are the facts?
* Is this use a “conditional use” under NYC zoning law, that political pressure can be brought to render a certain decision? Or will the proposal gain approval merely by meeting certain technical provisions?
* Is there anyone associated with the Flopping Aces site, either in management or one of its readers, that has close connections with that zoning board? If not, then this is a knife fight in a phone booth.
Personally, I don’t like the idea of building this thing. And I’m suspicious of the Cordoba organization. But I’m not on the zoning board. I don’t see a law that is being broken with it. And I also don’t live in NY, but rather near Chicago where we have our own problems. So I work on local campaigns, help lobby for specific legislation in Springfield and pray about what to do on things I *can* influence. All other issues I read about, argue about, as far as my wife and friends can stand.
Turning my guns about, why am I addressing *this* issue. I don’t run the site, and aren’t directly affected (reputation, $$$) by it. But it has been newsworthy, or blogworthy in the past, like finding bunches of flowers in the field. I’d like to have fewer cow patties to avoid on my way to finding the good stuff, and there has been a lot of the patties on this topic (see “Wordsmith draws Mohammed”).
WE have diverte this subject on finding A SOLUTION TO STOP that building
TO BECOME CONCRETE: WITHOUT DISREGARDING THE CONSTITUTION: THAT IS WHERE MATA
STANDING ISLIKE THIS FOLLOW: SHE SAID HER ARGUMENT WE ARE NOT to breach THE LAWS OF THE LAND, and she knows them: SHE IS THE DEFENDER OF THOSES,SHE IS NOT TO BE DISCARD
AND INSULTED.
WHO WILL find a way to prevent that mosque and whatever multiple shack to BE?
MANY IDEAS ARE NEEDED TO LEGITIMATE THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY ,
WHICH SEEM to be not enough to prevent that building.
WHEN WE go against each other we fill their CUP,
WE have to stay in the same boat or we will drawn our own LAW ABIDING CITIZENS
OF THIS BEAUTIFULL AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS.
IDEAS AND MORE IDEAS FOR OBTAINING THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM, ToGETHER WE WILL FIND it.
@Always On Watch:
I’m sure you can provide lots of quotes from the Koran to support this statement. Thing is, the same can be done with The Bible, but none of that encapsulates MY faith, nor the faith of the majority of Christians I know. If you’re going to use such a rhetorical tactic on one religion, you must apply it to all.
Exactly.
We are either a Land of Laws on NOT.
Islamic Laws will not fly here as We have a Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
The US of A is NOT an Islamic State and never will be.
Back in the Day, Committees of Vigilance in the Old West did not replace Due Process
nor did the KKK prevail in the Old South. Despite the multitudes of flaws in the Holder
DOJ and the equally amateur approach of the Napolitano DHS the Obama Regime will
pass. There is a time and term limit defined by Law. The November elections will be like
a hard rain that will wash those rascals out. Our Troop presense in AFPAK will end on a
schedule that was unwise to announce but I trust Gen. Petraeus to get our Second Greatest
Generation home on target regardless of the corruption of the Karzai Crew or the incompetence of the Obama DOD and his band of Idiots in the State Department or the Fools that he appointed as National Security Advisors. It is time for the American Voters to get Our House in Order within the Rule of Law and the constraints of the Constitution.
The US is not about to fall victim to the same stupidity as Great Britain in granting Shariah
Law any credibility or sense of Legality nor will the 50 States allow compromise on their Laws or Constitutions. There will be no Second Constitutional Convention to further erode the Founding Fathers work. There might be a tax revolt if the Current Regime does not become fiscally responsible.
Our Republic’s greatest Enemies at present are Domestic ones, The ones that the voters sent
to DC too many times. Congress and the Senate have lost touch with the electorate, the Constitutional Limits on Power vs Authority and the taxpayers will insure that they will pay in November if my faith in the Nation proves out.
I do not fear that Cultural Center or Mosque being built. The Republic is strong enough and
tolerant enough to weather the emotional storm. The question is “Are We a Land of Laws and Tolerance?” I believe that we are.
I remain very sure that no one at FA desires a return to the KKK approach or Committee of Vigilance approach to circumventing Due Process or the Rule of Law. Our National Security is being undermined by the Pretender in Chief, his appointees and to pack of Career Politicians in DC far more than a Mosque in NYFC. You had better be very afraid of the Current Regime and the path that the Current temporary residents of Congress and the Senate are leading us down.
They are a far greater threat than a Cultural Center in NYFC.
The Republic is at greater risk from the Domestic Threat to our economy and way of life than a handfull of Islamic Scholars. Throw the bastards out in November or watch the Republic crumble from within.
