Now they are begging:
Yes, Republicans, you can take advantage of this heated circumstance, backed by the families of the 9/11 victims, in their most emotional return to the public stage since 2001.
But please don’t do it. There are a handful of good reasons to oppose allowing the Islamic center to be built so close to Ground Zero, particularly the family opposition and the availability of other, less raw locations. But what is happening now — the misinformation about the center and its supporters; the open declarations of war on Islam on talk radio, the Internet and other forums; the painful divisions propelled by all the overheated rhetoric — is not worth whatever political gain your party might achieve.
68% of Americans do not want a mosque on or near GZ. Any politician worth his salt will abide the will of the people.
First, the Republicans need to get their act together, or expect the Tea Party to pull far ahead.
This photo sums up our current situation. We are so screwed.
They can build a mosque near GZ,brick for brick,when the Saudis allow the Jews to build a temple,brick for brick,at Mecca.Please God,give us ONE politician with the cojohnes to say that!
Justthinkin hit the nail on the head. And TIME had better be careful or they’re going to be kicking a horse turd down the road with NewsWeek.
Let’s see. The ‘social engineers’ are allowed to use any crisis or tragedy to their advantage using emotional blackmail not logic. Case in point, Polytechnique and gun control. We’re just applying the lessons we’ve learned from them. Can you imagine if somebody wanted to set up a gun store or shooting range near Ecole Polytechnique? It doesn’t have to make sense, it doesn’t have to have a logical connection, it just has to hurt your feelings.
The mosque is the Islamic victory flag.
68% of Americans do not want a mosque on or near GZ. Any politician worth his salt will abide the will of the people.
Posted by: Mark Peters at August 17, 2010 10:37 AM
I love the meme coming out from the left this week, that President Obama his showing “courage” for his stand on the mosque, because he’s standing by America’s “principles” and not succumbing to the “mob” mentality. Suddenly democracy is “mob” rule.
Sad.
And just who will build this Mosque? It’s pretty well known that Muslims couldn’t build a sh*thouse out of Lincoln Logs. Someone once said that “The patience of the bricklayer is assumed in the dream of the architect”. Yeah well, I’m betting that both the bricklayer and the architect and all associated trades will be American!
Dear Liberal Flit,
Thank you for your request for restraint on the issue of the victory mosque to be built at ground zero. We have given it all the attention it deserves.
We appreciate the sanctimonious admonishment, and find that the comedic value of your advice is vastly enhanced as you liberal peacenik fart suckers danced on the coffins of fallen service men during the Gulf War and the action in Afghanistan.
We also appreciate your continued efforts to ensure the removal of the trash currently occupying the Oval Office.
Yours Truly,
Glen Filthie
Republican Advisor and Man About Town
Colin, a pure democracy is “mob” rule. The U.S. is a federal representative republic and in theory, we elect leaders to govern based on principles and not polls. So in theory, he is correct.
However, MaObama is governing on the wrong principles, Marixist principles.
Think about the babies of those Muslim Heroes, think about the Mothers that want to be close to the point of victory… What rights do they have if the Virgins can’t cluster at G-Zero…
Funny how Freedom of Religion & following the Constitution are now all in vogue & tres Progressive to allow this mosque but Free Speech & the Constitution are stupid when it comes to supporting people to publish funny cartoons of Mohammed & Jihadis?
Maybe better than Greg Guttman wanting to operate an Islamic Gay Bar on that block, someone should open an Art Gallery that features Islamic cartoons, modern sculpture of Mohammed floating in jars of urine etc.
The Religion of Peace would be down with that wouldn’t they? After all what is pig fat for the Sow is pig fat for the Boar.
Just wondering.
Oh Gutfeld has name for his bar now as well.
He is going to call it “Dialog”.
Typical pandering mewling admonishments from the usual crowd, once again Islam insults the west and we’re suppost to be passive aggressive and polite in how we deal with the Islamists who want to build a monument to Islamic Terrorism on GZ. I don’t think so, if Muslims can make unacceptable demands and insult western society we can rebut however we deem fit.
I think Fresh Kills would be a great location. After all it has the molecules of the martyrs as well as the innocents. Previous land fill site. Yeh that’s apt.
If Mormons had crashed planes into the WTC on 9/11, to the greater glory of the Mormon church, would Barry Obama, The One, the Hope of Change for Ammurika, be stumping for a 13 story Mormon tabernacle at the WTC site?
How about if Mennonites did it?
Or Methodists?
Just askin’.
“if Muslims can make unacceptable demands and insult western society we can rebut however we deem fit.”
rose…are you from Canukistan(just curious)???
Under our wonderous Charter of Rights For Criminals,Muslims can say and do anything they want,but woe to the white,black,or purple Christian man/woman who dares to question it.Stoning for you!
