So Obama makes yet another condescending and patronizing speech about us intolerant bitter clingers, and in so doing, stands with Sharia:
So much for the pretense that, as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had previously declared, the President would not get involved because the Ground Zero mosque (GZM) controversy was “a local matter.” (As opposed, say, to the arrest of a Harvard professor on disorderly conduct charges.)
Gone too is the option of continuing to conceal an extraordinary fact: the Obama administration is endorsing not only this “local matter,” but explicitly endorsing the agenda of the imam behind it – Feisal Abdul Rauf. Rauf is the Muslim Brother, who together with his wife Daisy Khan (a.k.a. Daisy Kahn for tax purposes, at least) runs the tellingly named “Cordoba Initiative.” He is believed to be on a taxpayer-underwritten junket and/or fund-raising tour of the Middle East, courtesy of the State Department, which insists that he is a “moderate” in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. Interestingly, the President’s rhetoric – like that of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other apologists for and boosters of the GZM – tracks perfectly with the Muslim Brotherhood line about why we need to allow what Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin has correctly described as an “Islamist victory arch” close by some of America’s most hallowed ground. It is, we are told, all about “religious freedom” and “tolerance.”
Actually, it is all about submission to shariah – arguably the most intolerant of theo-political-legal codes, ironically particularly when it comes to respect for freedom of religion. Rauf’s mosque complex and the shariah ideology/doctrine that animates it – the same program that animated the jihadists who destroyed the World Trade Center and many of its occupants on 9/11 – has everything to do with power, not faith.
Bill Kristol responds that we are not traumatized — that unlike the president, we are mature adults who recognize that we are at war:
For Obama, 9/11 was a “deeply traumatic event for our country.” Traumatic events invite characteristic reactions and over-reactions–fearfulness, anger, even hysteria. That’s how Obama understands the source of objections to the Ground Zero mosque. It’s all emotional. The arguments don’t have to be taken seriously. The criticisms of the mosque are the emotional reactions of a traumatized people.
But Americans aren’t traumatized. 9/11 was an attack on America, to which Americans have responded firmly, maturely, and appropriately. Part of our sensible and healthy reaction is that there shouldn’t be a 13-story mosque and Islamic community center next to Ground Zero (especially when it’s on a faster track to be built than the long-delayed memorial there). But Obama (like Bloomberg) doesn’t feel he even has to engage the arguments against the mosque–because he regards his fellow citizens as emotionally traumatized victims, not citizens who might have a reasonable point of view.
Debra Burlingame responds as well (not a permalink):
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. Demolishing a building that was damaged by wreckage from one of the hijacked planes in order to build a mosque and Islamic Center will further energize those who regard it as a ratification of their violent and divinely ordered mission: the spread of shariah law and its subjugation of all free people, including secular Muslims who come to this country fleeing that medieval ideology, which destroys lives and crushes the human spirit.
We are stunned by the president’s willingness to disregard what Americans should be proud of: our enduring generosity to others on 9/11–a day when human decency triumphed over human depravity. On that day, when 3,000 of our fellow human beings were killed in barbaric act of raw religious intolerance unlike this country had ever seen, Americans did not turn outward with hatred or violence, we turned to each other, armed with nothing more than American flags and countless acts of kindness. In a breathtakingly inappropriate setting, the president has chosen to declare our memories of 9/11 obsolete and the sanctity of Ground Zero finished. No one who has lived this history and felt the sting of our country’s loss that day can truly believe that putting our families through more wrenching heartache can be an act of peace.
We will honor the memory of our loved ones. We will protect our children, whose lives will never be the same. We will not stand silent.
Somehow, I don’t think that this is going to burnish his approval ratings, even among the radical Muslims that he’s attempting to appease. They’ll just see it, like the apology tour, as more weakness, and be further emboldened, while the moderates will feel abandoned once more.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jen Rubin isn’t impressed, either:
Obama has shown his true sentiments now, after weeks of concealing them, on an issue of deep significance not only to the families and loved ones of 3,000 slaughtered Americans but also to the vast majority of his fellow citizens. He has once again revealed himself to be divorced from the values and concerns of his countrymen. He is entirely – and to many Americans, horridly — a creature of the left, with little ability to make moral distinctions. His sympathies for the Muslim World take precedence over those, such as they are, for his fellow citizens. This is nothing short of an abomination.
Ed Driscoll has a huge roundup of related links. Along with this:
Imagine yourself on the evening of Sept. 11, 2001.
As you sat there in shock, what if someone had told you that in 10 years, the World Trade Center would still be a crater. However, just off of Ground Zero, a gigantic, 13-story mosque would be erected. A mosque endorsed by President Barack Hussein Obama.
