« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Sarah Palin Rightly Rejects Ground Zero Mosque; Bloomberg and Aide Reject Her. And Sanity

On Sunday Sarah Palin, exhibiting common sense and courage of her convictions, called for a rejection of the planned mosque at Ground Zero. The planned mosque has been causing controversy, controversy that was easily foreseen by anyone with a brain and, you know, an ounce of true as opposed to feigned sensitivity. Apparently, this does not include a New York City Community Board nor Mayor Bloomberg.

Nearly two months ago, Manhattan Community Board 1 voted to approve the plans for a mosque to be built at ground zero. The vote was 29 to 1 in favor, although 10 chose to “vote present” by abstaining. Suffice it to say, the public had a few things to say about it.

The alleged purpose of the mosque was to spread “healing.” The actual result? Not so much. So, you’d think that the plans would have been scrapped once that was crystal clear. But, nope. Of course not. Because it’s always sensitivity for me, but not for thee, to those on the Left. Enter Sarah Palin, who once again is displaying her uncanny ability of creating a national dialogue via social media postings.  But she’s just a dum-dum, right? She tweeted this on Sunday:

“Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing,” she tweeted Sunday.

Makes sense, doesn’t it? Not if you are an aide in Nanny Mayor Bloomberg’s office.

While a recent poll showed a majority of New Yorkers oppose the plan to build the mosque built near Ground Zero, an aide in Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s City Hall hit back at Palin, first tweeting “@SarahPalinUSA mind your business.”

The aide, policy hand Andrea Batista Schlesinger, followed that up with:

“@SarahPalinUSA whose hearts? Racist hearts?”

Schlesinger deleted both tweets shortly after posting them.

“Andrea was only speaking for herself, and she has the right to her own opinions,” said Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser.

Schlesinger posted threee new tweets Sunday evening, explaining why she wrote, and took down, her Palin response:

“Deleted post bc I regretted curt response. But fact is, I believe this city belongs to everyone – and no one more than another”

“Unlike @SarahPalinUSA, I was born here grew up here. Was showing off to a visitor today – look at how beautiful and diverse my city is.”

“I felt pain of 9/11, the trauma. I got through it by believing in my city. Not through fear and hate.”

Sigh. Firstly, “mind your business” is hilariously ironic coming from Bloomberg’s administration. An administration that is striving to stick it’s nanny nose in every aspect of everyone’s business, down to how much salt they use. Furthermore, this was, of course, followed by the good old “you haters! So Racist ™ !” narrative. Not surprising, coming from an aide for Mayor Bloomberg. Remember, when the car bomb was found it Times Square, Mayor Bloomberg went on air and accused “somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something.” as the perpetrator. Then, when even he could no longer deny the obvious and was forced to admit that it was an attempted terrorist attack, he then fretted about a “backlash” against Muslims. His first thought was that Americans are racist and bullies. I’ve always said that everyone has the right to be stupid, but Mayor Bloomberg totally abuses the privilege.

After Palin’s tweet, a fracas on Twitter ensued, with the most prevalent, and intellectually dishonest strawman being “It’s not at Ground Zero! Stop discriminating, you discriminator-y wing nuts!” Only, it is at Ground Zero and only someone suffering from acute moral relativism and cognitive dissonance wouldn’t recognize that fact. The mosque is to be built at the site of the destroyed Burlington Coat Factory. The building was destroyed by fuselage from one of the planes that were purposely flown into the World Trade Center, by Islamic terrorists, killing nearly 3,000 innocent people on September 11, 2001.

There is another fact conveniently overlooked by those who wish to sanctimoniously condemn others as haters, while patting themselves on the back for being oh-so-faux-tolerant, even at the expense of human decency. In Islam, a religion that demands the conquering and conversion of those it deems to be infidels, “mosques of war” are often built at the sites of odiously perceived victories over infidels. Even if this particular mosque isn’t being built for that reason, to the Jihadists that is exactly what it will be. A shrine of conquer and honor. Where almost 3,000 innocent ‘infidels” were killed.

Mayor Bloomberg supports this. Until now, it has remained primarily a local New York City issue. Sarah Palin, once again bravely speaking her mind without fear of being not politically correct,  has hopefully brought this to the forefront nationally. This mosque must not be built. We must stop cowering in fear of the politically correct and we must stop condoning blatant provocations as a form of deluded tolerance and appeasement. Instead of busily demonizing American citizens, apologizing to those who wish to kill us, and frantically avoiding perceived “profiling” out of the insane fear of looking non-politically correct, Nanny Bloomberg can learn from the Mama Grizzly. Let’s hope that he does.

—-

(cross-posted from newsreal)

COMMENTS

  • Achance

    We don’t take it real well either, but we’re supposed to accept the opinion of our betters since we’re sorta the ultimate flyover country. It takes a lot to get me to side with Palin, but smarta** Noo Yawkers will do it.

    • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

      But that doesn’t mean we have to pay for it, either. If they want to be stupid, let them do it on their own time and dime… for everything.

      That is a problem, isn’t it? Some states minding the business of other and states with all the attendant demands but when those “others” return the favor, they’re told to butt out? I’d shoot back with I’ll be all too happy to butt out if you will suffer the consequences of your stupidity all by your lonesome.

      We are being ruled by children, not very mature ones at that. I’d say for maturity levels they range from age 2 through age 7 max. They do stupid things and expect the parents, aka Conservatives, to fix it for them so they can go screw up again.

      With an ever-increasingly intrusive federal government, it’s just going to become worse until some states cease to exist for all intents and purposes as recognizable sovereign states.

      If it hasn’t happened already and we simply refuse to see it.

      Governors and state legislatures are busy legislating themselves out of jobs. Soon, they’ll be nothing more than pencil pushers for the feds. Darn close to that now, aren’t they?

      • aesthete
  • SteveLA

    Lori,

    So I guess Governor Palin is not big on the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?

    Specifically:

    <b>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..

    Now if Governor Palin has a bone, she can pick it with the local planning commission who has authority over these decisions, a body which probably should have rejected this Mosque for the reasons she states, and I’d agree with her. But short of local authority making this decision what else can be done?

    What is it that Governor Palin wishes to have done about this bad decision? Maybe Governor Palin will work to have the members of the NY City planning commission removed from office (not sure if they are appointed or elected) and that would be a very good thing, but is the Governor suggesting that as a matter of Federal power somehow or some way should be inserted in the free exercise of religion and religious practices in this country?

    • michael_j_lambert

      I just logged on to say much of what you said, only to find somebody already made my principle argument.

      On the other hand, while I think said Mosque is in poor taste, I find no problem with a Mosque being located just about anywhere it finds convenient. In the middle of a twisty neighborhood I would probably object to, but if they own the land, let them build their place of worship where they will.

      • aesthete

        but I see no reason that government should be involved one way or another, so long as no impropriety or taxpayer funds are involved.

      • WarEagle01

        so I guess I would actually be OK with it, if the Saudi government were to consent to the construction of a big mega-church and Christian community center in Mecca or Medina. On second thought, I’ll accept building it in Ryadh or Dahran just to demonstrate some religious sensitivity. But do you see that happening? Of course not. Accepting the building of this mosque on Ground Zero means accepting religious intolerance. And by religious intolerance, I mean the serious, ass-beating, body parts-cutting-off kind they practice in Saudi Arabia. How in the world could anyone have “no problem” with that?

      • E Pluribus Unum

        And I will fight for the right to say so.

      • E Pluribus Unum

        And I will fight for the right to say so.

    • kentuckycolonel

      When I was just a little kid many, many moons ago, my Daddy taught me something very important. There is a difference between having the right to do something and doing what’s right. Yes, they have the right to build there, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

      • Nick Haynes

        Yeah, the imam that is proposing it…I get that its offensive. Maybe not illegal or unconstitutional, but it does strike of not being the right thing to do. The fact that the Saudi government would be financing this particular mosque…I get that too.

