SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/16/2010 3:37:10 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Palin: 'Legitimate Questions for the President'

Robert Costa
The Corner

From Sarah Palin:

<<< Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive "cross-cultural engagement" and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite? Mr. President, why aren't you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson's generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Why haven't they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as "hallowed ground"? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask. >>>

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/16/2010 3:54:06 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Here’s Why It’s Called the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’

By Doug Powers on Islam
@ Michele Malkin blog

Much has been written about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” and its proximity to where the World Trade Center towers once stood, but here’s an aereal photo that puts the location into perspective.

The red box is the old Burlington Coat Factory building where landing gear from one of the hijacked planes crashed through the roof, and it is the proposed site for Park51 (larger picture here):



Concerning the construction of a Ground Zero mosque, it’s too bad that the sudden respect for private property isn’t coming from people with a track record of giving a damn about private property rights — maybe they’d have just a little more support.

For example, Speaker of the New York City Council, Christine Quinn, supports the construction of a mosque on private property in close proximity to where Islamic terrorists murdered over 3,000 people — but what kind of New York grand opening does Quinn oppose? A Wal-Mart — on private property.

Maybe somebody can convince Quinn that Park51 won’t allow employees to unionize.

**Written by Doug Powers

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/16/2010 4:06:13 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
H/T to LindyBill:

The Fox group this morning discussed how badly the WH has handled this. First, O's remarks were written out for Friday night and quite clear. The initial Sat morning MSM reaction was positive. Then the deluge of criticism. O panicked and tried to issue a "clarification" to a reporter on the tarmac in Florida later Sat morning that just confused it further. Then the WH finally issued a statement at 6PM Sat night stating that O stood by his Friday night speech.

They have turned this into a "circle jerk" and the Congressional Dems are running for cover. Even 70% of the independents are against the Mosque being built.

This will build and build with 911 coming up. Add this to his problems with Health care and his law suit against Arizona and it's good news for the Republicans this November



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/16/2010 4:11:40 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
H/T to LindyBill:

The Ultimate Culture War: the Left vs. the War on Terror

By Jennifer Rubin on Contentions

Talk about the culture wars. On the one hand, you have Obama pitching that a mega-mosque on “hallowed ground” (his words) is a matter of “religious freedom” and, on the other, you have a huge majority of Americans who correctly see that this isn’t about “religious freedom” but rather about the defense of our civilization, empathy for the loved (and still grieving) ones of our 3,000 dead, and the prevention of a propaganda coup for the radical Islamists.

A smart reader points out that Obama is up to his old straw-man arguments. Quoting Obama’s Friday night statement, he observes, “‘I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.’ Big Duh! Nobody is saying otherwise.” Obama resorts to this sort of bait-and-switch argument because to articulate his rationale — he is more concerned with giving offense to the Muslim World than about providing them with a propaganda triumph — would expose the gulf between his views and those of his fellow citizens.

Conservatives have understandably gone ballistic. Sarah Palin once again gets to the heart of the matter, asking:

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3,000 people?

Please tell us your position.

We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade.

If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement” and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven’t they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite?

In Obama we see exactly the same passive resignation in the face of Islamic extremism — he either supports the mosque or “won’t say” (if you buy the excuse that he was only offering legal analysis) – which is paving the road to doom in Europe. In another context, we can recognize how European elites have sent up the white flag, surrendering their societies without a shot:

An official from one of Germany’s four political foundations [was asked] what he planned to do about the Muslim Brotherhood, which desires that European Muslims see themselves not as British, or French, or Dutch but “as radical Muslims seeking to impose sharia.” The official replied, “Well, we are a democracy. If the majority vote for Muslim law that is what we will have.”

Here, Obama seems bent on a similar approach. We have to give KSM a trial (and a platform) in the name of “respect for the rule of law” ( thought the law provides for military tribunals). We have to give an imam with troubling ties and offensive views on 9/11 (our fault, you see) his mosque on the very spot where 3,000 died in the name of Islam because to do otherwise would defeat the liberal ideal that we are in no position to make moral — or religious — distinctions, or to come up with any solution (eminent domain, anyone?) to avoid a gross insult to America and a victory for the jihadists.

In contrast to Obama is Debra Burlingame, who embodies and articulates the sentiments of ordinary Americans:

Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots.

