Continual Vigilance Against Ignorance

Great post, and comments in response to it, at This Ain’t Hell regarding the Democrats’ election strategy: Still running against Bush

Now, most people note that the Democrats are “running against Bush”. I tend to look at it a different way. They are not necessarily running against President Bush, so much as they are running a campaign based on the ignorance they assume the American electorate still suffers with regards to economic policy.

It worked for them in 2006, when our economy was humming along during one of our nation’s most prosperous times in history: low unemployment (~5%), great GDP growth and record highs on WallStreet (which helped every American’s retirement account). Despite these obvious facts, the Democrat Party and their propaganda machine in the MF-ing media worked together to sell the LIE to the American public that the economy was a disaster. They sold the lie that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in no need of regulation when President Bush, Senator McCain and the GOP worked to prevent the housing collapse that eventually occurred. DEMOCRATS Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Maxine Water were key to stopping anyone from regulating Fannie/Freddie. Yet, despite the fact that THEIR policies caused the housing crisis, they turn around and blame… President Bush and the GOP. Pathetic.

It also obviously worked for them in 2008 when they swept to HUGE majorities in both Houses of Congres and took the White House by… blaming President Bush and the GOP for “the failed policies of the last 8 years!” Um, those “failed policies” were not conservative nor capitalist policies, but socialist policies that failed. So it was not a GOP vs Democrat policy issue, but a conservative vs socialist/progressive/liberal policy issue. The dirty little secret is that there are socialists and liberals within the GOP who worked with Democrats to either enact socialist policies or give Democrats cover for their socialist policies by voting with them to make the bills seem “bipartisan”.

But, if you look back to the policies which caused our current recession/depression — see HERE, HERE & HERE — you’ll see that it was the Democrat Party’s liberal policies which caused them. Not conservative policies, not tax cuts and not capitalism failing. That last one is important to note, because the current Democrat Party — and especially Barack Obama and his cabinet and czars — is made up of anti-capitalists, socialists and Marxists. So it was key to them to sell the American electorate on the failure of capitalism, hide the fact that it was the failure of socialism and then gain power so as to enact their Marxist policies… which they knew would make things worse. But, making things better was never their intention. As Barack Obama famously said during the campaign, he was not interested in bringing in more tax revenue, he was more interested in “fairness” and “spreading the wealth around”. In other words, he was not interested in capitalism, but socialism and Marxism.

So, since this strategy worked to perfection on an ignorant, apathetic and dumbed down American electorate in 2006 and 2008, the Democrats and MF-ing media are simply sticking to the same game plan until we prove to them that we are not the apathetic, dumbed down ignoramuses they believe us to be.

On that note, it is good to see the military commenters at This Ain’t Hell take to task a currently still ignorant commenter. I hope conversations like these are happening all across the nation and people are finally getting educated and informed… and energized to vote out the socialists and Marxists in NOV 2010 and NOV 2012.

The Hill reports that Democrats have released a video in which they’re still blaming GWB for the economic problems we’re experiencing almost two years after he left office…

Despite the fact that Bush and McCain both tried to rein in FannieMae and FreddieMac, the triggers for for the housing bubble, for years before the economic crisis struck.
Don’t get me wrong – I think Democrats should run against Bush, but only because it’s losing strategy. …

Yeah, so keep it up, Democrats – it gives us a more frequent opportunity to mention whose policies were really behind current economic conditions.

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 9:49 am

So let me get this straight – on the one hand you give credit to Bush for getting us out of Iraq even though he’s been out of office for what, 19 months, but no blame for driving the country into a ditch, as the saying goes. Kind of selective memory.

You can’t turn the USS Enterprise on a dime, and you can’t turn around a totally screwed up economy that quickly either. Has Obama made mistakes – you betcha. But nothing compared to his predecessor.

Old Tanker Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 9:53 am

But nothing compared to his predecessor.