        But the general concept of building a mosque, be it at Ground Zero or anywhere…as long as the imam isn’t a quasi-enabler of the radical elements, and as long as it’s not financed through a foreign entity…as long as those elements are taken out of it and we’re simply talking about a place of worship for Muslims, I fail to see what is “not right” about it.

        • trutexan

          there is an intentional act to push a stick further into the eye of the infidel. The next step is to demand that Sharia law take an equal place in the US Court system. What’s next? We allow a woman to be stoned inside the mosque because of “sensitivity and tolerance”? I truly believe the radicals are willing to take generations to ease America out so she doesn’t even recognize herself.

    • Achance

      They are turning our freedoms and our Constitution, things they despise, against us. Frankly, I’m not too far from outlawing the practice of their evil cult the same way we outlawed adherence to the Communist Party back when America was sane. Islam does not make the distinction between government and religion that we do and upon which our Constitutional protections are based. Consequently, it is not a religion but rather a poltical system that advocates the overthrow of the US Government as currently constituted. I’m about ready to start tearing down the mosques and madrassas they already have. Not there yet, but the inevitable attack brought on by Comrade Obama’s weakness may get me and a lot of other people there very quickly.

      • Paul Cella

        Just outlaw a number of particularly egregious Islamic doctrines. Under no reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment are we obliged to treat all religious doctrine, no matter what its content, with the strictest neutrality. Jihad, shariah and dhimma are intolerable doctrines. We ought to proscribe them under 18 USC 2385

        That funding for this mosque, as well as (it appears) one of its leading lights, comes by way of sources plainly sympathetic to the Jihad, makes them instantly suspect.

        Much of Islam is harmless and clearly compatible with neighborly comportment and normal citizenship. The war doctrines, however — holy war, the justice of treachery and deceit, the necessity of overthrowing infidel law, the necessity of subjugated the conquered enemy (dhimma) — these are emphatically incompatible with our republic, and our law should reflect that.

        Good post, Lori.

        • Achance

          that much is harmless and compatible with neighborly comportment, but I can’t make myself trust any of them. It is fundamental to the religion that non-Muslims are lesser beings that are entitled to no rights nor respect by Muslims. The fact that some Muslims can be good neighbors and aren’t trying to kill me does not obviate that fact. I just don’t see how one can be a practicing Muslim and be an American nor vice versa. I’ve had some good arguments here with people who profess Islam, but to reach me they have to reject some very concrete teachings of the religion.

          I grew up in a very fundamentalist, predestinarian religion. You couldn’t wholeheartedly practice it and be an American. We forced the Mormons to forsake the practice of significant chunks of their religion before we would allow them citizenship. I’m feeling the same way about Muslims; swear fealty, or leave.

          • Achance
          • Paul Cella

            even for peaceful Muslims, especially given the extraordinary stupidity of almost all liberals, whether of the right-wing or left-wing variety, on this subject. If we could trust liberals to show any vigilance and shrewdness, or a lick of historical awareness (it is hardly unique to Islam to build shrines over vanquished enemies; that is the way of mankind), we might be getting somewhere.

            But since the poor fools seem resolutely committed to blindness on this matter, we pretty much have to operate on the assumption that they will forever downplay the menace of the Jihad and denigrate anyone who thinks different than them.

        • jcincy

          “Much of Islam is harmless and clearly compatible with neighborly comportment and normal citizenship. ”

          No. Islam is built upon making war with non-Muslims. PERIOD. There is no room in ISLAM for peace with INFIDELS. None. This is a religion built upon hate and conquest. It is EVIL. Call it what it is.

          • holystone

            That is a contradiction in terms. As previously posted the only moderation in the movement to conquer all non-Mulsims and establish the world wide Caliphate is the timing. The radicals want it now now now and the moderates are willing to take their time. When I see “moderate Muslims” mobbing the streets in protest of terrorism and a soul wrenching “enlightened” movement within that “religion” that moderates its stated goals, then I will believe in tolerance. Until then I will trust their words and actions about as much as I do “moderate” progressives. To repeat myself: The only definition of a “moderate” Muslim is the timing of your servitude or death.

        • aesthete

          that. We are a secular liberal democracy, and we’re not too keen on turning into anything else. Right now, homegrown Fabian socialists and their fellow travelers are a much greater existential threat to the US than the musings of some backwards savages sitting on oil.

          • Paul Cella

            We can hardly go a month in this country without facing a Jihadist raid.

            We’ve gotten extraordinarily lucky — just in the last year. There was nearly a horrifying fiery ruin over Detroit. Dozen of serious plots have been broken up. Half the time we avoid disaster by good fortune.

            It will not hold.

          • jcincy

            We may act like a “secular, liberal democracy”, but that was not the design of the Founding Fathers.

            The United States is a Republic built upon Christian principles that are intertwined throughout our Founding documents and laws.

          • Achance

            have meaning to educated people. Something I’m becoming convinced you’re not.

          • aesthete

            with your assertion. Written in 1796 (9 years after the Constitution), its 11th Article reads as follows:

            “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

            Was Christianity an influence? Sure. Was it a primary influence, and were the Founding Fathers building an explicitly “Christian” nation? Well, no. For crying out loud, so riven were the Founders and the citizenry on issues of doctrine that, were they to establish an explicitly Christian nation (whatever that means), they would have had to make the principles so general as to render the term “secular” more accurate to the final product, or the nation would have been in arms.

          • jcincy

            Taken in context, the United States did not want to engage in a Holy War with the Muslim nations of the Barbary coast. There was nothing in our Declaration or Constitution that called for war against the Muslims. The Founding Fathers saw a stark contrast between the ‘sword and burning stake’ Christianity of Europe that built tyrannies and the tolerant Christianity, that was the ‘law of land’ in America.

            If you research the official acts of our federal government you will note the Founding Fathers called for national days of fasting & prayer and thanksgiving to God. They appointed chaplains to the various branches of the federal government and the military. In fact Jefferson and Madison attended church services regularly on Sundays in the House of Representatives. These are not the actions of a godless, secular government.

            If you want examples of secular nations look to 18th century France and Soviet Russia.

          • aesthete

            chaplains in government, and public officials going to church in the godless wasteland that is our secular government. First off, it’s pretty tough to define a “Christian nation”, because the Christian faith is voluntary and highly personal, the converse of any action undertaken by government, which by definition is coercive and deals in aggregates. For the sake of argument, let’s say that The Founding Fathers said at various times and in differing capacities that Christianity was essential to liberty. You would be hard-pressed to find one that believed that the state had a hand in preserving these morals in the same was as was done in Europe, or that it had a role in enforcing its mandates.

            Sure, there were laws that were “Christian” in nature (Prohibition, blue laws, and several others were mostly the result of lobbying done by religionists). The overall thrust of our nation, and its defining characteristic, was not one of a “Christian nation”, however: it was of a secular liberal democracy with liberty for all populated by serious Christians. It is telling that 4 of our first 6 Presidents held beliefs in conflict with essential tenets of Christianity (in the case of Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, quite publicly), and that our sixth President made a point of swearing the inauguration oath on a book of law, rather than the Bible. If you think those the actions of a committed “Christian” nation, then your definition of Christianity is so trite and inoffensive that in practice, a “Christian” nation is virtually indistinguishable from a secular state!

            (Also, I would argue that in the case of the Soviets, the government was not secular, but anti-religious as a whole, though less so after WWII.)

        • eburkedisciple

          Yes, some Moslems are harmless but you cannot say that about those who take seriously the Koran and the core historical teachings of their religion. I am religious and i am all for religious freedom (and recognizing that atheists are a religion) but there is a point where we must learn what we are dealing with and it is not your typical religion.

          Take our state department dealing with Iran. That kook believes that if he brings world war to us then his 9th Imam will come and bring history to its fulfillment. So, why negotiate with him. We have nothing to offer compared to that. We must learn.