Muslims have worshipped in New York without incident both before and after the attacks of 9/11. This controversy is not about religious freedom. 9/11 was more than a “deeply traumatic event,” it was an act of war. Building a 15-story mosque at Ground Zero is a deliberately provocative act that will precipitate more bloodshed in the name of Allah. Those who continue to target and kill American civilians and U.S. troops will see it as a symbol of their historic progress at the site of their most bloody victory.

How’s that for a front in the “culture wars”? Abortion, marriage, and the rest are piddling issues compared with the debate about whether and how we should defend our civilization. If nearly every reasoned step to defend ourselves against Islamic extremists flies in the face of liberal dogma, we are presented with a choice: take reasoned and legally defensible steps to defend ourselves (by cutting off the means by which radicals spread jihadism) or capitulate to the left’s dogma and let the consequences — and the American people — be damned. Obama has made his choice, and Americans should make theirs.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/16/2010 3:12:51 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Video: Byron York – Did Obama make a mistake by walking back his support for the mosque near Ground Zero?

By: Charlie Spiering
Online Community Manager
08/16/10 1:55 PM EDT

Byron appeared on Fox News this morning to discuss the President’s decision to walk back his comments on the controversial mosque near Ground Zero in New York City.

Watch below:

YouTube: Byron York examines Obama's support for the New York mosque near Ground Zero

washingtonexaminer.com
.



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/16/2010 3:50:07 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Ground Zero Mega-Mosque??



Bob Gorrell from Creators Syndicate

creators.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/16/2010 4:32:41 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Suspicious Packages

By Scott
Power Line

Last week Fox News late-night host Greg Gutfeld formulated a creative approach to the Ground Zero mosque. He announced that he is trying to raise money to build a (non-alcoholic) bar catering to gay Islamic men by the proposed site of the mosque. Gutfeld says that the bar will feature 72 virgin drinks.

It's a funny idea, but Gutfeld advises: "This is not a joke. I've already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance."

I think Gutfeld is kidding, trying to add a satirical note to the purported missions of "outreach" and "tolerance" behind the Ground Zero mosque project. Humor is Gutfeld's shtick. Indeed, comparing his proposed bar with the Ground Zero mosque, Gutfeld concluded with a flourish: "I hope that the mosque owners will be as open to the bar, as I am to the new mosque. After all, the belief driving them to open up their center near Ground Zero, is no different than mine. My place, however, will have better music."

The alleged seriousness of Gutfeld's project has not deterred injections of humor into proposed names for the bar. As one good idea begets another, "Turban Cowboy" and "Suspicious Packages" have been offered. Hot Air readers have offered several more, including "Submission." At Ace of Spades HQ, Jack M. has suggested "Outfidels!" Readers offer their own suggestions, including "Brokeback Mecca."

Gutfeld must be on to something. He has already managed to provoke this response to his venture from the crew behind the proposed Ground Zero mosque:


<<< @greggutfeld You're free to open whatever you like. If you won't consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you're not going to build dialog >>>


Yeah, how insensitive can you get.
Given what he has accomplished so far, Gutfeld may yet provoke Barack Obama into condemning his offense against Muslim sensibilities.


JOHN adds: In related news, Hamas has endorsed the mosque, explaining that "we have to build everywhere."

<<< "Islam is controlling every source of our life as regard to marriage, divorce, our commercial relationships," Zahar said. >>>

And from Afghanistan, another reminder of the extraordinary brutality of Sharia.




.



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/16/2010 4:52:40 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Obama vs. America

Peter Kirsanow
The Corner

President Obama's statements regarding the proposed Ground Zero mosque are the latest in a series of indicators that we are at a very peculiar pass: We have a president who doesn't get America. For the first time in history we have a president whose default setting is in opposition to the general sensibilities of the American people. His behavior too frequently suggests that he's playing a cosmic joke on Americans' essential decency, considered patriotism, and belief in American exceptionalism.