So let me get this straight, Bush told Fannie and Freddie to lend money to people that couldn’t pay it back? Franklin Raines is laughing all the way to the bank…

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 11:49 am

Where to start? Bush promoted “the ownership society” which promoted and enabled the real estate crisis. He also promoted deregulation so unscrupulous mortgage brokers could put green pea home owners into mortgages they could neither afford nor understand, without fear of getting caught. In fact one of his biggest screw ups was creating an environment where honest brokers had to face a devil’s choice – play by the rules and lose out, or bend the rules (like your competitors) and reap illicit profits. Cronyism, lack of oversight and regulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, CEO’s earning 400 times what their workers earn, a growing divide between the haves and have nots – opps, gotta run! Later

nhsparky Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Joe – was Bush responsible for the CRA? Was he responsible for ACORN and other groups suing banks for creating so-called “redline” loans? Did he sit in front of Congress and tell the American people that Freddie and Fannie are “basically sound”? …

Jonn Lilyea Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:13 pm

“Unscrupulous mortgage brokers” couldn’t loan to prospective homeowners without FanM/FredM backing loans with taxpayer dollars to people with a history of bailing on their obligations. Deregulation and “the ownership society” aren’t the problem here. Do you own your house, Joe? Why do you get to own your house and others don’t?

I own my house… I bought it when I could afford to pay for it. That’s not a new concept. For years I resisted the peer pressure to buy a house in favor of common sense. And there were no mortgage brokers or banks involved in my purchase… and certainly no FannieMae or FreddieMac. I don’t need the government to help me buy my chunk of America.

Old Tanker Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:41 pm

Deregulation of mortgage lenders? That was CRA started by Jimmeh Carter and expanded by Bill Clinton. Franklin Raines (Clinton Appointee) who headed Fannie at the time predicted all of this and advised Clinton not to. Clinton did it anyway and told Raines to get in line and shut up. Raines made over 90 million from Fannie… How did Bush have anyhting to do with that? When the Federal Regulator for Fannie testified before congress as John McCain was pushing for legislation to reign Fannie and Freddie in both “Coutrywide” Chris Dodd and Barney “Banking Queen” Frank said there’s nothing wrong here, everything is hunky dory. You can throw Maxine “Bailout my husbands bank” Waters in there as well…

Jacobite Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Blaming Bush for everything you mentioned in #7 is pure bilge my friend, and shows a remarkable lack of education on the history of American economics.

It also displays a large degree of contempt for your fellow Americans. What you have so patronizingly laid out is the idea that every ‘common man’ is capable of being coerced into debilitating debt. Simple, Unadulterated, Crap. The public largely has no one to blame but themselves.

Who is responsible for the “ownership society”? How about we start with Henry Ford in the 1920s, and the introduction of CREDIT. Either way, it’s not the Fed’s job to dictate to the “people” how they will or won’t hurt themselves. Self defense in all things begins with the SELF.

Good grief, what are the colleges teaching today anyway?

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 1:37 pm

A lot of naive, less affluent people (but many of them working stiffs nonetheless) bought into the “ownership society” hoopla. Some overreached and made mistakes. But I blame Bush and the conservative mantra for creating the climate, and the lack of oversight that made it all possible.

I can only assume that most of the contributors to this website fall into that top 5% category, since I have never heard any of you bemoan the policies that have decimated the middle class, the engine that helped create all our prosperity. And in this mortgage crisis, many of these hardworking middle class people got caught up in the storm. In addition, the middle class has been nickled and dimed from every side, thanks again to policies that favor corporations and the rich over regular people. The Bush tax cuts are but one example.

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 1:39 pm

PS – Canada has much stricter oversight and regulation of the mortgage industry, and they have not suffered nearly as badly as we have.

PintoNag Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Joe, you say ‘ownership’ like it’s a bad thing. Why the devil do you think I get up five days a week and go to work? I have bills, that’s true enough, but I also like to own things… most of which no one has ever offered to give me for free. And wouldn’t.

This country is an experiment, and was meant to be. It is an experiment in SELF-GOVERNMENT. You take responsibility for your actions or you suffer the consequences. By definition, if you attempt to protect something, you must remove its ability to self-govern. Protection is nothing more than a form of control.

The government must exercise control to a point, to help maintain order in society. The argument we have always had, are having now, and will have in the future, is this: how far can, should, and must that control go? When does maintaining good order become an exercise in negating self-government?

I submit that it has already gone too far.

Jacobite Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Did you just cut and paste that trash? It sounds like it was lifted whole cloth from some Lib talking points website.