You would have thought we had lost a war, wouldn’t you?
For the left, there are only two things for Amerikkka to do with wars — end them, or lose them. Winning them is unthinkable.
And as the first commenter there notes, it’s almost as though he wants his party to be annihilated in November. It will certainly shake out the “moderate” Democrats. I do think that every Democrat politician should be asked at every opportunity if they agree with the president.
[Update a few minutes later]
In particular, whoever ends up running against Schumer and Gillebrand should ask them at every opportunity if they agree with the president. As should Lazio with Cuomo. I suspect that the Dems won’t be getting sixty+ percent of the vote in New York this time around.
Except the mosque isn’t on Ground Zero, it is two blocks north. It is not visible from Ground Zero. It will not have a minaret or a crescent on the outside. In fact, it’s a a community center with a mosque in it.
Not only that, but the people who are running the mosque already run a mosque 11 blocks north of Ground Zero (it’s too small for their congregation) and were part of Bush’s “Moderate Muslims” tour. Ms. Khan is in fact on the advisory panel of the 9/11 memorial.
How can the United States say we have freedom of religion and deny the right of an established religious group to build a house of worship on private property?
Not only that, but the people who are running the mosque already run a mosque 11 blocks north of Ground Zero (it’s too small for their congregation) and were part of Bush’s “Moderate Muslims” tour.
Yes, when it came to “moderate Muslims,” George Bush was a fool.
How can the United States say we have freedom of religion and deny the right of an established religious group to build a house of worship on private property?
How can you say that you’ve stopped beating your wife?
It will not have a minaret or a crescent on the outside.
And you’re OK with that??? How tolerant of you!
Juan Williams had the best quote I think about all of this: “It’s not promoting dialogue or understanding. In fact, it’s polarizing. So it’s not achieving his stated goal. And for that reason, I just think he’s wrong to do it.”
is islam really a religion or something else:
recep tayyip erdogan
prime minister turkey
he regards his fellow citizens as emotionally traumatized victims
Kristol really nailed it there. We’re all victims. America is nothing but 300 million victims. The task is to convince us all of that fact, and that we’ll be taken care of.
Come on, guys! This is a teachable moment here. The government has no business interfering with private use of private property, even if many people find that use offensive.
Applying that same principle, here’s for opening that proposed gay bar across the street. Not sure if the name is going to be “Outfidels” or “Suspicious Packages”.
I agree that the iman has the right to build the mosque on private property. I also believe we have a First Amendment right to express our displeasure about it. Likewise, I doubt Americans would’ve looked kindly on a Japanese attempt to build a community center a few blocks from Pearl Harbor, even more so had it happened in 1943. If the stated goal is to promote understanding, it would seem the iman is failing.
The problem is that for Western Europeans, religious wars within Christianity ended centuries ago, and a lot of people have a problem understanding that while there is internal peace and religious toleration between Christian sects, there can still be conflict with non-Christians. Especially with religions in which it is perfectly acceptable to settle differences with violence, even differences within that religion (see Shia vs. Sunni in Iraq as a prime example of that.)
In that regard, the First Amendment’s “freedom of religion” should not be extended to those who’ve admitted repeatedly that they don’t accept such freedoms for those who won’t accept their religion. We need to treat Constitutional “iinfidels” the same way they treat non-Moslem infidels– they are second class citizens without the same protections or privileges that real citizens and believers hold. The intolerant should not be tolerated, and especially not accorded special privileges.
The government has no business interfering with private use of private property, even if many people find that use offensive.
I don’t think any of us claimed that it did. You’re missing the point.
there shouldn’t be a 13-story mosque and Islamic community center next to Ground Zero
So, Bill Kristol, exactly how short does an Islamic community center need to be before it should be allowed 2 blocks from Ground Zero? Clearly 9/11 changes everything, including zoning.
Building a 15-story mosque at Ground Zero
Count the lies in that sentence fragment!
The intolerant should not be tolerated
And we can decide who is intolerant by majority vote? We have a Bill of Rights precisely because fundamental rights should not be subject to the whims of the majority.
Likewise, I doubt Americans would’ve looked kindly on a Japanese attempt to build a community center a few blocks from Pearl Harbor,
A poor analogy, as Ground Zero was not attacked by the Empire of Islam, it was attacked by a small gang of renegades. But even then, you will find Japanese cultural and religious establishments all over Honolulu, including in the vicinity of Pearl Harbor.
For that matter, you will find facilities for Muslim worship in the Pentagon, inside the very building that was attacked on 9/11. Paid for by our tax dollars, no less.
stands with Sharia
Defending any group’s right to lawfully practice their religion is the very opposite of standing with Sharia.