You don't need to have been a lecturer in constitutional law like Obama to know that the mosque's backers have a right to build at Ground Zero. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly acknowledge that right. But unlike the president, when his fellow Americans think of the construction of a mosque on Ground Zero, their view doesn't begin and end with the First Amendment and local zoning ordinances. Rather, their view is of images that the mainstream media has done their best to airbrush out of our collective consciousness: Americans leaping out of windows and plunging -- seemingly interminably -- to their deaths to avoid incineration; first responders pulling charred remains from the smoking rubble of the collapsed towers; New Yorkers searching frantically for evidence that loved ones escaped the horror. That Obama, as the leader of the nation, fails to recognize that the situation calls for more than a sophomoric analysis that could be rendered by any first-year law student is disquieting.

As Dorothy Rabinowitz has noted, Obama's alienation from the citizenry is just beginning to be more broadly revealed, but has been on display since the 2008 campaign. The media either failed to report it or chastised anyone who dared notice.
When some remarked about Obama's refusal to do something as simple as wear a flag lapel pin, they were pronounced unsophisticated and jingoistic. Obama's casual stance during the playing of the "Star Spangled Banner" was declared a triviality. When Reverend Wright was caught shouting " G--damn America!" those who wondered whether Obama's 20 years in Wright's pews might suggest ideological concurrence were dismissed as alarmist. When some expressed concern that Obama might agree with his wife that America is a "downright mean country" and that perhaps he, too, for the first time in his adult life, was proud of his country, they were told to grow up.

Then Obama's association with Bill Ayers emerged and the mainstream media closed ranks and refused, as long as they could, to even report it. And when Obama expressed unalloyed contempt for Midwesterners who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment," a phalanx formed to assure the public of his pure intentions.

There were other instances throughout the campaign and first months in office suggesting that for Obama, multiculturalism trumps national unity and moral relativism supersedes cultural confidence. His serial apologies for America, embrace of America-hating Hugo Chávez, and supplication to foreign thugs are consistent with a "blame America first" mentality that may be unremarkable for a political science professor but is toxic for the leader of the greatest nation in history.

But perhaps most emblematic of Obama's self-identification was his proud declaration, before a vast crowd in Berlin, that he is a "citizen of the world." Most Americans believe that that world would be a much darker place without the United States of America. And they would be pleased if their president could express that belief without being patronizing, self-referential, or defensive.

But to do so, it's helpful to get America and Americans.



.



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/18/2010 3:07:06 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Ground Zero Mega-Mosque



Chuck Asay from Creators Syndicate

creators.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/18/2010 4:59:20 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Hey What About Us??



Ken Catalino from Creators Syndicate

creators.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/18/2010 5:12:45 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Ground Zero Mega-Mosque



Michael Ramirez from Creators Syndicate

creators.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/19/2010 5:35:54 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Pelosi wants to investigate mosque opposition

By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
08/18/10 7:10 AM EDT

Pelosi: “There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded. How is this being ginned up…”

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/19/2010 6:13:26 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Pelosi Suggests Probe of Funding Sources Behind Opposition to Mosque Near Ground Zero

FoxNews.com
Published August 18, 2010

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is suggesting a coordinated effort is behind the opposition to a proposed mosque and community center near Ground Zero, saying the whole dispute has been "ginned up" for political purposes and she supports a probe into those opponents.


Commenting publicly for the first time on the Park 51 project, Pelosi said the issue was posing a distraction and that some organized force is behind it.

"There is no question that there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some,"
she said in remarks posted Tuesday in a video on the San Francisco Chronicle website. "And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque (is) being funded."

On Wednesday, Pelosi's office clarified that the speaker is not calling for a "congressional inquiry," though she still supports looking into the funding of the mosque's opponents as well as its patrons.

"I support the statement made by the Interfaith Alliance that 'We agree with the (Anti-Defamation League) that there is a need for transparency about who is funding the effort to build this Islamic center. At the same time, we should also ask who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center,'" she said.

Pelosi first weighed in Tuesday after both President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed their views on the project that has touched off a national debate about religious freedom and political correctness. Obama said Wednesday he has no regrets over his remarks that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in the U.S. A day later, he claimed that he wasn't endorsing the specifics of the mosque plan.

Polls show that a strong majority of Americans oppose the mosque's construction site while respecting the right of Muslims to practice their religion.

Though Obama and Reid appeared to be on opposite ends of the spectrum over the issue, Pelosi came out agnostic, saying the dispute over what she described as a "zoning issue" needs to be decided by New Yorkers.