Try again Joe, I was a 30k a year warehousing stiff for over a decade before shipping to Iraq, lost my job while I was gone because the owner of the company retired, and I started a new 30k a year career as a municipal employee after returning home in 2004. I’m still in that category. I directly benefited from the Bush tax cuts, and so did most of the middle class folks I know. I am going to be directly hurt not only by their demise, but also by all the other crap the current admin is trying to push through. Try and peddle that clap else ware.

I notice how you conveniently sidestep the fact that the play now pay later mentality began decades and decades before Bush. Nice. For the record, I’m no fan of a lot of his domestic economic policies, but that doesn’t remove the responsibility for anyone’s situation from their own shoulders. And replacing crappy policy with crappier policy as Obama is attempting, is not the way to solve the nation’s ills.

Old Tanker Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:36 pm

Joe,
The mortgage industry was NOT deregulated by Bush or anyone else. It was FORCED by the GOVERNMENT to make bad loans with a wink and a nod that Fannie and Freddie would have their backs. There was a Federal Regulator screaming from the rooftops about what was happening back in ‘06. Bush attempted to place more regulation on the mortgage industry and Democrats said NO and ignored the regulator. ACORN threatened to sue any lender that wasn’t making the required amount of bad loans. Your willful blindness to history is monumental…

Ritchie The Riveter Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 3:35 pm

First, note how government revenues and disposable income were increasing in 2003-2006, and that we were headed back towards a balanced budget.

There’s your “Bush economy” … even while a war was going on and with the tech bubble in our rear-view mirror. BTW, about that time he was advocating changes to tighten up the mortgage market … and was pooh-poohed by Frank, Dodd, et. al. who still had the fillibuster on their side.

Then note when employment growth flattens … around January 2007.

Could it be that, once the Dim Congress became reality, businesses woke up, realized their future was to become cash cows/social-services surrogates/scapegoats for their new Re-, er, Progressive overlords … and acted in preparation for that future by scaling back their activity, including hiring and expansion?

Could it be that it is that pullback, that started our downward slide … a pullback triggered by the mere presence of a Re-, er, Progressive-controlled Congress? Keep in mind that it is Congress, way more than the White House, who can have a profound effect upon our economy.

So the classic question is, after FOUR YEARS of Dimocrat control of Congress …

Are you better off than you were four years ago?

That … not some half-baked with half-truth ad … will determine the outcome of this election.

Ritchie The Riveter Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 11:50 pm

“But I blame Bush and the conservative mantra for creating the climate, and the lack of oversight that made it all possible.”

Mr. Bush was working to restore some of that oversight … whose restoration was needed primarily because Progressive efforts to make home ownership universal distorted the market to the point that banks could consider it financially viable to fund the irresponsible.

Let me tell you the “mantra” that REALLY caused the problem …

All you need to do is show up for work; we have experts who have the answers to your housing needs, your health care needs, your financial needs … no need to plan for your future or actively manage your career, since we can do a better job than you can; just trust us to solve those problems FOR you.

This is the implicit message from our government since FDR. I call it The Biggest Lie of All … and it has done far more damage than any “mantra” coming from Mr. Bush or his Administration.

“I can only assume that most of the contributors to this website fall into that top 5% category, since I have never heard any of you bemoan the policies that have decimated the middle class, the engine that helped create all our prosperity.”

Problem is, the producers in the middle class who create those jobs are either considered “rich”, or increased success on their part would push them into the “rich” category … and therefore become worthy of being milked as cash cows, by our government.

And in my own case, when the taxes of the rich guy who employs me and about 200 other people go up, my income goes down … for he shares a large portion of his profit with us, and the more he’s taxed, the less profit he has.

Your “progressive” taxation doesn’t differentiate between someone productive like him and a parasite like, say, Enron in their heyday … it still treats both as cash cows. regardless of the value of what each does to our society.

“And in this mortgage crisis, many of these hardworking middle class people got caught up in the storm. In addition, the middle class has been nickled and dimed from every side, thanks again to policies that favor corporations and the rich over regular people. The Bush tax cuts are but one example.”