Kristol really nailed it there. We’re all victims. America is nothing but 300 million victims.
Someone who gets upset by the idea of an Islamic community center in the same neighborhood as Ground Zero is sure acting like a victim.
I ascribed many of Jimmy Carter’s America 2nd moments when he was President to idealistic naïveté. Obama just doesn’t like us. Chris, look at the money behind the mosque and others in the group who won’t condemn HAMAS and think we helped make 9/11 possible. If those are the people you want your President to side with, get your yellow cross now.
When I was in Istanbul before 9/11, I thought the call to prayer five times a day over loud speakers was a charming part of my adventure. The blue mosque sits adjacent to the Hagia Sophia and I visited both. My hotel was about two blocks away coincidentally. Yes, I could see both from the rooftop.
Since then, I’ve believed in tit for tat… my tolerance shall equal theirs. They have none, so you know how much I have. A mosque is a military installation of an enemy state. It’s where the enemy goes to get indoctrination and funding.
Freedom of religion has no room for an ideology that requires it’s members to conquer our country and beliefs. Any more than freedom of speech allows you to call for killing the president. The secret service would be glad to explain this in a personal visit.
Any mosque allowing terrorists to enter should be shut and torn down without exception. Announce it as policy first so there is no room for misunderstanding. Then do it.
Islam is a religion of lies. I have nothing against it’s non terrorist supporting members (which I believe is a very small minority.) It’s put up or shut up time. Way past time.
“But even then, you will find Japanese cultural and religious establishments all over Honolulu, including in the vicinity of Pearl Harbor.”
If by “in the vicinity” you mean “no where near,” then you’ve made a truthful (and irrelevant) statement.
the palis celebrating on the west bank on 9/11/01 would disagree
“A poor analogy, as Ground Zero was not attacked by the Empire of Islam, it was attacked by a small gang of renegades.”
That’s why tens of millions of Muslims cheered the attack.
“Defending any group’s right to lawfully practice their religion is the very opposite of standing with Sharia.”
Nice strawman.
BTW, where do you stand on the Temple Mount and the Al Asqa mosque? Because Muslims want Jews to stay the hell away and would kill them if they could (and have in the past).
Of course 5000 years of Jewish history means nothing to Muslims based on their behavior. You know, building mosques on the sites of churches and synagogues in lands they conquered.
Any more than freedom of speech allows you to call for killing the president. The secret service would be glad to explain this in a personal visit.
Well written, Ken. However, I side with folks who question both the inaccuracies in the reporting (i.e. at ground zero) and the concept of setting up arbitrary location requirements for what is essentially a “church”.
I don’t like it, but I don’t know how it could be dealt with in a legal manner.
“I don’t like it, but I don’t know how it could be dealt with in a legal manner.”
The New York City Department of City Planning tells everyone who can build what, where. Building in NYC is by permit, and that includes for houses of worship. It’s a zoning issue.
I don’t like it, but I don’t know how it could be dealt with in a legal manner.
We have legal issues to resolve, that is for certain. Imagine if our congress critters actually had a rational discussion of the issues. Wouldn’t that be novel?
Count the lies in that sentence fragment!
It’s 13 stories up and 2 stories down. So what exactly is the radius of ground zero Jim? I use to work on Williams st. Is that at ground zero? Could I have died standing there?
Would forcing taxpayers to pay Zakat be considered a high crime or misdemeanor?
Renegades from what, exactly?
I should have known that Chris Gerrib and Jim would defend this thing now that Obama, who can do no wrong, has come out in favor of it.
Could I have died standing there?
Yeah, by that measure “ground zero” is a pretty big area. I understand that the highjackers were Muslims who were indoctrinated by their leaders to both hate and to attack America. I agree that if an Imam wanted to build a high profile “in your face” Mosque in a building facing the footprint of the Trade Centers the city should absolutely refuse to grant permit. But in that this was already a neighborhood Mosque (further away, granted) that is expanding… it gets into a kind of gray area that is perfect fodder for, well, media outrage.
I agree with most of the comments here (Raoul nails it), but am just playing devil’s advocate (perhaps literally).
However, I particularly like Paul’s suggestion of placing several gay bars across the street. (Suspicious Packages… too funny!)
Zing! Right on target (as usual.) Why those renegades from the peace luvin’, tolerant of all faiths, woman honoring, never tell a lie, spiritual descendants of the glorious example of man the big MO (PissBUH) of course. They have absolutely nuttin’ to do with that.