      • http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/ Erick Brockway
      • SteveLA

        Art

        What you state is the risk. Free speech means just that, free speech, even speech and actions from those that I disagree with as long as it falls within the limits that has been set by courts, which by the way should be very reluctant to get in the middle of this sort of thing…ever.

        In this case, a local authority has spoken on this issue, and I see no Federal role in this matter, full stop. I disagree with the actions of the local zoning folks, but as a strict 10th amendment point of view, it’s none of the Federal government’s dang business. As stated elsewhere, it’s also Governor’s Palin’s right to complain about the decision, and I support her right to express outrage. But short of complaining, condemning, and all the rest, it’s none of the Federal government’s business.

        • Achance

          at least with the state of the law today. I’m not far from beginning to believe in treating Muslims the way we treated Communists in an earlier, more sane time.

      • texasgalt

        for a very long time. In the 15th Century they turned the Parthenon into a mosque.

      • furious

        …the Caliphate of Cordoba ruled Muslim-occupied Spain for most of four centuries before Spain’s Christian kingdoms began the Reconquest.

        I don’t think the NYC Mosque’s name is a coincidence

        • cactusjack

          of the peaceful, bucolic, unsuspecting Islamic community of the Middle East, ask yourself where the great invasions and counter invasions finally ended – who was on whose territory? THe wars finally ended (back then) and the Muslims finally turned back, through unceasing & valiant military effort culminating in huge battles right in front of that famous Far Middle Eastern city, Vienna. That’s right, the Islamic armies were rollling the dice for the whole enchilada and just about took it before losing in what we know today as central Europe. I suppose one could say, that we are Western and recognize the rights of individuals in some fashion, springs from military victory refernced above. If not for that, try translating this thread into Arabic, I cannot. Still millions of Muslims in Eastern Europe today, and of course, Byzantium fell, with all its Greco-western learning and knowledge.

      • cactusjack

        I have yet to hear anyone ask, “how does our allowing siting the Mosque at GZ in NYC look, in the eyes of the Jihadists?” Objective answer: to them – it appears to be craven weakness, fear, confusion on our part; we are fools and objects of contempt to them for not resisting them staking their religious monuments right in our face as it were. For any lost liberals accidently reading RS and these posts, please note I asked how it looked to the Jihadists, not to the average Muslim in the US. The former seems to be calling all the shots and the latter seem impotent or fearful so no matter how many of them there are, they really don’t matter in this consideration since they’re not arming weapons and cocking triggers. The above – how does this look to *them* – and will it actually spawn more terrorism – is a factor that should be taken into consideration and it is not being done.

        • cactusjack

          looks to outsiders – how does allowing siting a Mosque at GZ look to people in the rest of the US? Well for one thing I don’t think people in Ohio, Arkansas, Montana or even California are exactly feeling overwhelmed with the magnanimity and open mindedness of New York City . No it is more a kind of quiet feeling you have to yourself – “is that really so smart for them to do that – whatever their intentions, in the real world it is kind of asking for more trouble isn;t it?”

          • jdw4america

            You are seeing the response of the leftist government of NYC, which is the firm and unshakable belief that all other people in the world are imbued with a tolerance, benevolence and goodwill which the American people, in its totality, lack.

            Witness the aftermath of the assault on NY – the left was out in full force, urging the people not to give in to our base nature and begin slaughtering Muslims in the streets. They “reminded” us that those who had deliberately chosen to target civilians just living their lives, people who had done and could not do harm to them, the monsters who hate for hate’s sake, are JUST LIKE US!

            What was the reaction of the New Yorker on the street? Does anyone remember that at first, the MSM was asking the people how they felt and what they thought? They stopped almost immediately. Why? Because the people were not speaking of tolerance and respect, the people were speaking of going to war with those who dared attack their home. They stopped covering the fact that the recruiting offices in the city that went on for blocks. The people wanted justice. Their cowardly, bloated, self-loathing “representatives” prefer to shrink from their duty to respond to such breathtaking acts of war against their own civilian population, preferring instead to wave an olive branch at those who will not stop until they have killed us all.

            Mind you, this was not due to the fact that it was not a sovereign nation attacking us, as the Feds have droned on and on about. We know who paid for these attacks. Who pays the families of suicide bombers in Israel? “OUR GOOD FRIENDS” the Saudis. Where are terrorist camps that train these killers? Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Kuwait, etc, etc…. They are geographically contained in a specific area of the world.

            JD – What are you saying, surely just because the people who want to kill us come from a specific place, you cannot be suggesting that the people from that place want to kill us? That’s crazy!

            Actually, that’s called TRUTH. John Adams in “1776″ exasperated, finally yells out to the Continental Congress – “…why can you not accept what already exists? We are at war!” Then, as now, what exists, is that the enemy in question believes himself to be at war with us. Why are we not at war with them?

            I care not if you are an Atheist, a Jew, a Christian or whatever. I care very much that people who hate us, are being given an opportunity to congratulate themselves for being right about our “cowardice” and our “greed” which will allow them to build a monument to their hatred on the very spot from which they proclaimed it to the world. The city council could very easily have declined permission to build, by establishing a ruling declaring that no religious edifice not already standing will be built on the sacred ground where Americans were murdered, owing to the fact that we recognize they were not all of one faith or another. They died as Americans. No fear, no favor.

            If the left were ever to become as “tolerant” of the American people as they claim to be for everyone else on the planet, one might be less inclined to vomit whenever one of them speaks. Unfortunately, both in NYC, my beloved home, and in Washington, they see us as the peasantry and themselves as rulers.

    • Deskpilot

      from one HIGH PROFILE, yet PRIVATE citizen is a VASTLY different thing than a government prohibiting the free expression of religion.
      Mrs. Palin was communicating DIRECTLY, although through a public medium/media, to those that wish to construct the mosque.
      No government entity or official was a party to this communication.
      She made no expression that their religion not be practiced in the form that they deem appropriate. She was only making reference to a “decision” that the Muslim community made in reference their site selection.

      • JSobieski

        Nor is there anything stopping the use of eminent domain to procure the land for a public purpose.

        The government gets in the way of so many things, but this construction project seems to be immune from the challenges that block the non-jihadist.

        The funders of this construction have ties to questionable groups—on that basis alone the government has a lot of tools that could be used. Try initiating some large money transfers over national boundaries and you will see what I mean.

    • Achance

      Short of yelling “Fire” in a theater, she, I, and you can say what we damned well feel like, and I really don’t care, nor do I need to within the constraints of my physical well-being, what you think about what I say or whether you’re offended.

      And I’m not real convinced about the limitation on yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater.

    • bobmontgomery

      Sarah Palin asked the Muslim community not to do it out of respect for the the sensibilities of the victims’ families.

      • Nick Haynes

        that I and many libertarian-minded folks find at issue. Simply because the perpetrators of 9/11 were Muslim doesn’t mean that Islam is at fault.

        That’s like trying to talk people out of building a Seventh-Day Adventist church in Waco, or any Christian church in the Middle East. Those are both areas where people of certain faiths got crazy and killed people. Doesn’t mean that the religion itself is at fault. The faith is simply one path for the mentally unstable or dogmatically violent to distort in order to justify their irrational hatred. I could take several verses in the Bible and distort them to justify killing every non-Christian. Doesn’t mean that the Christian faith is to blame.

        And the same applies here. I can understand why certain elements of this specific plan (the imam in question, the Saudi funding) makes it offensive. But the general idea of a mosque at Ground Zero? Nope. As a matter of fact, as long as it’s not in radical hands, it could go a long way towards fostering friendship and understanding, and perhaps possibly preventing more attacks in the future.

        • Uma Richie

          to Israel. That’s my idea of gesture that sincerely “foster[s] friendship and understanding” and “prevent[s] more attacks in the future.”