Mark Halperin’s commentary is ‘stuck on stupid’.
He actually praises Obama’s foreign policy actions, which include allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, refusing to support the demonstrators for democracy in Iran, supporting the Honduran Zelaya’s attempt to subvert the Honduran Constitution, its legislature and its Supreme Court, interfering in internal Israeli policies, supporting the Argentinian claim to the British Falkland Islands, refusing to secure US borders and allowing illegal immigration into the US, insulting each and every western ally, smooching up to the Islamists by praising their ‘promotion of tolerance, justice, and human dignity’ and praising their (invisible) ‘extraordinary contributions to’ the US. Whew. Some foreign policy.
What stuns me is the ignorance of so-called ‘reasoning men’ who think that human society is a mechanical system that operates only via mechanical actions of ‘is’ (descriptive) and ignores the ethical actions of ‘ought (prescriptive).
Ethics is not a subjective and individual choice where someone picks out their moral principles by their ‘taste’ or ‘feelings’. [See Gensler’s account of this in his description of Ima Subjectivist.]
It is an act of reason and as such, is universal and real (not personal). It is that Golden Rule of not doing to another what you would not have done to you in the same situation.
We all know that the mosque can legally be built. No-one questions or is even interested in this; it’s not a matter of debate. What is of vital importance is the ethics of building it on hallowed ground.
I don’t think that it’s a ‘tit for tat’ or equivalent decision, i.e., IF we could build a church in Mecca, then it would be OK for the mosque here. It remains an ethical decision, based on two premises.
The site is hallowed ground, for all who were killed by Islamic fascists. Therefore no specific religion has the moral right to that ground.
Second, the facts are that Islam, as it is now, supports violence against non-believers. Until Islam openly reforms this basic axiom of its beliefs, it has no ethical right to promote its ideology on that ground.
Militant Islam is not confined to Islamic fascists, who express this ideology; it is part of the texts of Islam. There are many Muslims who are totally uninterested in this axiom of Islam and who follow only its simplest axioms of piety. But the facts are – that jihadism, a rejection of others, a refusal to allow debate and critique of its own beliefs – is still an integral part of Islam.
This mosque is not being built to modernize Islam. As Rex Murphy pointed out – is there a special section in the mosque set aside as a memory of 9/11, with a written condemnation of the attacks and a condemnation of the axioms in Islam that support such actions? No? Then, here’s yet another ethical reason to reject the mosque. It’s being built to maintain and support not modernize Islam. Its imam represents that old mentality – one unfit for our modern society.
No human society can operate without ethical principles. No human can make decisions about these issues purely on a mechanical basis (is, the legal right).
Obama, with his support for the mosque and his lack of support for America, has ignited this issue. The Democrats, caught in the middle, are trying to turn it around to set up the GOP as ‘bigots’. But again, the issue is not about the legal right; it’s about the ethical principles of the Golden Rule.
The 9/11 Mosque will be Bre’r BO’s tar baby.
I can’t wait for November.
No society operates by ‘pure’ democracy, not even the smallest hunting and gathering bands.
Pure democracy (see Aristotle’s five types) is simply decision making by a majority opinion; this is demagoguery.
But all just societies insert some form of normative habits, oral or written, which act as a restraining rule of law such that opinion cannot overule that law. They also insert a requirement for an evaluation of their actions within those laws; this is the action of ethics.
A society which exists only within its particular laws and without evaluation of the effects of the actions of its citizens is a society without justice. Justice is not simply following the law, it is an act of evaluation of actions and their results. Not an evaluation of whether that act followed the law but an evaluation of the results of that action.
The Obamamosque may be legal but it is unjust.
Well said, ET.
One last thing is that the American revolution was based on “No taxation without representation”, which could also read No government without representation. Yet the “progressives” or self-nominated elite demand that politicians ignore the people who elected them.
Well said Alain !!
ET:
Bang-on about human society being able to operate without ethical principles.
As I posted on a previous thread, legally the mosque CAN be built on the Ground Zero site (airplane fragment hit the building on 9/11).
The ethical question is SHOULD it be built on Ground Zero?
Those without a moral compass have clearly demonstrated, in writings and even on this website, the expected inability to answer that question since they operate without the benefit of moral codes.
Their arguments are solely legalistic and therefore structured to the ends of power over their fellow human beings ie to varying degrees, control freaks.
IMHO, even in our present, dissipated modern North America, anybody who thinks that mosque is going to get built and nothing bad will happen is an -idiot-. Its a riot looking for a place to happen, is what that is. The best one can hope for is the instigators are the ones who get rioted at, and not the Sunday School. Talk about waving a red rag at a bull.