OLD TROOPER: I WOULD say, YOU EARNED the RIGHT to express the TRUTH,
AND YOUR MILITARY CARRER make you more thrust worthy because of what you endure, thank you
About that Constitution and Freedom of Religion:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/31/pub-chicago-man-charged-disorderly-conduct-praying-outside-planned-parenthood/
Here’s my problem. I do believe that islam will use our laws against us, and intends to impose shariah law on us, and eventually give us the same choice that they have given other countries they have conquered: convert or die. I also think that we are complicit by our own political correctness towards muslims – not holding them to the same standards which we require of others – and eventually, political correctness will merge into terrorism.
I think the reason we have this difference of opinion is that Mata and Aye assume that islam is solely a religion. I believe it is a religion – and a political system. When your legal system enforces your religious laws, it’s certainly more than just a religion. And that’s a reality in islamic countries.
That said, we _do_ have laws. On the other hand, we also have corrupt politicians. Those who say we _must_ allow the mosque to be built (and I think it’s ingenuous to claim it’s anything _but_ a mosque) because they’ve “followed the rules” certainly have a point. Those of us who say the mosque should not be built have to figure out a legal way to prevent it. I really don’t see any other way. How else could you prevent it?
Mata and Aye, you’re position is apparently that you want peace and friendship with muslims and think this is a good start. Those of us who disagree believe that muslims are deceptive and intend to conquer us as they have others – just by a different means – and that this effort is the first public declaration of that intent (no, the second. The Pennsylvania monument to Flight 91 was the first).
Neither opinion has anything to do with the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion – but as has been pointed out, when it comes to building churches, we have zoning laws, and politicians who may be corrupt decide those zoning laws. It could be argued that zoning laws are unconstitutional – that they limit rights of private property ownership – but in these days of the Kelo decision, that’s a weak argument. (not wrong, but not very likely to go anywhere). What that says is that politicians are supposed to serve their electors. If the majority of their electors want that mosque _not_ to be built, they better find a way to accommodate them. If the electors don’t care, then they can make any decision that seems reasonable. I don’t think Mike is planning violence against the mosque. Or the muslims in this country. He – and I – are voicing our intent _not_ to yield to islam. Perhaps we’re both overly concerned. Or perhaps you’re wrong about the intent of muslims. _One_ of us is wrong. You better hope _we_ are.
My opinion of islam and the intent of muslims is not likely to change. Whether the mosque is built or not doesn’t matter in that sense. I fully expect that if it is, all will be entirely as they state for some lengthy period of time – even if their intent is not peaceful long term. They’ve been at it for 1000 years – they’re _very_ patient, if that’s what is required. Who knows what will develop in that time? it will be our children and grandchildren or great great great grandchildren who will have to deal with it. Mata and Aye will be able to point to the mosque and say “see…we told you they were peaceful”…but the day will come when Mike and I (and those with us) are proven correct. We just won’t be around to see it.
suek; good idea on THE ZONING LAW that could prevent right of PRIVATE ProPERTY OWNERSHIP
WE could add to the debate that: therefor infringe peace and friendship LIBERTY to AMERICANS
TO enjoyed their life under the CONSTITUTION law being outweight. hows that?
do you think it would be okay with the laws of the CoNSTITUTION?. bye
Two points…
As the site WAS hit by debris from 9/11, declare it a National Monument.. or State Monument, and use emminent domain to seize the land… wholy Constitutional…
Second Point… if, as they say, this is NOT a Mosque… if it is not actualy a religious site, then it is NOT covered by Freedom of Religion exceptions. If the Catholic church owns a Winery, a school, or a hospital … its NOT a religious site… but covered by business law.
@Mike’s America:
You know what we DID do with regards to Japan, however? We told them they were to no longer have Shintoism as part of their government. They were free to practice the religion of it on an individual basis, but it was banned as a political form of government.
The same *should* have been done in Iraq and Afghanistan with regards to political Islam. Political Islam — shari’a — should have been banned, just like we banned Shintoism in Japan… and most likely here in America as well.
So, taking that example, shari’a should be banned in the Muslim world and in America. Period. Now, if they want to practice the religion of Islam on an individual basis, fine. But just as we banned barbaric political Shintoism, so should we ban barbaric political shari’a.
An example of banning shari’a would be with regards to the burqa and headcoverings and such. If they want to wear them as a part of respecting their religion regarding modesty, fine. BUT, they are not allowed to let that get in the way of laws here in America with regards to things such as proper identification (ie pictures for driver’s licenses, any other pictures for identification, showing one’s face for trial, etc).
So basically, people smeared as “Islamophobes” do not have a problem with Muslims in general, just the ones who believe in shari’a law. As people keep saying, there are “moderate” Muslims out there. Good. We all encourage that type of religious person. The argument is not over the religion of Islam, but over political Islam of shari’a.