[Any similarity between the above description and your faith is purely coincidental. All religions, regardless of what god thinks, are equal in his sight.]
From NYT:
So, capturing and holding the enemy is Islamopohic. Is Ali Abunimah representative of this distinction between al Qaeda and Islam?
Does anyone have any other parts of the constitution they want to toss out in response to 9/11?
Does anyone have any other parts of the constitution they want to toss out in response to 9/11?
Paul, you seem to continue to miss the point. What is unconstitutional about expressing unhappiness about the enemy’s choice of where to locate a mosque, or the president’s endorsement of that choice (even if he backpedals later…)? Do we not have a constitutional right to express such unhappiness?
I think I just found the new primary target for every arsonist in New York City. And I’ll bet the firefighters arrive punctually.
Sorry, I’m not with you guys this time. If you don’t defend the right to freedom of religion and private property just because you don’t like someone, it’s too late.
What ever happened to defending the right of the KKK to say what it likes, even if you hate it?
Loads of moderate muslims have denounced the terrorists and everything they stand for. Don’t look to the stupid MSM to report on that any more than you expect them to report on anything else.
I refuse to let either party yell “boo!” to get votes.
What ever happened to defending the right of the KKK to say what it likes, even if you hate it?
Let me know when we deny muslims the right to speak.
Loads of moderate muslims have denounced the terrorists and everything they stand for. Don’t look to the stupid MSM to report on that any more than you expect them to report on anything else.
Have you ever been lied to? You do realize you are an infidel, right? You do realize the koran specifically instructs the faithful to lie to infidels, right? You do realize that the koran has parts that talk about peace that are specifically canceled by later parts that talk about killing, right?
You do realize that moderation itself is a lie which can get a muslim killed, right? Or have you never heard of honor killing?
Have you ever known a muslim? Seriously? I guess a person could believe all sorts of nonsense if one didn’t know any, or never asked them about things.
Who are you asking, silvermine? What nonsense are you referring to?
“What ever happened to defending the right of the KKK to say what it likes, even if you hate it?”
Okay, everyone. There is a Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Atlanta, Georgia. Would everyone on this thread defending the mosque be okay with the KKK erecting a huge cross within sight of that?
There are already several gay bars in the area. It’s the most densely-populated part of one of the most densely-populated cities in the world. There’s a lot of stuff nearby.
Muslims lying to infidels – somebody please show me chapter and verse in the Koran where that’s allowed.
Andrea Harris – I first spoke in favor of the mosque on my blog on August 4. I don’t need to wait for a “party line” to tell right from wrong.
(Sorry, hit post too quickly)
The bottom line is this – the only hope in hell Bin Laden has to “win” his jihad is if he makes it a war of all Islam against all Christianity. Not following our own rules or not distinguishing between various Muslim groups plays into Bin Laden’s hands.
I guess a person could believe all sorts of nonsense if one didn’t know any [muslim], or never asked them about things.
I think this needs a response. I personally think that most people, including many muslims, are good decent people just going about their lives. The problem is Islam which has the goal, stated in writing and demonstrated by acts, of killing me and anybody like me (that is non muslim or non slave to muslim and not under the law of sharia.) It really doesn’t matter if most muslims are not working toward that goal if enough to be a problem are.
They’re are more than enough that are, including representative talking heads that lie continuously about the nature and goals of islam.
okay with the KKK erecting a huge cross within sight of [MLK Jr. Memorial in Atlanta]
I know you weren’t asking me, MfK, but not only emphatically would I have a problem. I would be extremely irate with any proposal to do so while at war with the lying bastards who have the intent to cut off my head while smiling at my face.
the only hope in hell Bin Laden has to “win” his jihad is if he makes it a war of all Islam against all Christianity.
So if this thing gets built, Bin Laden will be wringing his hands and wondering how he’s going to convince his followers that he’s still the strong horse. Thanks for ruining another keyboard.
Chris, I found the following verses with virtually no effort. Why do you continue to throw down the gauntlet when your foundation is so fragile?
“Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you His signs, that ye may be grateful.” Surah 5:89
“Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness (vain) in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.” Surah 2:225
The intellectual prowess you have demonstrated in this and other threads leave us all panting for your personal interpretation of these verses. I am certain your words obviously would be the end of our discussion.
However, these verses and others are what countless mullahs and imams are using to teach their followers about lying to infidels. You can say it is wrong, you can say they are deliberately twisting the meaning of the Koran, but it is still happening and they obviously do not agree with you.
Jiminator – wrong. What you are quoting is the penalty for lying. The operant phrase (in the verse you quoted) is: But keep to your oaths.