Perhaps if they weren’t being taxed so highly at all levels of government … and they hadn’t been misled into letting the government provide “solutions” and “guarantees” FOR them … they would have weathered the storm.

You’re mired in mindless class envy … or is it that you believe you must fling anything you’ve got to smear conservatives at them, in the hopes that it will stick, discredit that worldview, and pave the way for you to practice your pet vice without risk of having your mellow harshed? You wouldn’t be the first Re-, er, Progressive I’ve found with that motive, once the rhetorical boilerplate was peeled away.

defendUSA Says:
August 21st, 2010 at 8:54 am

Ritchie-

Spot on about Joe… Class envy. We bought our first house with our VA benefits. We were making 29K in 1992. The mortgage was for 95K. We had to make sacrifices in order to make that happen. 18 years later, and having priced out of what the VA benefits gave we own a house that may soon be underwater, even though we have never missed a payment and made 60K of improvements because of that bubble created by the regs.

But I don’t blame Bush like Joe. No. I take full responsibility for not understanding some things financial and being naive that my better half would always be making the money we made. He isn’t now, but, we have still made the sacrifices necessary to be on time with the payments and eat. This is what Joe misses every time he brings up blaming Bush.

And Joe, Joe, Joe. I am hardworking, self-employed currently and I benefited from the tax cuts, too. Because I *paid* taxes!! These were not only for the “rich” as you appear to believe. Those people got caught in a storm because the lenders preyed and they bit. They bought houses that were not in any way going to be affordable and then they got what they deserved. A person making 60k shouldn’t be owning a house with a mortgage for 300k – it makes zero sense.

But what lending practices did was not verify income and ability to pay. Do you have that straight? And, now, we have people who have defaulted not once, but twice with gov’t bailouts, er, my taxpayer dollars.

And you know what is really funny, Joe? We have been unemployed 3 times in 4 years taking unemployment 1 time for 6 months, and we never missed any payments for anything. Yes. We used up every ounce of savings, and the deferred income that was for the kids college, and the retirement fund. All taxed again. Yep. And when all that was gone, well, we couldn’t get help. Because the gov’t wants me to be in default of everything before I get help. I ask you, what is rational about that?

So when I needed a student loan for the kid, I got denied because I wasn’t delinquent!! Yes that FAFSA formula doesn’t work the way it should… IMO. But I fought the basturds and won. So, at least my kid gets to make her dreams come true.

Get the fuck over yourself and your pretentious “I care for the little guy” bullshit. You’re just a whiner who doesn’t get what economics is about and you have no clue how the gov’t is working to destroy The American dream by making others dependent and helping them to forget how to dream, hope and live. Just exist. Put “Defying Hitler” on your reading list, maybe you can learn something.

UPDATE 23 AUG 2010: The military commenters at This Ain’t Hell are still combating ignorance in the comments at this post as well: Obama as Reagan. Keep up the great work, gentlemen.

The Washington Post tries to draw parallels between Reagan and Obama: [ ... ]

Yeah, tax cuts and massive spending are exactly the same – especially in the effect they’ll have on the economy. Reagan let us spend our own money, Obama takes our money and directs how it’s spent. That’s the same, right?

Paul Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:37 am

Yes, it’s sad when our politicians have obviously never taken an econ class. One thing both Reagan and Obama have in common though is they both like huge deficit spending.

UpNorth Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:47 am

And, one important difference, Paul. Reagan’s economy created jobs, O’s has lost jobs. And will continue to lose jobs, until he’s gone.

Old Tanker Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:29 pm

Paul,
Democrats over rode Reagan’s vetoes to force deficit spending after the Dems PROMISED him they would cut spending… Slight difference. I also believe this is when they introduced the concept of baseline budgeting. If an agency was expected to have a baseline increase of 7% and their budget only got increased by 6% it was called a “budget cut”

NHSparky Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm

And Paul, FWIW, had Congress (and guess which party was cutting the checks back then?) simply passed Reagan’s proposed budgets without adding a whole shitload of items to it, the federal government would have been running a SURPLUS by FY1990. Look it up. And when Reagan tried to veto the spending inserted in appropriations bills, the Supremes determined a line-item veto was unconstitutional.

Context FAIL, Paul. Back to your hole.