The test for any Muslim should be to find out if they support or 100% denounce shari’a law. If they 100% denounce it, then great, no issues. If they do not 100% denounce it, then they are not to be trusted. Period. Just as we would not trust anyone who supported Shintoism or NAZIism or the ideology of the KKK. And yes, I just compared Islamic shari’a law to NAZIism and the KKK. Not the religion, mind you, but political Islamic shari’a law.
@Old Trooper 2, your direct reality check on impending dangers, and misplaced focus, is not only sorely needed, but highly appreciated.
This is the problem when you attempt to jump into a long running conversation, assuming you know where people stand, Indigo. I tried to assist you by linking you to the beginning of the debate, where I laid out where I stand quite clearly throughout the entire thread comments…. including my opinion about the location, and my trust level in Rauf.
Apparently you went ahead like a bull dog thru the fence, and chose not to read. Your problem, not mine. This does not grant you unmitigated powers to assume where my greatest opposition points lie, simply because you refuse to go back to the beginning of the movie and see the opening scenes, setting the plot line.
The “religious point” is where the opposition insisted on driving the debate in their assertations that Rauf is proven to be a radical, (not a moderate… whatever that is by some vague morphing parameter) in order to portray him as some sort of closet terrorist, bent on taking over the US of A. This despite the fact the man has been present in the country, and NYC, for over two decades, and the head of a mosque in Manhattan for the bulk of that time. A mosque, I might point out, that has not had any controversy nor has raised any security concerns in the media in all that time, and post 911.
At every point, the oppostion has dissed the Constitution and our rule of law as being irrelevant to the argument. Apparently what they consider morally “wrong wrong and wrong” trumps rule of law, and all founding principles reason.
Tough to carry on a debate when the opposition refuses to address it’s relevance, don’t you think?
They are not only sadly misinformed on the latter, but the Constitution and our rule of law is the very heart of the debate. However since they refuse… over and over (please note Aye Chi’s repeated and unanswered questions)… to address the rule of law as it applies, I turn my attentions to their parchment thin “proof” that Rauf is a closet terrorist. Most of it based on partially removed associations that are shared with many non Muslims, lib/progs, our elected officials, and charitable foundations.
Lastly, your attempt to play the “gotcha” game by parsing words (i.e. “mosque”) is somewhat pathetic. As I pointed out, Muslims have their own name for various rooms and buildings. The generic “mosque” is a well recognized word for western non Muslims. I see it for what it is, no matter what you want to call it. A building that houses community amenities for Muslims and non Muslims alike, as well as prayer and sermon congregation rooms. That you consider this proof of Rauf “lies” is a chasm that even Hillary’s “willing suspension of disbelief” couldn’t hurdle.
But if it makes you feel triumphant in your little world, so be it.
@Romeo13, I have have already laid out the over reaching wide net, and it’s effect on other property owners and their rights, by your “national landmark, and/or memorial” proposed solution in another thread. So in order to infringe upon the Muslim’s rights, you have no problem making it a sweeping seizure of everyone else’s buildings, damaged by the attack by jihad? I’m sure they would not appreciate this unwelcomed eminent domain.
Secondly, INRE your “this isn’t a mosque, so it’s not covered by freedom of religion exceptions” argument – again we play the very liberal tactic of “renaming the subject to advance the agenda game”. The Cordoba House is allowed to build because of zoning/building regulations and is totally unrelated to religion. It is allowed to build because it’s use and proposed plans all fit within the scope of the local zoning laws and regulations.
Conversely, to deny the approval already given, simply because of it’s religion and negative public opinion by non distict citizens, is the infringement upon freedom of religion. If you don’t want to consider it a “religion”, it still infringes upon their rights as property owners who have met all legal demands to develop. Either way, you are at an impasse.
suek, for the feds to meddle in local planning/zoning/comprehensive plans is an infringement on the 10th Amendment/State’s rights. Local ordinances are not unConstitutional, and are set into place – with approval of local citizens – via local jurisdiction. Locals may battle any specific ordinances within their district via their local legal tools, elections, and resolutions. But there is no part of zoning that is unConstitutional, as it is a power reserved unto the State and local governments in our Bill of Rights.
I will also tell you that citizens who demand unfettered rights in urban, suburban and UGB areas are somewhat clueless to the pesky realities of comprehensive plans for needed infrastructure, and impact on resources such as sewer and drinking water. Believe it or not, cities and their planned growth actually require a great amount of engineering and planning that individual property owners are ill equipped to recognize. Oregon denizens found this out the hard way with their Measure 37 and corrections in Measure 49… But that’s a whole ‘nuther story.