        • bigbob45

          You claim “Doesn

          • Nick Haynes

            1.) Read up on the Crusades. Really–it’s a great read about the early Christians and their attempts to spread the faith!

            2.) A little more reading on the peace in the Bible.

            Point to me where the majority–hell, even a substantial minority–of American Muslims believe in the jihadist teachings of those like al-Quada. No, really, go ahead. I’ll wait.

          • bigbob45

            were not in any way designed to spread Christianity. They were a defensive action to RECAPTURE territory which was originally Jewish and Christian. When the Muslims captured it in AD 638, they and the Christians and Jews managed to coexist for several centuries. It was when the Muslims began to persecute Christians and prevent them from visiting the Christian “holy places” in about 1090 that the West responded. It’s a modern :”revision” of history, advanced by both Muslims and various anti-Christian people, to say that the Crusades were Western or Christian aggression. Moreover, these were not the “early” Christians (which were the first few centuries after Christ); they were Medieval Christians with ethics that would have shocked the early Christians. If anybody has a right to be offended by the aggression of the Crusaders, it would be the Jews, who were indeed brutally victimized by the Crusaders.

            2. There isn’t time or space here to show you what the Bible actually teaches about violence and war. But Christianity–the New Testament– teaches peace as the ideal, something which is not true of Islam. “Bloodthirsty Christian” is a contradiction in terms; “Bloodthirsty Muslim” is not. Neither term describes EVERYBODY in either group.

            3. I didn’t say anything about how many Muslims agree with the jihadists. In fact, I agree with Bernard Lewis (in *The Crisis of Islam*) that most of them do not. What I said was the jihadists seem to find it easy to convert “normal” Muslims into jihadis with alarming frequency.

            Please—I hope the title I gave my comment last night was not personally offensive; I had no inttention to slam you personally or to turn this into a personal war. I’d much rather we focused our attention on the jihadists and the threat they pose.

    • jcincy

      In the last 60 years we have chosen to ignore the rulings the Founding Fathers made in regard to the first amendment. The first amendment does not proclaim that man has the right to say whatever he pleases. There was an understanding of decency and morality that were to be applied to all speech, including ‘religious’ speech.

      • Achance

        The 1st Am. doesn’t proclaim ANYTHING about what a man can or cannot say. It proclaims very loudly that the government cannot do anything about what a man says. Any other limitation is just manners.

        • jcincy

          “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” That this amendment was intended to secure to every citizen an absolute right to speak, or write, or print, whatever he might please, without any responsibility, public or private, therefor, is a supposition too wild to be indulged by any rational man. This would be to allow to every citizen a right to destroy, at his pleasure, the reputation, the peace, the property, and even the personal safety of every other citizen. A man might, out of mere malice and revenge, accuse another of the most infamous crimes; might excite against him the indignation of all his fellow citizens by the most atrocious calumnies; might disturb, nay, overturn all his domestic peace, and embitter his parental affections; might inflict the most distressing punishments upon the weak, the timid, and the innocent; might prejudice all a man’s civil, and political, and private rights; and might stir up sedition, rebellion, and treason even against the government itself, in the wantonness of his passions, or the corruption of his heart. Civil society could not go on under such circumstances. Men would then be obliged to resort to private vengeance, to make up for the deficiencies of the law; and assassinations, and savage cruelties, would be perpetrated with all the frequency belonging to barbarous and brutal communities. It is plain, then, that the language of this amendment imports no more, than that every man shall have a right to speak, write, and print his opinions upon any subject whatsoever, without any prior restraint, so always, that he does not injure any other person in his rights, person, property, or reputation; and so always, that he does not thereby disturb the public peace, or attempt to subvert the government. It is neither more nor less, than an expansion of the great doctrine, recently brought into operation in the law of libel, that every man shall be at liberty to publish what is true, with good motives and for justifiable ends. And with this reasonable limitation it is not only right in itself, but it is an inestimable privilege in a free government. Without such a limitation, it might become the scourge of the republic, first denouncing the principles of liberty, and then, by rendering the most virtuous patriots odious through the terrors of the press, introducing despotism in its worst form.

          I’ll go with the opinion of Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice 1811-1845 versus the contemporary opinion of the ignorant.

          • Achance

            He’s talking about the government’s ability to show a compelling interest in defining libel and such. I’ll admit that there may be compelling state interests in limiting speech, but they’d better be damned compelling, and your being offended isn’t compelling.

          • jcincy

            I’m not sure why you are offended by Joseph Story.

            His commentaries on the Constitution are considered to be the authoritative treatise.

          • markinbaltimore

            Why is it that you and the entirety of Islam are by right to be free of the ravages of being offended by such deep and heinous insults as cartoons while we have to sit down, shut up and take insults in the name of tolerance? Either we are all to be protected from experiencing offense or we all must “sit down, shut up and take it.” To argue otherwise is blatantly self-contradictory and the height of hypocrisy.

            Simple, common, non-denominational human decency would argue that placing an Islamic center so close to a site where terrorists, claiming to be acting in the name of Islam, murdered 3,000 innocent civilians, so soon after that attack, however well intentioned the builder may be, would not foster understanding but would serve to rip the scab off the wound of 9/11 as the growing controversy over this project would seem to clearly illustrate. But, instead of seeking to build up good will between faiths by avoiding such needless controversy, those in favor of this cultural center have chosen to label all who oppose it as “racist, hate-mongers.” If, as you claim, the purpose of this center is to bring people together in reconciliation, how does this kind of name calling advance that purpose?

            If you want tolerance to be practiced in these United States or anywhere for that matter, try practicing it first. You know: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?” Set the example with your own behavior. You demand of us total acceptance of your side of the argument but offer no such acceptance to those with whom you disagree. Indeed, you offer nothing but hysterical, wholly dishonest and hyper-partisan condemnation both politically and personally for them. You even go so far as to demand legal sanctions against dissenters with calls for hate crimes legislation. Can you see why some might find it difficult to “tolerate” you and your opinion given your total lack of tolerance for theirs? Think about it.

          • Achance

            Try following the thread before you shoot off your mouth. I was the one arguing that we didn’t have to tolerate all aspects of Islam. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to start typing and remove all doubt.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      Palin did not send her tweet to the city government, She sent it to muslims and asked that they reconsider. It was the city government who got involved of their own accord.

      So I see no attack on the first amendment by Palin. The city of NY on the other hand routinely attacks first and second amendment rights on a daily basis.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      You seem to have a problem with her right to do so, so you demand that she provide all answers to all things in order to justify her right to speak out.

      • SteveLA

        E_P_U

        I have no problem at all with Palin expressing her opinion about her “feelings” on the matter, or anyone else doing so. It is her right, as it the right under the First Amendment of the Constitution for people to freely express their religious views by building a house of worship where ever the local zoning authority allows it.

        By the way, this same issue is playing out here in CA down in Morino Valley with another group of Muslims wishing to build a Mosque, with the same sort of “feelings” that Governor Palin has expressed. I’m not impressed about that ether.

        • SteveLA

          Here’s a link to the story of the same sort of story going on here in CA.

        • Doc Holliday

          decadence is always allowed, that is really its meaning, if it is not allowed, or if it is fought, it can’t be decadence.

          Why is this called the “Cordoba Initiative”. Was not the Islamic invasion of Spain and the city of Cordoba a violent attack on Western Civilization and Christians? oh, ok, THAT’S why they are calling it such, apropos.

          here is a link for more understanding of the problem

          http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/?p=11140

  • jcincy

    The United States has been fighting Muslims since our founding. A radical Muslim is one who embraces peace. Muslims always attempt to build monuments at the place of their conquests. This mosque is a hideous insult to a nation that once valued life and liberty above all things.

    The Founding Fathers would have NEVER stood for this injustice. Religion is not a cover for obscene insolence. We need to call evil, evil and good, good.