Old Tanker Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Hell Sparky, the Republicans even gave Bill Clinton a line item veto only to have the Supreme court overturn it…

USMC Steve Says:
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:22 am

Yeah, let us compare the two.

Reagan loved his country, Nobama hates it particularly the white part.

Reagan put together an excellent and intelligent, well versed cabinet, Nobama grabbed up a bunch of yes-man kowtowing leftists who wouldn’t know reality if it bit them on the ass.

Reagan included in his achievements the destruction of the Soviet Union and the opening up of eastern Europe, Nobama can claim socialized health care and forcing the spending of almost a trillion dollars AFTER over 70 percent of the people in this country voiced their strident opposition to it.

Reagan had a great deal of unified support in America, but Nobama has basically set race relations back 40 years, and has people at each other’s throats, no doubt in order to help fulfill his socialist agenda. You can’t force through marxism if the country isn’t totally fucked up you know.

The list could go on and on and on. Yep, lots of similarities.

Islam is an Oppressive, Totalitarian Ideology Which Should be Mocked and Ridiculed as Much as any Other Ideology

A great discussion in the comments in response to this post at Gateway Pundit: Florida Church Vows to Burn Korans On 9-11; Receives Death Threats (Video)

It is interesting to note many people in the comments who come across as dhimmis and prove the point that Islam is not a “religion of peace”. If it were, then there would be no reason to worry about the safety of the members of this church, correct? Christians and Jews and Mormons are insulted every single day all across the nation in print media reports, in TV media reports, in movies, in TV shows, in songs and by liberal politicians. All this is done without worry of violence. Yet, no one dares to say anything even midly critical of Islam, despite the fact that every liberal claims that Islam is a “religion of peace”. If it were so, then Islam would be mocked, ridiculed and smeared equally. The fact that it is not is proof that Islam is not peaceful at all.

The fact is that were this church to announce that it were holding a “burn Mein Kampf day”, no one would care. “Burn the Book of Mormon Day”? No one would care. “Burn the American Flag Day”? No one would care. “Burn the Jewish Flag Day”? No one would care. But, since they are insulting a liberal PC protected class, there is “outrage”. Pathetic.

Now, while I may not completely agree with this church’s chosen way to show their disgust with Islam (which I share), I think they prove 2 great points. (1) They show that Islam is not a “religion of peace” at all, what with the threats of violence directed their way in response to this. (2) They expose the hypocrisy of liberals, who never have a problem mocking, ridiculing and insulting every other religion on the planet, save for Islam.

I also agree with the person in the comments who noted that we are in a war. And yes, it is a war against the totalitarian political ideology of Islam, regardless of the people who are too PC-ified to admit it. During WWII, no one would have cared were people to burn copies of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, burn literature about NAZIism or burn literature about Japan’s religion of Shintoism. No one in their right mind would come to the defense of oppressive, totalitarian ideologies. Yet, 9 years after the worst Islamic terrorist attack on American soil in history, people are still defending the oppressive, totalitarian ideology of Islam. Pathetic.

Some of the comments with which I agree wholeheartedly:

Andreas K.
August 21st, 2010 | 6:09 am | #17
Burning Old Glory is fine. Burning American citizens is fine. But burning the one book that has more hatred inside than Mein Kampf is bad?

Without the koran there wouldn’t have been 9-11. Yes, it’s that simple.

Maybe this action isn’t in the best spirit of Christianity. Maybe, I don’t know, and frankly I don’t even care.

It’s time that the west strikes back.

How long are we going to take the abuse coming from the mohammedans? Look into Europe, I dare you. Mohammedans just need to pout at whatever they want and the media and the politicians double over hell bent on making sure the screaming babies get whatever they want.

Saying something against that is racism and makes you a nazi in Europe these days.

Why do you think Geert Wilders is becoming more and more popular, all across Europe?

Because more and more people in Europe are sick and tired of this pre-emptive surrender. Because more and more people in Europe are sick and tired of islam. Yes, despite the media and our politicians trying to sell us the fairy tale of a moderate islam people are rallying against islam.

Burn the koran?

Why not? What makes it so special? Why shouldn’t we burn it? Out of respect? Respect for what? Respect for a fascist ideology that hides behind the shield of religion? An ideology that, without this shield, would be banned right away in all civilized countries?