"I think everybody respects the right of everyone in the country to express their religious beliefs. ... The decision, though, as to how to go forward in New York, is up to New York," Pelosi told local reporters in San Francisco. "I look to my colleagues in New York. Some of them have different views on the subject. It's up to them to work it out."

That may have been the position Obama was trying to take when he first weighed in Friday during a Ramadan dinner at the White House. The president appeared to support the mosque project, but the White House later clarified that he was underscoring the developers' right to build the center -- not endorsing it outright.

Reid afterward came out in opposition to the project. A strong majority of Americans say they oppose the site for construction of the mosque, but not the constitutional right of Muslims to worship.

A Republican aide ridiculed Pelosi's claim that there was a "conspiracy" to oppose the project.

"If the speaker needs help finding the heart of the 'GOP GZM Conspiracy,' I urge her to ask Sasquatch," the aide told Fox News. "His office is behind the black helicopter hangar between the unicorn pen and the leprechaun's pot of gold."

David Malpass, a New York Republican candidate seeking the Sept. 14 primary nomination to challenge Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in November, issued a statement Wednesday saying Pelosi should be investigating foreign funding for the project.

"But instead she is turning her ire on concerned Americans, including families, firefighters and other first responders who care deeply about this issue. What she is doing is unconscionable," Malpass said. "New Yorkers deserve better, the heroes of September 11th deserve better, and I'm calling on Kirsten Gillibrand to immediately reject Speaker Pelosi's misguided and insensitive remarks."

A few lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have tried to dial down tensions over the debate.

New York Gov. David Paterson has renewed efforts to broker a deal over the project. After offering his help and the possibility that state land could be used for an alternative site, a Paterson spokesman told The Wall Street Journal that staff members are working with the developers. He said no "formal discussions" have taken place involving Paterson, but that a meeting will be set for the "near future."

However, project organizers denied there was any consideration being given to moving the mosque. A written statement from the Cordoba Initiative, the group pushing to build the Islamic center in lower Manhattan, said no meetings have been scheduled between Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf and Paterson, "nor have there been any communications between the offices of Cordoba Initiative and the governor."

Sharif El-Gamal of SoHo Properties, which owns the property at Park 51, said it's absolutely wrong to suggest that the site is being abandoned.

But a firefighter who is suing to prevent the existing site -- a former Burlington Coat Factory -- from being demolished filed a revised lawsuit Friday against the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission, saying the developers don't even own the site outright but shares ownership with the public utility company, ConEdison.

"The revelation that a public utility owns part of the site raises a whole host of new legal questions and requires the involvement of a new public agency and possibly additional public hearings. That, coupled with the Landmarks Commission's procedural violations and deviations from administrative precedent, only strengthens our legal challenge," said attorney Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/19/2010 6:37:22 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Decision Not to Rebuild Church Destroyed on 9/11 Surprises Greek Orthodox Leaders

FoxNews.com
Published August 18, 2010

Greek Orthodox leaders trying to rebuild the only church destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks expressed shock this week after learning, via Fox News, that government officials had killed a deal to relocate the church.

The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, once a tiny, four-story building in the shadows of lower Manhattan, was destroyed in 2001 by one of the falling World Trade Center towers. Nobody from the church was hurt in the attack, but the congregation has, for the past eight years, been trying to rebuild its house of worship.

Though talks between the church and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey stalled last year, church leaders say they've been trying to kick-start discussions ever since. But amid debate over whether a proposed Islamic community center should go forward near Ground Zero, government officials threw cold water on the prospect of any deal with the church -- telling Fox News the deal is off the table.

Confronted with the Port Authority's verdict, Father Mark Arey, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, said it's the first he's heard that.

"Negotiations did break off last year. We were expecting to hear from their lawyers -- we never did. We're still expecting to hear from them," he told Fox News. "We're disappointed. ... 130 Liberty Street was promised to us."

Arey was referring to the address, about 100 yards away from the original site, where the government earlier proposed relocating the church. The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which the Port Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild the church -- in addition, the authority was willing to pay up to $40 million to construct a bomb-proof platform underneath.

Within a year, the deal fell through and talks ended -- apparently for good, according to the Port Authority.

The archdiocese and Port Authority now offer sharply conflicting accounts of where things went wrong. The Port Authority has claimed the church was making additional demands -- like wanting the $20 million up front and wanting to review plans for the surrounding area. They say the church can still proceed on its own if it wishes.