    “The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious’ opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile … the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. . . . We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].. .. [We are] people whose manners … and whose morals have been elevated and inspired . . . by means of the Christian religion.” — New York Supreme Court, The People vs. Ruggles 1811.

    • proudgop

      I love and live in NYC ( would of been able to still see the WTC if they were standing still from my apartment)

      I have to say this issue has not really gotten that much press in city papers ( even the Post) and I myself am not sure what huff is here?

      I have no problem with Muslims having a place of worship in area? Is it the fact its literally next door that is driving point here?

      • jcincy

        Would you find offense with any structure being built near or at ground zero?

        • proudgop

          Me and many New Yorkers believe those grounds are sacred and should not be have anything on them. They should be a simple park

          Alas its NYC and thats prime real estate and in heart of Tribecca so thats in play here

          Its NYC there are a lot Muslims here I mean the guy next door to WTC who runs hotdog stand is Muslim so where is line drawn?

          • Nick Haynes

            If it were up to me…build a memorial and leave it at that. But, if the goal is to rebuild and make the area as close to “normal” as possible, then I see absolutely no reason why a mosque (maybe not this specific plan, because of the imam pushing it and the possibility of Saudi funding, but just generally) shouldn’t be allowed to be built.

        • JSobieski

          Its a sign of bloody weakness. Its the willing embrace of weakness that offends me.

  • JamesSmith130

    I don’t want to see any more mosques built in this country, let alone one at Ground Zero. One of the few things that Bush did wrong in the “War on Terror” is not properly define the enemy. Terrorism is a method, not an enemy. The real enemy is Islamic radicalism, or if you believe like I do that all Islam is extremist, then Islam itself.

    • Paul Cella

      Respectfully, I remember the Bush years, and on the question of the Jihad, Obama is only fractionally worse than Bush.

      The book to read is Infiltration by Paul Sperry.

      • JamesSmith130

        What do you think have been the failures of the Bush Admin in fighting Jihad, and why do you think he is only slightly better than Obama on this?

        I’ll try to read the book.

        • Paul Cella

          Bush no less than Obama embraced the “religion of peace” sophistry. Bush no less than Obama encouraged the view that expressly mentioning Islam in the context of the enemy who struck us on September 11 was misguided at best and probably indicative of bigotry.

          Rather unlike Obama, Bush propagated the disastrous notion that all sincere religious faith reaches out toward liberty and compassion, when the plain facts of history demonstrate that some religious faith is aggressive, warlike and bent on a plunder and rapine that is authorized by God.

          Bush also operated on the assumption that Jihad can only spring out of a condition of external oppression. Tyrants breed Jihadists, it was said. Drain the swamps.

          He refused to even consider the possibility that men might embrace Jihad willingly, with no external repression or persecution to push it along. Was Tony Blair a tyrant? Well then how in the hell did the UK raise up so many bloody-minded Jihadists?

          Thus all the agents and provocateurs that have emerged in Western lands, under Western prosperity and liberty, in recent years, both here and in Europe, are obscure and baffling according to Bush doctrine.

          In a word, Bush and his men never undertook a serious study of the history of Jihad, what it is, what it does, and what might possibly stop it. (Hint: it aint democracy.)

          • aesthete

            It’s, unfortunately, an open question whether there Islam can coexist with secular democracy, given the source material. “Fundamental” Christianity both recognizes a secular sphere (“render unto Ceaser”) and doesn’t have an inherently political component in the way that Islam does, with its rather explicit ties to political and social life.

            That said, allowance of repugnant ideas and beliefs is one of the surest ways to deal with them, in addition to according the respect due to the sacred principle of individual liberty.

          • JSobieski

            are (arguably) Indonesia and Turkey, and both are becoming more Islamist each and every day. In both countries, your religion is identified on a government ID card, honor killings are informally tolerated, and the percentage of non-Muslims is decreasing for reasons other than conversion (i.e. government looks the other way while the Dhimmis get pounded).

            I should point out that this doe not bode well for Iraq or Afghanistan.

          • http://www.facebook.com/vidaestrada Veronica

            is this Paul Cella?

            I’m no one, but I’ve never seen you and I really appreciate your comments, as I’m sure many others do.

            You’ve put forth a lot of information, most of which (all?) I agree with.

            Just last night,. as we were dozing off, hubby was telling me the exact same thing about needing to “outlaw” Islam.

            But of course there are those Muslims that are peaceful, and so .. what you said above:

            “Jihad, shariah and dhimma are intolerable doctrines. We ought to proscribe them under 18 USC 2385 .. he war doctrines, however

          • Achance

            and such as they relate to the practice of Islam in America a couple of years ago. Paul Cella is one of the very long time posters here, over six years; five years is rare, four not that common, but he’s not been around for a while.

          • http://www.facebook.com/vidaestrada Veronica

            I need to look up those discussions.

            They sound important.

          • JSobieski

            because this is really an issue that should unite Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, athiests, and non-fundamentalist Muslims.

            However, what we have now, from an ideological perspective, is essentially a non-response by the elites. The general public at large is however less blind on this issue, but also pretty gosh darn quiet.

          • JSobieski

            Hope all is well.

    • Nick Haynes

      Nothing else to say.

    • JSobieski

      after 9/11. The Fort Hood shooting may not have been on Bush’s watch, but it was his army. The fact that the US army officers deliberately looked the other way shows what kind of PC culture is firmly entrenched in the MILITARY.

      Bush was a decent man, but there were more than a “few” things he did wrong in terms of the post 9/11 response.

      I think Bush’s blindness (to borrow a term from NRO’s McCarthy) was influenced by two things:
      (1) Family friendships with the Saudis.
      (2) W’s battle with alcoholism (i.e. his appreciation that religion could instrumental in beating certail ills in the world).

      • aesthete

        such PC-ification has been going on since the Clinton years and the conclusion of the Cold War. Generally, conflicts with small nation-states have allowed politicians the luxury of treating our Armed Forces as their foreign do-gooder force, and COIN’s universal popularity means the wussification of our armed forces will probably continue*.

        *Not to say COIN isn’t useful in some contexts, but when we’re using it in Afghanistan, of all places, you know there’s something wrong.

  • m_quick

    If the Muslims bought this building fair and square, they should be able to turn it into whatever they want.

    I think we let the terrorists win as long as we behave like this. They want us tearing each other apart, arguing over fundamental rights like those laid out in the 1st amendment.

    We should have started rebuilding the towers a long time ago and showed the terrorists that they can’t scare us from going about our normal lives.

    I think issues like this distract us from the real problem-we’re letting the terrorists terrorize us.

    • Achance
    • JamesSmith130

      “fighting the terrorists”, IMO. Terrorism is a method, not a country, group, or ideology. Terrorism can be used by any ideology.

      You can’t win a war against a method. The enemy has been misidentified when it is called terrorism. The real enemy is the countries, groups, or ideologies that uses said method of terrorism. Specifically Islamic extremism, if you want to be PC.

    • aesthete

      Merciless killing of insurgents would achieve much more resonance and communicate our rebuttal to their demands much better than restricting the liberties of our citizens, and at lower cost to the rights of citizens.

    • Section9

      The Islamic Fascists hope that we act as if it is.

      The fact that Palin and Art Chance are in the same boat on this issue should tell you how it is playing to the center of the country.

      This is not about libertarianism. This is about foreign jihadist subversion of our homeland and its constitution and culture by an alien death cult.

      • aesthete

        only trot out the “Constitution is not a suicide pact” line, both right and left (though I hear it much more on the left), when the issue at hand is emphatically not an existential threat to the US, and thus not “suicide”.

        And what the Islamofascists would love is for us to subvert our own institutions long-term in response to them, in addition to a flaccid foreign policy regarding their actions. (Not that I particularly care about the thoughts of some savages concerning the “weakness” of our civilization, but there you go.)