Burn it I say. This book deserves no respectful treatment. It’s as vile and full of hatred as Mein Kampf.

And Mein Kampf is banned in Germany and Austria…

Andreas K.
August 21st, 2010 | 6:27 am | #26
Jerry, the koran represents only one thing: kill the infidels where you find them. That’s in it. That’s the order. That’s what every mohammedan must do. Why? Because Mohammed, who is considered to be the perfect human being in islamic mythology, wrote it down. Because the bloodythirsty idol called allah told him so.

If supporting burning something like that makes me intolerant, so be it. Then I’m intolerant. And I don’t care. Islam is intolerant to the bone. Islam is hatred on a level worse than the Nazis. Why should I be tolerant to that?

By the way. Faith and believe? That’s no argument against burning it. There were people who prayed to Hitler. Not for him. To him. There were people in Nazi Germany BELIEVING that Hitler was second coming of Jesus. It was their FAITH.

As for calling islam “religion”… don’t make me laugh.

Andreas K.
August 21st, 2010 | 6:33 am | #27

Arch
August 21st, 2010 | 6:25 am | #24

Although I have no respect for islam as a religion/political system, it’s just as sacrilegious to burn a koran as it is to put a crucifix in a jar of urine. I consider burning the American flag highly offensive. People who act in this manner do not gain respect; they lose it.

Uhm, you do realize that the leftsits and mohammedans don’t respect any of us in the first place, right? So what’s there to lose?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

If they could they would kill all of us right now, even without burning that stupid book.

Why? Because we’re infidels. We are already committing the worst possible crime under sharia law: we refuse to follow allah. That crime is worse than murder, worse than rape, worse than genocide.

It’s sacrilegious? I piss on islam. I piss in the koran. Now what? What’s the islamic moon deity going to do about it? Nothing.

Tolerance is a bad thing. Look at the roots of the word. Latin for “to endure”. Sorry, I’m tired of enduring. It’s time to strike back and speak with them in the only language they understand: force.

Andreas K.
August 21st, 2010 | 6:37 am | #31
Let me add this:

Most of you people don’t see the “joy” islamic “enrichment”. I see it on a daily basis. And I’m sick and tired of it. Every day it’s on the news. Mohammedans assaulting our police officers. Mohammedans raping our women. Mohammedans murdering our people. Mohammedans stealing our money. And when we say something against it, the media and the leftist are all over us screaming “racist!” and “nazi!”

Our crime rates are exploding, thanks to them. But we have to be tolerant. We have to live with it. We have to endure it.

And this has been going for years.

My patience is slowly but steadily coming to an end.

Come to Europe and see it with your own eyes.

You’ll have a different point of view afterwards.

Andreas K.
August 21st, 2010 | 6:40 am | #33

Arch
August 21st, 2010 | 6:37 am | #30

Andreas K:

Stopping the building of this mosque would be the best revenge here. They care about that.

Then the media and the leftists will scream “racist!” again and everyone will be quick to make sure the mohammedan crybabies will get what they want.

It’s happening here on a daily basis.

Take the Swiss ban on minarettes. The majority of the Swiss people was for it and at once the islamic world screamed murder and the rest of Europe quickly joined them.

Talk I hear from the UK and the Netherlands speaks already of armed resistance. Yep, in the liberal Netherlands a growing number of liberal Dutch people are thinking of picking up arms against this nonsense. Same in the UK. Similar things I hear from Germany where secret police reports leaked to the public suggest civil war, thanks to the mohammedans.

But let’s be tolerant, eh?

Andreas K.
August 21st, 2010 | 6:43 am | #34

Granny
August 21st, 2010 | 6:39 am | #32

Wading, pacifists allowed 12 million people to be slaughtered during WWII for the crime of being born “other.” Good “Christians”, most of them were.

And then there were those who put on their armor and went to war to stop it. . . .

Something tells me that the heroes who did their little bit to end the abominations of Hitler have a much better welcome waiting them than those who wrung their hands & pretended not to see.

Granny, that was a direct hit.

Pacifism has never stopped fascists. Chamberlain went all pacifist on Hitler, what was the result?