Sadly the idiots include Bloomberg and Barry. Either that or they just don’t care what the consequences are. That’s probably closer to the truth.
Their arguments are solely legalistic
ET: Just as there are those that keep arguing that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are somehow “illegal.”
Exactly, set you free. The question is not whether it is legal to build the mosque but whether it OUGHT to be built. No society can operate without full attention to ethics, i.e., to the questioning and answering of ‘ought’.
The National Review Corner has a comment from a Muslim today. He’s against the Obamamosque:
“Mr. President this is not about religious freedom. It is about the importance of the World Trade Center site to the psyche of the American People. It is about a blatant attack on our sovereignty by people whose ideology ultimately demands the elimination of our way of life. ..
As a Muslim desperate to reform his faith, your remarks take us backwards from the day that my faith will come into modernity. ..
‘Park 51′, ‘The Cordoba House’ or whatever they are calling it today should not be built, not because it is not their right to do it – but because it is not right to do it.”
Again, focusing on the legality is not the point. We have to focus on ethics, which is not about whether it is legal, but about whether an action is just.
ET:
Correct, once again, about our need to focus on the ethics.
Name-calling or calling people ‘trolls’ does not constitute a superior argument and I am saddened by how some here lower themselves to the level of their opposition.
It’s about the ideas and a mosque at Ground Zero is a bad idea.
Posted by: Doug at August 17, 2010 11:12 AM
While I get your point, Doug, I respectfully disagree. There is a difference, IMO, between mob rule, and the “will of the majority”. Principled opposition drives the latter.
Splitting hairs here perhaps, as I think we’re both generally on the same page. Perhaps I should have said that suddenly principled opposition is “mob rule”. My point being, two years ago, the left said dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Today, it’s mob rule. Quite the stark contrast.
Colin, “dissent” is what they call it if you publish state secrets when a Republican is president.
If a Democrat is president, they call it treason. Unless you’re a bonafied liberal like this WikiLeaks wanker, then they get all confused and don’t know what to do with themselves.
Hey, Phantom, thanks! That clears things up for me. Appreciate the re-education. 😉
Ii have a funny feeling about this whole “Barack Obama defends the Mosque” schtick. I can’t help thinking that he couldn’t possibly be that naive. I mean, the guy has a whole host of advisors to consult with and he doesn’t (can’t) say anything that hasn’t been prepared in advance and shown on a teleprompter.
I think most of us here agree that the US is perilously close to – or at – a financial meltdown. Just wondering if the House and Senate were to become Repub dominated, would BO be able to use that as an excuse to fiddle while Rome burns?
The next presidential election is still 2+ years out. That’s a long time at the rate of money they are spending (borrowing).
It’s highly unlikely that the Obamamosque will ever be built. American patriots will see to that. The issue will however serve a more useful purpose by motivating American voters in November to hobble the presidency by removing the lieberal majority in Congress as the first step in turning the country around.
Posted by: Brian M. at August 17, 2010 4:36 PM
Obama can fiddle all he likes if the Republicans take control of the house.
Congress sets the financial agendas in the US.
The president has certain veto powers, but for the most part it’s likely he’ll be a spectator after November.
He and his cronies have had their shot.
Gotta love the US Constitution.
Typical liberals, showing tolerance by allowing intolerance.
Who was it that declared war????
Mark Halperin is as dense as they come. The agitation against the Ground Zero mosque
is not to score political points, it is to stop the mosque.
read this yesterday…maybe some light at the end of the tunnel…
via Haaretz
Muslim leaders to abandon plans for Ground Zero community center
Insiders say Muslim spiritual leaders behind the controversial initiative are considering giving up on the former World Trade Center location,
in a gesture of appeasement.
By Shlomo Shamir
The site of a planned mosque is shown two blocks from the World Trade Center – Friday, Aug. 13, 2010
After weeks of heated debate over plans for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero – the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York –
it seems Muslim leaders will soon back down, agreeing to move to a new site. The decision follows a high-profile campaign against the project
that included advertisements on New York buses showing images of the burning Twin Towers, an iconic landmark razed when al-Qaida terrorists
flew packed passenger planes into them in 2001. The New York Republican party is also said to be planning a hostile television campaign.
Sources in New York said on Monday that Muslim religious and business leaders will announce plans to abandon the project in the next few days.
New York Governor David Patterson said last weekend that Muslim leaders had rejected outright his proposal tto swap the site in for another in
Manhattan. But several people familiar with the debate among New York’s Islamic activists now claim that the leaders are convinced abandoning the site
is preferable to unleashing a wave of bitterness towards Muslims. They also hope the move will be seen as a show of sensitivity to families of the victims
of the 9/11 attacks, and to the American public generally. Another factor in the apparent climbdown is a lack of funds to pay for construction of the center,
estimated to cost a hundred million dollars. Backers hope moving it will lead to a wave of support, accompanied by cash donations.