You could read this write-up, intended for an Islamic audience. Or this Koran verse Fulfil the Covenant of Allah when ye have entered into it, and break not your oaths after ye have confirmed them; indeed ye have made Allah your surety; for Allah knoweth all that ye do.
Whatever, Chris. What you say about Muslim dealings with non-believers, and how Muslims actually deal with non-believers, are two entirely different things.
Chris Gerrib –
The day someone who matters (perhaps a future POTUS who is something more than a tailor’s dummy with a built-in speaker attached to a teleprompter) finally realises that there is, in fact, a war of all Islam against all Christendom (as clearly stated in the Koran!) which has been going on for 1388 years at time of writing – that very day, Islam dies. Along with just about all its adherents.
Islam has to grow up, as Christianity did hundreds of years ago. The only other alternative is death. “And the smoke of their burning shall go up unto heaven.”
Right Chris and a hudna is just a truce.
Plenty of Islam *is* grown up. Blah.
Anyway, I would *personally* have a problem with the giant cross, but I wouldn’t try to proclaim a burlington coat factory a historical site in order to block it. I would say the cross is a perfectly legal thing to do, if they use their own property and say, don’t cause a fire hazard. I’d say it was a horrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t say all southern white guys are evil racist bastards just because a small minority join the KKK.
Now, putting burning crosses on other peoples’ property is obviously illegal. And not good. And has happened to my family, in fact, when I was too young to be aware. I’m not sure why — I’m so pale I’m practically transparent, but perhaps we played with the “wrong” kids. Or maybe they were too lazy to go all the way down the street to the projects and just picked our nice yard.
Anyway, the argument “Gosh, it’s legal, but please find somewhere more appropriate” is fine with me, but that’s not what I’m hearing at all, and so I’m saying I disagree with what is put forth above that all muslims are lying, traitorous murderers or whatever.
They state they want to make a YMCA/JCC style place, and they picked Cordoba because it was a time when multiple religions lived together. Personally, I don’t know the history of Cordaba, but there certainly were times in the middle ages that muslim conquorers were far more tolerant of jewish and christian residents than the jews and christians. Whatever.
If it becomes, as you think, a house of terrorists, then prosecute/persecute them then, with actual evidence. And hell, they’ll all be in one place, which should simplify things for the feds. yay.
So, to turn this around, what would a Muslim have to do to demonstrate they have “grown up” or they are moderate? What would that look like?
Condemning HAMAS would be a good start. The imam was offered the chance and wouldn’t do it. How about letting other religions build houses of worship in your country? The Saudis confiscate Bibles. Stop slaughtering members of other religions, talking to you Bash. The Serbs were condemned and punished by Christians; Muslims in the Sudan by Muslims, not so much. This is 2 minutes of thinking. If you want more, I could use all of Rand’s bandwidth. And no, being against this location is not being against ALL locations.
I just read an article suggesting the solution was eminent domain. Let them spend the money building the mosque. Then have the local government declare eminent domain (paying pennies on the dollar) for someone else to put up a hotel (bringing in more tax revenue than a tax free mosque.)
I don’t like eminent domain, but this seems like a win to me.
Feisal Abdul Rauf is a Sufi Muslim (see here, regarding his existing mosque.) As you can read here, the Muslim Brotherhood (Ayman Al Zawarhi’s original group – you know, Bin Laden’s right-hand man) doesn’t like the Sufi sect.
Rauf’s statement about Hamas is that he condemns the killing of innocents by anybody. That’s a pretty peaceful statement, and I could fill Soldier Field with Christians who agree with that idea.
Regarding Saudi Arabia, why should what they do or don’t do in their country govern what we do or don’t do here?
Bottom line – condemning all of Islam for 9/11 is like condemning all Christianity for bombing abortion clinics.
“Bottom line – condemning all of Islam for 9/11 is like condemning all Christianity for bombing abortion clinics.”
Wow, you’ve been to the Obama School of Speechwriting.
If that was all, you might have an argument.
The question was Muslims in general, that would include the Saudis.
He was asked specifically about HAMAS.
The Sufis seem to be the Mormons of Islam. Except they get killed a little more often for their beliefs….by other Muslims.
Were this to do to Kelo what Monica did to the Independent Council, I’d kick back and have a cigar, but that’s all somewhat beside the point…
The problem with liberals and muslims? They both believe that lying is acceptable to reach their ends. This is from their own mouths and writings.
What’s the problem with lying? It hardly needs to be said but it means you can never take them at their word. When people have honor, their word is gold. So…
Rauf’s statement about Hamas is that he condemns the killing of innocents by anybody.
Is either a lie or a careful parsing… are infidels innocents?