        Here’s the deal: this isn’t a traditional war. This is going to be a protracted conflict with a nebulous enemy that will last decades, if not centuries. If we were talking about a war with a clearly defined endgame and during which there is a set conclusion, I might be more amenable to talk of temporary decreases of our essential liberties (owning and using property as we see fit being one of them). But because the threat is not existential in nature, and because the GWOT’s sacrifices will be enduring (and will likely become part of the national character by the time they’re repealed), I’d rather maintain the liberties of citizens who could potentially be terrorists, or sympathizers of the same, and take a hard line abroad and against actual citizen terrorists, once convicted. In a war like this, we should be taking away the other guy’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, not shooting ourselves in the foot in exchange for a fuzzy feeling of victory.

    • JSobieski

      We are in a conflict to the death with an ideology, not a tactic. If the mosque goes up, moderates will be less moderate, reformers will shut up, etc. because most people do go with the strong horse unless unalterably committed to one side or another.

      The West refuses to put together decent propaganda (a las Radio Free Europe) for the Islamic world and refuses to stick up for itself at home. This does far more to embolden our enemies than a potential removal of troups in Afghanistan, where our troops are supporting a pseudo-Sharia regime against a gungho-Sharia uprising.

  • Paul Cella

    The terrorists win when they conquer our lands, uproot our tradition, overthrow our law, and carry our women into their harems.

    Incrementally, they win with every raid that brings that day nearer, and with every mental imposture they inflict on us by wrapping their aggression in the cloak of Tolerance.

    You are probably not aware that in Dearborn, Michigan, you can get arrested and fettered for preaching Christianity at an Arab Festival. The outrage passes unnoticed while liberals continue to read us these tedious lectures on the First Amendment, which in point of fact does not obliges us to embrace all religious doctrine without qualification.

    • aesthete

      to simply ignore them and their desires in formulation of policy. Are we free? Yes? Then Christians should be allowed to proselytize in public without restriction. Once more, are we free? Yes? Then Muslims should be free to purchase land and build what they want as they please. The general public, likewise, is free to react non-violently in the manner of its choice, including outrage, bemusement, approval, or any other reaction. (Mine is somewhere between annoyance and anger, in case you’re wondering.)

      • Paul Cella

        The Christians already were arrest and imprisoned. It took 25 days for the police to return their video evidence. They still face a whole set of charges. The city is not backing down. The media pays no attention. You’re living in the past man.

        The idea that there is wisdom, in war, in ignoring the desires and objectives of the enemy, is a peculiar one indeed.

      • Achance

        as weakness. You cannot place Islam in the paradigm of Western religious practice nor even in the paradigm of some Eastern religions that do not include dogma about the organization and powers of the state. Our system presumes the separation of church and state; theirs assumes that the church and state are one.

        • Section9

          The Islamic Fascists only respect fixed bayonets and the willingness to use them.
          History shows us this.

      • JSobieski

        All of the arguments you raise would imply an answer of yes.

        Would you let Communist China buy up land in DC to build a monument to Mao?

        • aesthete

          and there is nothing untoward going on, I don’t see why a citizen acting in a private capacity should be prevented by government from doing so, even if it is a prick move.There are arguments to be made both for local government being a legitimate avenue for such complaints, and for different treatment of foreign nationals and foreign government acquisition and property rights, that are not at odds with my argument that citizens’ rights should be protected. My personal view is that if the project can survive without Saudi government funding (itself a theft of its citizens’ money), it should not be prevented by government (unless something untoward is going on).

          If it were being built in my town, I would happily (or unhappily) picket it, see if I could buy it, and I would vandalize it while paying the fine in a lawful manner. I’d expect most people to do likewise and implore them to do so. To that end, Palin’s tweet was appropriate. Indeed, a statue of Mao in the middle of Washington DC would probably have an effect opposite of the one intended: I know that seeing Soviet and Maoist iconography didn’t attract me to the lures of Communism, and in fact illustrated the rather creepy extent to which socialist countries adore their leaders in practice. Likewise, I doubt that any but the most self-deluded will see the mosque at Ground Zero as anything but provocative. What’s striking is how rare monuments of that sort are, and how much more common they are when they have government backing (a recent project in Virginia, for instance, commissioned a bust of Stalin to be shown alongside FDR and Churchill).

    • http://snarkandboobs.wordpress.com/ Lori Ziganto

      Political correctness is not just annoying now. It’s deadly. When we condone aggression and barbaric acts, merely attempted or otherwise, by covering them with the misguided and intellectually dishonest mantle of “tolerance” and diversity, it is neither tolerant nor embracing diversity. It is, instead, being complicit in the perpetuation of said aggression and barbarism.

    • texdem

      we give in to terror.

      “Terrorism” per Random House Dictionary is “the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization [sic]”

      Thus, giving into a state of fear is letting the terrorists “win.”

      Such giving into fear would be, for example, fearing all members of one of the world’s major religions.

      • Achance

        We’re not talking about fear of their evil cult,we’re talking about revulsion. They want to build a triumphal mosque on the site of their conquest and fools like you think that it is some show of enlightenment to let them. I’d prefer to kill them, and perhaps you as well. And, no, I’m not afraid of either them or you.

        • m_quick

          “I

          • Achance
          • m_quick

            …deserve neither liberty nor security.

            You may want to put the first amendment aside when it’s inconvenient, I don’t. Our founding fathers and many brave Americans ever since have gone through too much to let some terrorists take away that liberty.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            …is “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This distinction is important: the correct version raises an important philosophical point, while the version that you’re using is semantic mush designed to make people feel better about espousing an extremist anti-security position.

            Also: some ends do justify some means. As anybody who has passed through medical school or boot camp will tell you.

          • m_quick

            Talk about creating semantic mush.

            Anyway, I’m pretty sure he would say the First Amendment is an essential liberty. And to think it makes anyone “feel better about espousing an extremist anti-security position” is ridiculous.

            Freedom isn’t easy. It means putting up with things you’re not comfortable with in order to make it clear that the government doesn’t have a right to intrude in anyone’s life, unless they are directly harming others. If you let them take exceptions and suspend liberties you are leading down a path towards the total erosion of our freedom.

            And I didn’t say the means never justify the ends. I was referring to Achance’s statement of killing texdem, and the liberals in general who lie and cheat to advance their ends.

          • JSobieski

            Looking around the world, freedom has been on the decline over the past 10 years. The primary cause of that decline is the impact of Islamo-Fascists.

            The rules of personal liberty do not necessarily apply to wars between large groups of peoples. I am a libertarian unless there is a large group of people so eager to kill me, acting in concert with each other, in a very active and aggressive way.

            Sharia law is simply contrary to the foundations of Western democracy and human rights. There is a reason why the OIC had to adopt their own version of the “universal” accord on human rights.

        • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

          Somebody who wants us to do that which he could not do himself.

          Moe Lane

          PS: Either way, dial back the rhetoric, please. I’m familiar with your tone; others will not be.

      • gbenton

        and the radicals are far more powerful than the moderates. Shariah law is incompatible with our Constitution and to properly follow Islam allows no deviation from that law.

        Radical Islam rides inside a Trojan Horse you call a major religion and hides behind our protections, yet the objective remains the same. Clerics within this country are calling for the overthrow of the US and put out hits on those who they deem offensive – witness the recent call to execute the artist who started ‘Everyone Draw Mohammed Day’.

        The freedom we you are proposing we give those who wish to build this mosque at the proposed location would not be reciprocated to a Christian church anywhere in a Muslim country.

        As Lori said above, it is dangerous political correctness to treat all Islam as moderate and beyond examination when a distinction MUST be made between the radicals and the moderates on a case by case basis. To deny the very real possibility that this mosque is a vehicle for the radicals on blind faith when so much evidence suggests otherwise is suicidal and naive.

        There is a similarity between radical Islam and progressives – neither are fighting by the same rules as ‘we’ are. I recognize the challenge in that we must debate how to address these forces within the context of our rights, but to deny that a debate is needed and assume innocence is not the answer.