"St. Nicholas Orthodox Church has always had and will continue to have the right to rebuild on its original location. The question was whether public money would be spent to build a much larger church at a separate location on the site and ensuring that construction wouldn't delay the World Trade Center further," spokesman Stephen Sigmund said in a written statement. "On that question, we worked for many years to reach an agreement and offered up to 60 million dollars of public money to build that much larger new church. After reaching what we believed was an agreement in 2008, representatives of the church wanted even more public commitments, including unacceptable approvals on the design of the Vehicle Security Center that threatened to further delay the construction on the World Trade Center and the potential for another $20 million of public funds."

Sigmund said the "final offer" was made last year, which again included $60 million.

"They rejected that offer," he said.

But Arey said the original site is no good. And archdiocese officials disputed the Port Authority's claims, saying the church has complied with all conditions.

"It's not about money," Arey said. He expressed hope that the project can still be salvaged.

"This little church deserves to be rebuilt. It's symbolic, not just for Orthodox Christians, not just for Christians, but for all Americans," Arey said, calling the mosque debate "helpful" to the church's cause. "I believe that people around the country are asking themselves the question -- why all this talk about a mosque being built near Ground Zero? What about a little church that was destroyed on 9/11? ... This is basically a bureaucratic impasse. This will dissolve in the face of the American public consciousness."

Former New York Gov. George Pataki, who worked with the church as governor, told Fox News on Tuesday that the church should be rebuilt.

George Demos, a Republican candidate for New York's 1st Congressional District, also has drawn attention to the negotiations. He released an open letter to President Obama Tuesday urging him to, as he did with the mosque debate, weigh in on the church discussions.

"While we may disagree on the appropriateness of the mosque, we can surely agree that it is an issue of national importance that the only house of worship actually destroyed on September 11, 2001, the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, be rebuilt," Demos wrote. "Mr. President, please stand up and defend our Judeo-Christian values, express your public and unwavering support for St. Nicholas Church, and ensure that it is rebuilt."

Father Alex Karloutsos, assistant to the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in America, Archbishop Demetrios, told FoxNews.com that the Port Authority "simply forgot about the church" at Ground Zero.

Fox News' David Lee Miller and Kathleen Foster and FoxNews.com's Judson Berger contributed to this report.

,



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/19/2010 7:03:29 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Lack of Foresight Lets Mosque Controversy Balloon

This whole debate could have been avoided with a few phone calls.

Jonah Goldberg
National Review Online

The Ground Zero mosque controversy is one of the stupidest debates of our time.
I don’t mean the substance of the debate (though there’s no shortage of stupidity on that front either). I mean that we are having it at all.

The CIA usually defends its existence by pointing out that we never hear about its successes, only its failures. The bombs that don’t go off don’t make headlines. Politics works the same way. Good politicians instinctively see down the road and around the corner. Great politicians do this not just with political headaches but with weighty affairs as well. We call such foresight statesmanship.

With the Ground Zero mosque, we have gotten the exact opposite. The supposedly pragmatic political wise men have been blinded by ideology or incompetence and have failed to see what was so obviously around the corner. A big, honking Islamic center built to capitalize on 9/11, in a building that was damaged on 9/11? What could go wrong?

It’s as if they’ve wanted to turn a dumb idea into an emotional and unwinnable national controversy.


Let’s start with the incandescent idiocy of New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. If Bloomberg had a scintilla of foresight, he would have prevented anyone from ever hearing the words “Ground Zero” and “mosque” in the same sentence.

Bloomberg is not only the mayor. He’s also a billionaire with massive sway in the city’s media, finance, and cultural institutions. Moreover, the Big Apple is a Hieronymus Bosch hellscape for landlords and developers. Rent control, historic preservation, zoning, environmental impact, community protests, union delays — not to mention plain old red tape and corruption — offer enough tools to stop any project before it starts. (Heck, Ground Zero is still a gaping hole, and everyone has wanted that land to be developed, fast.)

The notion that Bloomberg couldn’t have quietly stopped this in New York is like saying Satan is powerless to do anything about the heat in Hades.
He could have kept the molehill from becoming a mountain with an afternoon’s worth of phone calls. The center would be built, just not so close to Ground Zero; no big deal.