It allowed Hitler to build up his military might and to occupy two sovereign nations before the war even started.

Pacifism works only if everyone’s a pacifist.

A mohammedan following Mohammed’s orders won’t be impressed by it. He’ll just kill you and rape your wife and daughter, after which he’d enslave them.

Granny
August 21st, 2010 | 6:53 am | #38
Expat, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. At least this week. Not taking an action because you think it will give the muslims cause to complain virtually guarantees that you’ll be bowing to Mecca before you can spit. If they do not have “cause” to complain, they will find cause and if they cannot find it they will invent it as they have done innumerable times previously. If you don’t understand that, then you understand nothing at all.

Robert
August 21st, 2010 | 7:01 am | #43
This ideology is NOT a religion, it is a totalitarian regime of world domination. The terrorists are the front-line soldiers, receiving widespread financial and theological support. The rest submit to the dictates and profess piety while murder and mayhem are waged on behalf of world domination in their name.

This tyranny would only permit religions to exist as subservient, second-class citizens, and paying extra taxes.

To Wading Across, it seems as if you are not only preaching pacifism, but trying mightily to convince others to be so as well.

We’re all well aware of the Christian message of tolerance and good faith. Do that for too long, and you end up in bondage, or dead.

Ken
August 21st, 2010 | 7:02 am | #44

Arch
August 21st, 2010 | 6:25 am | #24
There is a group of people who can stop this outrage in its tracks – Union Labor.

Labor unions by definition hold out for more pay, they will eventually build it. Labor unions support the democrat party, who in turn support the moslems and sharia law. Don’t put any faith in the unions to do the right thing, they’ll disappoint you.

We all need to fight this attack on whatever front is available to us. This 911 victory hamosque is no different than a dog pissing and marking its territory.

If the moslems get their way burning flags will be the least of our problems.

Granny, thank you for your insight.

JR Dogman
August 21st, 2010 | 7:06 am | #45
This is a great idea. Yes, it’s a crude gesture to burn Korans; but Islam is hardly a refined faith. The majority of its followers are neither respectful nor tolerant of those of other faiths, and so they do not deserve our kind treatment.

As for the rare “moderate” Muslims (isn’t it sick that there’s such a term in common use? Sick, that we get excited when we hear a Muslim come out and call a terrorist organization a terrorist organization), I feel for them. It would be wonderful if Islam could be reformed as they hope, but I have my doubts, as for such to happen, Muslims worldwide would have to repudiate much of the Koran and the Hadiths. I myself am an agnostic; I practice no religion. But I know faith is important to most people. So, if moderate Muslims seek to maintain a relationship with God, perhaps they might find fulfillment by converting to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism — to any religion that does not divide the world into a House of Believers and a House of War.

Though in fact, a lot of moderate Muslims are already doing just that. We may not hear about it much, but the rumblings are there: conversions out of Islam are on the rise, and the trend looks only to increase. And no wonder: It must be a terrible burden for many Muslims, to feel obliged to hate and wage eternal war against non-Muslims in the name of God; and they must feel such tremendous relief, when at last they find a gentler, more personal and spiritual way to worship.

The Elector of Saxony
August 21st, 2010 | 8:03 am | #58

“Come to Europe and see it with your own eyes.”

Andreas, our media hides the situation in Britain and in Europe from us. During the Islamic insurrection in France, the media here reported “unemployed French youths are burning cars in the suburbs of Paris”. The murder of Theo Van Gogh was only reported on through the blog communities, and of course, anytime Geert Wilders or the BNP are mentioned…you guessed it. Nazis.

Individual Americans are smart, but collectively we are quite stupid. We are already allowing our borders to be overrun in an invasion that is destabilizing the economies of our Southwestern states, turning vast swaths of America into 3rd world hellholes that resemble Somalia today more than they do Houston or Los Angeles of 30 years ago. Yet, almost half of us mumble some nonsense about fairness and equality, and hope and pray that things will get better, and if they don’t? Well, we’ll get a taco while Rome burns.

Islam is coming in what can only be described as the second arm of a pincer movement, and yet even our conservative party wants to mouth the platitudes of “religion of peace”, equality, justice, diversity, freedom of religion, blah blah blah.

