« What If There Was A Massive Natural Disaster And No One Noticed?
| Taiwanese Animation Takes On... 2010 Elections »
August 17, 2010
Treacher: What I've Learned From My Intellectual, Social, and Moral Superiors
Plus: Huge Ground Zero Victory Mosque Round-Up
Good list, and there's more to the post:
1. A mosque isn’t a mosque if it includes a pool and a basketball court.
2. Ground Zero does not extend one single inch past the lip of the crater.
3. Shut up.
He catches lefties disputing it's hallowed ground, too, jeering at the idea. Not only is that offensive... it puts them in disagreement with the New God Obama.
Okay, I have a lot of Ground Zero links. I'm just going to dump them on you, rapid-fire.
"The Mosque Elections:"
Now imagine that you’re a Democrat in a tight race (and there are many of you). What do you say? If you support Obama on this question, you open yourself up to full-bore fire from the populist right. And if you don’t support Obama, you not only undermine the Democratic edifice, you must also resort to freelance language that is at pains to explain why you are somehow a Democrat, but not an Obama Democrat.
Imagine if that were to happen in race upon race across the country. And imagine, also, the collective unspooling of the party that could result from all of this: Once you start to differentiate yourself from the president on the mosque, you are tempted, also, to talk down health care, and the stimulus, and everything else that Obama stands for. What is left, then, of a collective platform? And what is left, then, of Obama?
No wonder Harry Reid is in a profound panic, calling—at the risk of embarrassing his president—for the mosque to be built elsewhere. Is this the start of an insurrection? Perhaps. Facing possible defeat in November, the principle-free Reid is alarmed enough to stress publicly that he “isn’t with” the dude who likes the mosque. Good luck to him.
And on Harry Reid: President Racial Healer has declared that, while the rest of us might be hateful bigots bitterly clinging to our religion and our xenophobia, Harry Reid's position is perfectly understandable, nay, even praiseworthy.
President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have agreed to disagree on a Muslim group’s controversial plans to build an Islamic community center and mosque a couple of blocks from ground zero in lower Manhattan.
Obama “respects the right of anybody — Democrat, Republican, independent — to disagree with his opinion on this,” White House spokesman Bill Burton told reporters Tuesday.
“Senator Reid is a fiercely independent individual,” Burton said. “It’s one of his strengths as a leader of the Democratic Party. So the president feels completely fine that [they] might disagree.”
Yet Burton declined to say whether the White House perceives Monday’s statement from Reid’s office — that the mosque should be built “someplace else” — as a disagreement between the president and the majority leader.
“It’s a different take on this issue,” Burton said.
Isn't that nice? New God Obama says it's okay for Harry Reid, or any other Democrat in a tight race, to disagree with him. On to the Bigot Pyre with the rest of you.
That catch and that take thanks to Jim Treacher's Twitter feed.
A Muslim who disagrees with Obama over the Cordoba Victory Mosque probably isn't a bigot either, but we'll have to see what Obama says about it.
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. While Imam Faisal Rauf may not share their violent tendencies he does seem to share a belief that Islamic structures are a political statement and even Ground Zero should be looked upon through the lens of political Islam and not a solely American one.
‘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.” Mr. President, your involvement in this issue is divisive not uniting. Your follow-up stating that ‘you will not speak to the wisdom of the construction of that mosque and center’ indicates a passive-aggressive meddling on your part that only marginalizes those Muslim and non-Muslim voices against it while pretending to understand both sides of the debate.
Mark Levin interviews that very man, Zudhi Jasser, on his radio show.
Democrats finally discover the true puppet-masters pulling the strings behind this nefarious show.
Republicans have good reason to push the issue, said Suffolk University pollster David Paleologos. “Who gets moved by these comments? The answer is independents.” Paleologos said. “Independents are driven by issues like this.”
But can Republicans get traction if the Democrats are careful not to engage? A Democratic leadership aide revealed that the Dems do, in fact, have a counter strategy; they just haven’t deployed it yet. Republicans, the aide said, are trying to manufacture a national issue at the expense of focusing on local issues — like jobs. “It provides more evidence that they [Republican candidates] are not independent,” the aide said. “That they are beholden to D.C. puppet masters.”
Geraghty wryly notes they are apparently beholden to the 70% of the public and crucial swing voters who happen to believe strongly in the inappropriateness of the victory mosque.
Is this what Democrats want to take into November? That they are "independent" of constituent wishes, public desires? I think we know that already, fellas. But if you want to make it explicit...
Time Magazine: America's "obsessed" with enemy (terrorist Islam) that might no longer exist.
Andrea Mitchell finally finds something of fault in Obama: he didn't stick hard enough to his first forthright embrace of the Victory Mosque.