It is also possible that the decision was also influenced by comments made by U.S. President Barack Obama on Sunday, in which he appeared to
reverse an earlier show of support. Obama said that when he went on record backing the center, he meant only that it was the right of every
religious group to establish its own places of worship – but he did not intend to justify building the center specifically at Ground Zero.
ET said “Pure democracy (see Aristotle’s five types) is simply decision making by a majority opinion; this is demagoguery.”
Thomas Payne also added “Democracy doesn’t work without strong civil rights.” Unfortunately our civil rights have been getting eroded at an alarming rate the last 20 years or so. We have almost reached the point of mob rule whereby one group can win an election and trample the civil rights of the group that didn’t.
Another missile thrown at us from “Camp Tolerance”.
Re-educate yourselves, you historical boobs.
Nuts to you!
Yes,let us show our tolerance and build a mosque there.
No,No,a thousand times no.
If you stand for equality for women. If you stand for equality for gays. If you stand for a child’s right to live without fear. Then you must oppose this slap,and the others that are coming.I will not turn my other cheek.
Allowing this mosque to be built on the basis of religious tolerance is akin to building crosses for the Ku Klux Klan while saying you admire Martin Luther King.
Tolerance and islam are not compatible.
“Ii have a funny feeling about this whole “Barack Obama defends the Mosque” shtick.”
Brian M
At the risk of being repetitive, I think your “funny feeling” is bang-on. IMO BO is “wagging the dog”. He now understands, and probably always did, that his best chance in 2012 is to be the “check and balance” on what will then be (so Barak hopes) Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. That, I predict will be his case for a second term. If the Democrats manage to maintain control of either house BO will have a very difficult time convincing Americans that they need to keep him in the WH.
From giving the Queen an IPOD, to bowing to foreign leaders, to Michelle’s untimely trip to Spain, to the fiasco this weekend; it all adds up to deliberate intent IMO. I don’t agree with most conservative commentators that he’s simply a dolt.
Politically I think it would be wise not to underestimate the man that unhorsed the Clinton’s as the head of the Dems. Better safe than sorry.
Excellent video on appeasement and this Victory Mosque.
“Bill Whittle: Ground Zero Mosque Reality Check”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg_iDPRud_c
Indy
“””I don’t agree with most conservative commentators that he’s simply a dolt. “””
actually he reminds me of my SIL who has about a 140 IQ, but NO common sense. He appears to speak “to the moment” and fails to grasp the consequence of his remarks in conjunction to other matters and times.
and
Islam has a history of destroying conquered peoples house of worship, and building a mosque in it’s place, so, no matter what the “intent” was/is, the preception will always be in that context.
always felt Halperin was a smarmy lefty smartypants …
now i’m sure i was right…
“They can build a mosque near GZ,brick for brick,when the Saudis allow the Jews to build a temple,brick for brick,at Mecca.Please God,give us ONE politician with the cojohnes to say that!”
Never mind Mecca, I’m betting the Jews would settle for the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Indiana Homez at 7:12 – thank you. The 2012 factor was the date I was thinking of when I posted. From 2010 until then, I agree with ‘set you free’ that he will largely be a lame duck if the vote goes Republican in a big way this coming November.
Cheers,
Brian
Or you can look at it another way.
There will always be a window that could use a rock…..
Delta Airlines ticket Wpg to NY, 09,11, $576,00
Park Central Hotel room for 09,11, $349.00
Giving the finger to the Ground Zero Mosque,
Priceless.
Brian and Indiana:
I don’t see that Obama’s actions imply deliberate political intent; they imply to me, deliberate psychological intent. That’s a very different agenda.
Obama’s support of the mosque when speaking to a room filled with Muslims was to ensnare them to be ‘His’. That’s his only agenda, ever…to manipulate people into his control.
Giving the Queen an ipod with his speeches on it was, to him, showing her how important he is. That’s his narcissism.
He knows that his actions so far have been unpopular but his view is that people are too ignorant to appreciate him and his ‘wise policies’. He’ll let Congress take the fall – and then, yes, he’ll set himself up as the Victim of a GOP dominated Congress.
But, the question then becomes – will the Democrats keep Obama? If he abandons them, will they want him? I suggest they’ll find him some empty UN position where he can live within his virtual world of His Supremacy.
The people of Pakistan want aide from the flood. Are they the same people that call for the death of me and my family? F— them. God flooded them out and it seems to me that god wants to get rid of a few million terrorists. Not 1 dollar for Pakistan from me.