        I believe the burden is primarily on American Muslims to police their own and put as much effort into defeating the radicals as they do in demanding tolerance for their religion, which historically has been one of war and conquest. The burden of proof logically, if not legally, falls on them to prove their innocence in my view.

        The very debate we are having about this mosque is essential and when the other side is caught on nearly a monthly basis trying to blow us up, I think it is only fair that we pull no punches in this debate.

        If you study the scriptures of Islam, which call for death to all Jews, to be a devout Muslim following all of Mohammed’s teachings forces one to be a member of a 6th century warrior cult – the moderates are really only practicing the parts of Islam that they are a) aware of or b) comfortable with.

        Islam needs to decide whether it is a 6th century warrior cult or a modern, tolerant religion compatible with Western civilization if it is to be accepted in this country and I do not believe by any stretch that such a decision has been successfully made.

        Given our losses on 9/11 and the persistent attempts since then and before, a great deal more skepticism toward Islam is called for than practiced in conventional wisdom.. If you consider the history, I think Muslims should be grateful there was not a mass movement to confine them to interment camps given the rampant evidence of malice and the difficulty in sorting out who is good and who is evil.

        • aesthete

          Positing that we reply in kind when a country peripherally related to a demographic of our people don’t respect religious liberty?

          Good God, man! I can understand frustration at the mosque being built, but by advocating an abandonment of rights that have defined us as a nation and which are fundamental to liberty because savagery exists in the world, you are arguing that rights are neither universal nor important, and that government can violate them for any reason. Hell, it’s an argument that’s been made several times by liberals regarding the Tea Party. Would you advocate similar loyalty oaths and presumptions of guilt if (god forbid) some fruitcake decides to get violent? Because that’s the precedent that you set with your remarks and stated beliefs.

          • aesthete

            I’m not sure if you sincerely believe what you say, or if you’re a very good spoof, but the Japanese Internment had nothing to do with our security, and was one of the most massive, if not the most massive, violations of American rights in living memory.

          • JSobieski

            During the Cold War, there was all sorts of proactive counter-espionage activities going on.

            Fundamentalist Islam is an organized threat in the same way that the USSR was an organized threat. The fact that its not a country (althought they seek to be) and the fact that communism was not a religion, does not mean that we have to sit back.

          • aesthete

            to squeeze cash and assets out of the “offending” group in a fashion (ironically) mirroring that of the dhimmi system; WWI saw an explicit version of that in the UK done to its German population, and to a lower extent, the same happened in the US. If a person is truly dangerous to the US, would a loyalty oath or other legal measures truly deter them? No: it would be the well-meaning and loyal citizen who would bear the cost and brunt of such legislation, not the evildoer.

          • JSobieski

            Someone comes in the country, lies about not wanting to overthrow the Constitution. When the person speaks otherwise in the mosque, the have committed perjury and are then sent home with all due haste.

          • aesthete

            we’re in agreement. I’d still want some checks to make sure that the system works as it’s supposed to, but immigrants are ultimately in our country at our discretion. Citizens taking loyalty oaths, as German-Americans in WWI and Japanese-Americans in WWII had to do, in addition to the concomitant, barely-disguised apparatus for fleecing implicated innocents and taking of their stuff and freedoms, is not a good idea.

          • JSobieski

            Now, the answer to that question is at least a partial “yes” but it doesn’t necessarily need to be a eager “yes” with the inability to do anything about it until a violent act is initiated.

          • JSobieski

            then the extra scrutiny would be justified. However, tea parties are the most peaceful rallies I have ever seen.

            We are allowed as a society to make assessments about propensity for violence. Whether its the New Black Panthers or Muslims throwing around a lot of foreign (i.e. Saudi) money, we are not forced to ignore group affiliations.

          • aesthete

            but neither should we rush to strip rights granted by the Constitution from people because of a group’s potential for violence. My initial Tea Party comparison was a poor one, so let me try another one: the Civil Rights movement had a fair amount of violent supporters, particuarly among Malcolm X acolytes. Would you have considered it appropriate, in the context of said political violence, to disbar them from promoting their cause, purchasing property to that end, stripping them of the presumption of innocence and presuming them to be guilty (!!!!!!), or musing about how Civil Rights or Malcolm X supporters should be “grateful” that they’re not being carted off to camps? I would find it inappropriate, not because I’m a fan of political violence, but because a group’s predisposition to an action is not enough grounds to strip individuals who may or may not share such predispositions of their rights. I don’t think that you advocated for such a thing, but the post above seemed to.

          • JSobieski

            Without the presence of foreign funding?

            My answer would be more similar to yours but for 9/11 and but for the dubious foreign funding sources with ties to JIhadists.

            I am not talking about camps. I am talking about not treating the Ground Zero Mosque like just a private property matter.

            If the government of Iran or Saudi Arabia was openly building the moque, what would you say? What if it was being built by OBL?

            There are pretty good reasons out there to conclude that the builders of this mosque are not just US citizens/residents interested in building a place of worship.

          • gbenton

            “The burden of proof logically, if not legally, falls on them to prove their innocence in my view.”

            When I included ‘logically’ vs. legally, I was acknowledging that my personal attitude was not supported by the law, nor do I advocate stripping Muslims of their rights as Americans. But I do advocate a change in the nations conversation boundaries about Islam, and that is where I do feel a change is called for because most Americans (and casual Muslims) don’t appear to have any idea of the history of the ‘religion’.

            As a country, I feel we need to reverse the blanket tolerance of Islam in the face of repeated violence, hatred, and attempted violence on our soil, and that for me it is logical to be suspicious of claims of peace and good intentions from Muslims.

            It is reasonable to suspect Islam given the preponderance of their involvement in the majority of terrorist attacks on this country.

            Am I proposing legally changing the rights of Muslims in this country or calling for the Government to strip them of rights, no. I wasn’t clear enough in what I meant.

            That said, to me personally, It makes logical sense to be suspicious and dial back the kid gloves coddling that Muslims have received since 911.

            I agree we did a great injustice with the internment camps – all I meant was that given the pervasive threats involving Muslims, instead of them accusing critics of being racist hate mongers, they should be grateful that Americans did not respond in such a draconian fashion – when there is historical precedent, that’s all. That we didn’t overreact and round them up is testimony to our tolerance and calm in the face of tragedy and hate.

            I posted before I read Paul Cella’s comments above, and his ideas about modifying our laws to ban specific aspects of Islam that conflict with our laws is the best idea I have heard to protect ‘moderate’ Muslims and prevent the radicals from attempting to insert Shariah law into our country.

            I used to believe Islam was a peaceful religion as advertised. in 2001 I praised Bush for his insistence on tolerance. it is only recently that I have done more research into Islam that I have concluded that it is a warrior cult bent on domination. As an infidel, I take offense to their view of me.

            Any religion that labels non-members as infidels to be conquered or killed pretty much loses any respect from me. Anyone who self-identifies as being Muslim has to expect to explain why they would adhere to a religion with such hateful tenets.

            I get that in WWII there were Germans who joined the Nazi party even though they personally did not believe in exterminating Jews, but I still hold anyone who calls themselves a Nazi to account for what their movement did.

            Islam calls for the extermination of Jews too. If I were a ‘moderate’ Muslim leader, I would create a new spin off that specifically excluded the hateful aspects of Islam and call it New Islam or something, that way all the ‘good’ Muslims could renounce the 6th century hate cult and follow the new peaceful one. Anyone who stayed with Old Islam would be saying they are cool with the entire package, not just the warm fuzzy parts.

            Without that, at some level, I hold all Muslims accountable for what their scriptures actually call for, and as long as women are stoned, heads are cut off,Fatwas are issued, and terrorists try to kill Americans around the world, I see no reason to assume benevolence from Islam, nor will I accept being called intolerant for holding these views.

            I appreciate your feedback, I was not as clear and would not want anyone to draw the conclusions you did as they are not what I believe. Thank you.