If the majority of local NYC constituents do not want the mosque built, they may air their differences and opposition in the hearings… all, BTW, which has already been done. It’s a finished deal. The planning council makes their decision based on hearings, the arguments pro and con, and ultimately the rule of law. That you don’t like it is simply personal emotions. You are welcome to those. As I’ve said, I’m not fond of the location choice myself. However what you (generic you) intend to do about not liking it is most certainly important to the rest of us. Which is why I say I’m certainly not for shredding our Constitution in order for ya’ll to reverse a legal finding, and satisfy your disgruntledness.
If a planning council makes a decision that is contrary to rule of law, and favors “emotions” that bring up a legal straw man argument – as was done in the case of Rocky Mountain Christian Church of Niwot in Boulder, CO – the parties go to battle in the courts where the judicial system straightens out the matter – all based on rule of law. The Becket Fund represented the Boulder church which, after 4-5 years of litigation, prevailed against the bad zoning call.
The same would happen here. If the NYC council had no legal grounds upon which to deny the Cordoba Initiative’s plans – but wanted to do so to appease the opposition – the parties would have gone to court, and jihad would have a nice long run of propaganda for their “war on Islam” to enjoy. Ultimately, the Cordobal Initiative would prevail, and the inevitable would only be delayed… with considerably more media damage done inbetween.
MATA: hi, OF course no one can say that you dont know the rules of laws;
As you know also, NO one can find BETTER DEBATES, than here at FLOPPING ACES,
BY THE CONSERVATIVES LIKE YOU TOO. THEY choose their STANDS and ferocly debate it,
because all beleive it: IT sure tell me that when the time come to all follow the same GOAL;
THEY will be A FORCE TO PROJECT THE POWER WE SEE HERE in a smaller scale. bye
Here’s the video of the Fox News Sunday Panel Plus discussion where Liz Cheney, Bill Kristol and Juan Williams express their concerns about the mosque. Cue video player to the 3:18 second mark:
Good grief. If even Juan Williams thinks building the mosque at Ground Zero is a bad idea, IT’S A BAD IDEA!
@Mike’s America:
Once again, for the 1000th time, it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks or feels about it….
What matters is what the rule of law and the Constitution say about it.
So far, the opponents to this project from all areas of the spectrum, have been unable to come up with an argument based in the rule of law which would support preventing this project from proceeding.
Lady Justice is depicted as blindfolded while holding her scales for a reason. She is not supposed to be a respecter of men.
Until such time as a legal standard can be cited, the opponents of the project are taking a “nation of men” approach when, as Adams said, “we are a nation of laws.”
@ Cary:
A very simplistic response here:
In Christianity, the “hardline” verses of the Bible tend to come from the Old Testament, whereas the New Testament is “softer.”
However, in Islam, the later “revelations” are the “hardline” ones and abrogate the earlier “softer” ones.
The centuries have seen separation of church and state — in the American version of government, anyway. Can we say the same about separation of Islam and government? I don’t think so. Islam is indeed a religion, but it’s also a geopolitical system.
Shari’a law unites the rule of civil law with the rule of religious law. For example, we see state-sanctioned executions of apostates from Islam in Muslim countries. Clearly, the West no longer executes those who leave Christianity, even if much of our rule of civil law is based on Biblical principles.
It would be somewhat disingenuous not to point out that what you state is confined to only a few countries, Always On Watch. Most notably Iran and Afghanistan. Neither form of government is a likely course for America. And if you disagree, take it up with a June 2010 article by Heritage Foundation – The Challenges of Islamist Ideology to America’s Founding Principles.
None of this article addresses Cordoba House specifically, in case you’re looking. But it opens with the “one law for all” principles, and notes that religions must conduct their activities within the framework of our laws… which Cordoba House has done.
Being Heritage, there’s a bit in there for both sides of this equation. The various interpretations by difference scholars, their quests for reform to one extreme or another, and the delicate balance between the challenges of Islam and our founding principles. Neither pro nor con on the Cordoba House can claim this article as a “gotcha” moment for either viewpoint. That’s what makes it such a great read.
@Old Trooper 2: Perhaps you can show me where the exercise of constitutionally protected free speech in opposing this mosque is endangering “a nation of laws.” Have I EVER suggested those who oppose this mosque should take some illegal step to prevent it being built?
Political speech is especially protected by the Constitution, and yet we are seeing in this debate that when those who oppose this mosque exercise that right they are instantly condemned for somehow seeking to violate the Constitution and a host of other failings.
There is no logic to this, only pure emotion and hysteria.
We are a nation of laws and I intend to uphold the most precious rights granted by the Constitution: the right to free speech.
And if some wish to twist that to some dark motive it only shows the weakness of their case.
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.
@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.
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”
@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.
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:
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.
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.
Ever get that “bit o’ barf” taste in the back of your throat?
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.
@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.
@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.
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…
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.