Rich Lowry also notes that what liberals hailed as "Obama's finest moment" turns out to be just that, a moment, as he then claims to not have an opinion on the actual issue, whether it's appropriate or "bridge building" to build the mosque on what he himself terms "hallowed ground."
If Obama were to go all-out in favor of the mosque, and eschew all saccharine generalities, he’d say, “I’m fine with a mosque built near Ground Zero established by an imam who partly blamed the United States for the Sept. 11 attacks, who won’t condemn Hamas, and who has connections with groups affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. I won’t say a discouraging word about any of this, and if our friends the Saudis want to chip in $100 million to finance it, that’s okay, too.”
That’d be bracing and starkly honest, although half his party would follow Harry Reid to the exit ramp. Instead, we get the subtle innuendo that all critics of the mosque are intolerant, an empty solicitousness about Ground Zero, and a deliberate obliviousness about the actual organizers of the project — all wrapped in a rhetoric that is equal parts self-righteous and squirrely. In other words, classic Obama.
The president said at the iftar, correctly, that we are a nation where different faiths “coexist peacefully and with mutual respect.” Is it too much to ask that, in a gesture of respect and cordial coexistence, the Ground Zero mosque go find less hallowed ground?
Obama and his leftist fellow travelers act like moral suasion against this is some kind of obscene constitutional violation -- as if it's rude to point out to people who claim to be all about sensitivity and outreach that they're acting insensitively and not reaching out so much as stabbing out.
Instead of gently persuading against it, he encourages it.
But what, you expected him to take your side? How could he? He is psychologically programmed to thwart you; that is his Prime Directive. That is his hard-coding. You are wrong, and beneath contempt, and without dignity or regard; it is the culmination of his life's work to take the national stage and instruct you of this.
In Illinois, as expected, Republican candidate for Senate Mark Kirk opposes the mosque and his mob banker opponent Alexi "Paisano" Giannoulis supports it. Nice.
Three New York Congressmen declare their opposition to the mosque. At least one of them, Steve Israel, is a Democrat who was called out on the issue by his Republican opponent, so we know he's not a bigot either.
GOP Candidate for NYS Governor Rick Lazio argues in a video over the issue with the Muslim Mayor of Teaneck, NJ, and you won't be surprised to find out that Rick Lazio is a bigot. Or that his debating partner here is rude and arrogant.
The Weekly Standard wish-casts that this piece by a Muslim in a Muslim publication signals the beginning of the end of the mosque.
I cannot imagine that Muslims want a mosque on this particular site, because it will be turned into an arena for promoters of hatred, and a symbol of those who committed the crime. At the same time, there are no practicing Muslims in the district who need a place of worship, because it is indeed a commercial district. Is there a side that is committed to this mosque? The fact is that in the news reports there are names linked to this project that costs 100 million dollars!
The sides enthusiastic for building the mosque might be building companies, architect houses, or politicized groups that want suitable investments?! I do not know whether the building applicant wants a mosque whose aim is reconciliation, or he is an investor who wants quick profits. This is because the idea of the mosque specifically next to the destruction is not at all a clever deed. The last thing Muslims want today is to build just a religious center out of defiance to the others, or a symbolic mosque that people visit as a museum next to a cemetery.
What the US citizens do not understand is that the battle against the 11 September terrorists is a Muslim battle, and not theirs, and this battle still is ablaze in more than 20 Muslim countries. Some Muslims will consider that building a mosque on this site immortalizes and commemorates what was done by the terrorists who committed their crime in the name of Islam. I do not think that the majority of Muslims want to build a symbol or a worship place that tomorrow might become a place about which the terrorists and their Muslim followers boast, and which will become a shrine for Islam haters whose aim is to turn the public opinion against Islam. This is what has started to happen now; they claim that there is a mosque being built over the corpses of 3,000 killed US citizens, who were buried alive by people chanting God is great, which is the same call that will be heard from the mosque.
It is the wrong battle, because originally there was no mosque in order to rebuild it, and there are no practicing Muslims who want a place in which to worship.
And, finally, liberals pray "Mosque on the Move?," because they really need a way out.
BS 2′s Marcia Kramer has learned it looks as if the developers of the mosque may be willing to budge and move away from the Park 51 location where they originally planned the construction.
So will the mosque be moving?
New York Gov. David Paterson plans to meet with developers of the controversial ground zero mosque as early as this week to offer them state land – at another location – for their cultural and religious center.
I wish they would move this horror. But on the Park51 tweet the spokesjihadist continues to be insistent that they desperately need to build their house of worship upon the bodies of Christian and Jewish dead.
Muslim, too, and Hindus and atheists. But for some strange reason this particular site is critical to them.
More: The Democrats that aren't following Harry Reid's non-bigoted lead and rejecting the mosque are instead keeping courageously silent.