        • JSobieski

          Mushy moderates are more scared of the fundamentalists than non-Muslim westerners are. They aren’t exactly an ally in any of this—more like passive observers looking to see who will win.

          Yet another reason to oppose the mosque.

          • gbenton

            and I do oppose the mosque for that reason, too. I’m not sure what legal grounds the Mosque can be stopped, given that it is private property and all that. But the source of the funding, the background of the group behind it, all point to some grounds that it is not what it is portrayed to be. Someone wiser than me will have to figure that out.

            We just need to stop calling Islam a peaceful religion, a mainstream religion, and the like. Every infidel in this country should know what Islam calls for and have no illusions about the need to keep a watchful eye on what ‘moderates’ do to attempt to change our laws, etc.

            If the moderates don’t like being associated with the nuts, then they need to change their scriptures to eliminate the evil stuff, or stomp out the radicals on their own.

      • JSobieski

        and the War on Terror was always a misleading name for this ongoing struggle. Terror is a tactic, not an enemy.

      • JSobieski

        nt

  • Joliphant

    And the last word on the subject of compromising principles to gain office.

  • texdem

    So, I guess because of the crusades there should be no churches in Jerusalem?

    Or, to be more recent, no protestant churches in Ireland?

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      …with their nation/states – not to mention the religion that they’re defiling – has been duly noted. Now get the hell out of here.

      Moe Lane

      PS: Come back, and I publish your email, bigot.

  • http://www.facebook.com/vidaestrada Veronica

    per Fox News.

    CBS carried the story. I wonder if perky Katie even mentioned it.

    I’m so impressed with Sarah’s tweet – she handled a tough topic with a lot of grace. There was strength in her words.

    The left couldn’t touch her, they’re so useless and irrelevant. When will they realize that most jihadists have their depraved, radical “love-joy-love-love-joy-joy!!” carcasses in mind when they think “kill Americans”?

    Oh, wait — progressives and totalitarian jihadists are cut from the same cloth, nm: they’re both bent on drowning the soul of America.

    Bloomberg is a schmuck.

    Great post, Lori

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    Because she’s so generous, and has done so many good things for NY. Daisy is the wife of Paul Soros, George’s older brother. Bloomberg is a lifelong far left democrat who briefly called himself a rep. and is now Indep. I believe. He still owns a lot of the news empire, off shore money, and owns a carbon trading company. His news stories on global warming don’t cite they own a carbon trading company and that Bloomberg has compared global warming to terrorism.

  • annas

    This is an intelligent gathering here, I read comments like those above!
    I actually lived in Muslim countries for years. If you folks think this is a religion (substitute political ideology) of peace and your dhimme political correctness is going to make them friends YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!

    • Scope

      n/t

  • http://marketfundamentalist.blogspot.com/ Nick Ottens

    The propaganda which is espoused by Muslim fundamentalists and which inspires naieve Muslim youngsters to extremism, even terrorism, portrays the United States as a bulwark of intolerance and hatred, set to destroy Islam in favor of what they perceive to be barbarism. (We call it liberty.) Sadly, they

    • Scope

      and if we just make nice nice with them they will rewrite their religious doctrines, and they will magically love the infidels. That’s like saying we need to have the Black Panthers guarding every polling place on election day, because we are such a tolerant and loving people.

    • JSobieski

      Provide a site to substantiate the claim. All things considered, the West has shown incredible tolerance (to the point of insanity?) on this point

      Moreover, in terms of violent hate crimes, Jews are by far the more frequent victims even though (1) 9/11 happened and was perpetrated by Muslims and (2) Muslims outnumber Jews in the US. In western europe, hate crimes by people of Middle Eastern origins against Jews is WAY up.

      Islam is materially different than any other religion I am familiar with. Most religions focus primarily on the individual. Whether its Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. the focus is on the individual.

      Islam is also an ideology. People understand what Islamism is. There is no equivalent in Christianity, Buddhism, or even Judaism. The Bible is not book upon which the workings of a government could be based. Muslims believe in the Koran, and the Sharia they find within it.

  • renny

    thousands injured, and maybe 100s die, producing in modern history the second largest attack on the continental United States next to 9/11.

    We were only saved for that horrid assault by astute STREET VENDORS and l luck–because the guy who built the bomb was incompetent.

    19 of the 9/11 terrorists carried Saudi passports.

    Saudi Arabia exports sponsorship of a fundamentalist Islam that calls for world domination by Muslis and Shiria law, no moderates there. Are we going to be able to say to the imans in this NY mosque–You cannot teach Wahabism? I doubt it.

    The mosque at the WTC is as relevant as the once-proposed “museum” that would have catalogued the conquest of the American Indians and the slave trade. Leftists NEVER let an opportunity to denigrate Amerca slide. Bloomberg is a lefty in RINO clothing. His calling opposition to the mosque “un-American” is like the pot calling the kettle iron.

    If the Muslim sponsors of the mosque refused to serve sugar, fat, salt, or ciigarettes, and also built bike paths for blocks around it, Mayor Bloomberg would think his job was done.

  • miguel Saavadera

    A majority of New Yorkers don’t want this mosque anywhere near ground zero ~ but never mind that a commission AND Mayor Blomberg are for it? I guess the ruling elite don’t ‘represent’ those who elected them … sounds real democratic to me.

    A majority West of New York don’t think it is a grand idea either, but we await New Yorks’ reaction (excluding the wealthy Mayor).

    Time for New Yorkers to get vocal, write, call and demonstrate … get off the couch!!!! Fight for what you believe …

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    Islam is not a religion entitled to the protections of the First Amendment, because it does not accept that other religions should enjoy those protections too.

    Catholics think Baptists are wrong / going to hell and vice versa, but in America they do not debate each other’s right to exist. Ditto for Unitarians, Buddhists, Presbyterians, Hindus – in fact, EVERY OTHER religion except for Islam.

    We put kidnappers in jail – they infringe other people’s rights to freedom, so they lose theirs. Islam, by the very core of its doctrine, demands its followers to infringe the liberties of every other religion – therefore, it cannot coexist in a free society as currently organized.

    As Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi pointed out, Islam needs a Renaissance and Reformation as the Catholic church experienced. Catholics don’t do the Inquisition anymore; Islam needs to go through the same process before it will be suited for acceptance in polite civilization.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Just a prediction. Americans are not europeans. in spite of every effort by bambi, bloomberg, and others, to turn us into them. In the hearts of mainstream Americans burns a fierce, white-hot flam of freedom and patriotism. The crescent will not fly over Gound Zero for long, if it does at all.

    Yes, the choice of capitalization is intentional, if you were wondering.

  • prior21us

    “I

  • irbobert

    Let the mayor payfor it — any where he wants — even in his own neighborhood.

  • veritaseequitas

    THE ARAB AND HIS CAMEL
    ONE cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a Camel thrust the flap of the tent aside, and looked in.
    “I pray thee, master,” he said, “let me put my head within the tent, for it is cold without.”
    “By all means, and welcome,” said the Arab; and the Camel stretched his head into the tent.
    “If I might but warm my neck, also,” he said, presently.
    “Put your neck inside,” said the Arab. Soon the Camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said again:

  • ontap

    Ms. Andrea Batista Schlesinger, with the support of her boss Mayor Mike

    • Uma Richie

      Since 2005, locals have been waging the “Second Battle of Gettysburg” with each other over a proposal by a local businessman to build a casino there. The debate has several facets that I will not go into, but the developer has gained support of late partially because *he changed the location*.

      Source article: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10094/1047834-454.stm

      • Uma Richie

        for General Lee to get a monument at Gettysburg. Allah can wait at least that long.

  • JSobieski

    http://article.nationalreview.com/438616/raufs-dawa-from-the-world-trade-center-rubble/andrew-c-mccarthy

  • Pingback: YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS !

  • Pingback: kizi