But instead of quietly extinguishing a controversy, Bloomberg said it was as important a “test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime.”

He also insists that opponents should be “ashamed” of their bigotry, even though he expects “special sensitivity” from the mosque’s backers. Apparently, it’s only shameful to think Ground Zero requires “special sensitivity” if you oppose the mosque. Bloomberg apparently needs a tutor to pass his own church-state test.

Which brings us to President Obama (who himself could have quietly intervened months ago) and to what may be his most embarrassing blunder yet. At a White House dinner with Muslim leaders Friday night, Obama offered what every major journalistic outfit in the country took to be unqualified support for building the mosque. Indeed, Obama aides preened over his moral courage, telling the New York Times that there was no doubt which side he would take.


“He felt he had a responsibility to speak,” said David Axelrod, as if he were drafting the inscription on Obama’s Profiles in Courage Award. But by Saturday morning, Obama tried to weasel out of it with the sort of lawyerly parsing everybody despises. Speaking to reporters in Florida, Obama claimed he had no position on the “wisdom” of the project, and anyone who mistook his academic comments about building a mosque in Lower Manhattan for an endorsement misunderstood him.

Well, if his real intent was to remain agnostic, he should fire his speechwriter immediately.

Of course that wasn’t his intent. He wanted to seem heroically principled. But when he was hit with an entirely foreseeable backlash (according to one poll, nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose the mosque), he once again led with his glass jaw and, in effect, told everybody they were too dimwitted to grasp the brilliant nuance of his remarks.

This was the opposite of statesmanship.
By elevating an already stupid idea and a poisonous debate, he forced everyone to take a side on a polarizing issue (including vulnerable Democrats like Nevada senator Harry Reid, who, late Monday, came out against the mosque), while undermining his own credibility, not to mention America’s reputation around the world.

And it all could have been avoided with some foresight and a few phone calls.

— Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/19/2010 7:33:21 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Ground Zero Mega-Mosque



Michael Ramirez from Creators Syndicate

creators.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/21/2010 3:50:30 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Byron York: The mosque issue is dividing Democrats more than Republicans

By: Charlie Spiering
Online Community Manager
08/19/10 10:30 AM EDT

Byron York appeared on the Fox News Channel last night to discuss the divisions within the Democratic party over the mosque near Ground Zero with Greta Van Susteren.

Watch Below:

YouTube: Byron York: Ground Zero mosque issue dividing Democrats, not Republicans

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/22/2010 5:07:45 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
h/t Brumar89:

Nancy explains about the Ground Zero mega-mosque - AKA the Cordoba House



.



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/24/2010 5:05:44 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
GZ Imam: U.S. Worse than al-Qaeda

Andy McCarthy
The Corner

At Atlas Shrugs, Pamela Geller has uncovered audio of imam Feisal Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque, making public statements in which he opines that "the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims."


There's more . . . and it's here. YouTube video link is here.



.



To: Sully- who wrote (34174)8/24/2010 5:09:40 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Is Imam Rauf Going to Be Another Reverend Wright?

Victor Davis Hanson
The Corner

Self-described Sufi moderate Imam Rauf may prove to be an Islamic version of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. With Wright, the Left kept insisting that outrage over his racist and anti-American remarks was driven by right-wing racism, and for a while, the narrative worked -- hence Obama's pre-under-the-bus assertion that he "could no more disown Reverend Wright than" etc. But then Wright committed the mortal sin of insulting the elite media right at their embryo, at the D.C. National Press Club.

So too Imam Rauf. He has a vast record of quackery -- the latest tidbit is his 2005 contorted assertion that Westerners have more innocent Muslim blood on their hands than does al-Qaeda (e.g., "We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims"), presumably because between 1991 and 2003 America tried to stop Saddam's aggressions and WMD program through non-violent sanctions. Given Rauf's long paper trail and bad habit of talking in different personas to different audiences, much more will drip out each day, as was the case with Wright's DVDs and occasional outbursts. And that might necessitate a correction of Obama's grandstanding, disingenuous remarks to his iftar Muslim audience, in which the president deliberately conflated legal right with ethical and moral sensibility and earned a standing ovation for his distortion.

Perhaps with two or three more disclosures from Imam Rauf's corpus of speeches, we will hear a stronger walk-back from the president — something analogous to "The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago."

.