Our media is helping by hiding the fact that Islam is imposing its will on Europe and Britain so that we won’t insist upon stopping it here. I don’t care what my Lefts masters say, Islam is a barbaric, backward, vile tribe of people who should be kept away from us by any means necessary.

Granny
August 21st, 2010 | 8:39 am | #65
Chip, this is not just about spreading the Gospel. This is about your right to even have a Gospel to spread. This is, in fact, a war.

All during WWII, hundreds of thousands of our Jewish brethren made no attempt to lift a finger in self defense, in the name of these very same principles. It wasn’t just Chamberlain who tried to appease Hitler. It was Jewish communities all over Europe. It was people right here in the USA.

Our Founding Fathers & Mothers did not appease the British King. They fought for what they believed. The fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto, those who rebelled at Sobibor, the Bielski brothers, who walked into ghettos and rescued more Jews directly under the noses of Hitler’s minions that even Schindler saved – they all fought for what they believed in. And in every single case there were those to say that this was against religion, it wasn’t “correct”, that is was useless or crass or a stunt. And yet, they won.

There comes a time when you must not only pay lip service to what you believe, you must lay your property, your reputation and even your life on the line and fight for it. To do otherwise is to deny your belief. Our founders knew this. Those who won through in WWII knew this. Every generation must win freedom anew.

The members of this little backwater church have decided that their time has come to stand and fight. Every single time that we as a society allow ourselves to be cowed & silenced we deny the very principles on which we were built.

Gail F
August 21st, 2010 | 8:51 am | #71
Sorry, this is an idiotic thing to do. “Burn a Koran Day”??? Give me a break! That’s not free speech, that’s deliberate provocation, inciting unrest and inviting an attack.

Like all fights, the fight against the expansion of Islam requires prudence. This isn’t a prudent act it’s a STUPID one.

Granny
August 21st, 2010 | 8:58 am | #73
Sorry Gail – virtually ALL political speech is “free speech”. Even if it is provactive. In fact, political speech is the reason we have Freedom of Speech.

StrngernFiction
August 21st, 2010 | 9:25 am | #80
Wow there is so much to say regarding this topic. One of the most interesting discussions I’ve come across on the net.

For starters, this is a great example of how widespread the brainwashing is. To read some of these comments you’d think that Islam IS a religion of peace. Ah, but they don’t call it a cancer for no reason.

As would be the case for burning one of the Bamster’s autobiographies, the only legitimate argument for not burning the Koran, if these folks are truly aware of the consequences and still want to follow through with this, is that it would amount to bad PR and thus hurt our side and help the enemy (mooslims and the left). That is the ONLY reason, and that point is probably worth debating.

But it is my opinion that we are long past the point where we should be taking stands based on our principles (and like many others here have said islam is an obamination), letting the chips fall where they may and the sides be formed. So if these folks have their eyes open and want to take this courageous action, more power to them.

redc1c4
August 21st, 2010 | 9:31 am | #83
i don’t understand why anyone is worried about this event causing a problem, let alone some sort of violent response…..

after all, islam is a religion of peace.

bg
August 21st, 2010 | 9:50 am | #88
++

we are damned if we do, damned if we don’t..

we had better wake up & take sides..

fact is we cannot see the forest through the trees..

Islamists burn Churches, Bibles
& Christians around the Globe..

self defense & the turn the other cheek myth

There is a difference in giving up personal
revenge and confronting evil in self defense.

foreigners no longer come to assimilate themselves to the American way,
they come to demand that America not only assimilate to their way, but accommodate & assist them in their struggle to dominate US..

we must defend ourselves against evil, not assist
it by turning the other cheek against ourselves..

StrngernFiction
August 21st, 2010 | 10:32 am | #110
Granny and Andreas K, you’ve taken some real nice cuts on this thread. Here are some of the highlights for those who might have just tuned in:

Without the koran there wouldn’t have been 9-11. Yes, it’s that simple. – Andreas K

Why shouldn’t we burn it? Out of respect? Respect for what? Respect for a fascist ideology that hides behind the shield of religion? An ideology that, without this shield, would be banned right away in all civilized countries? – Andreas K

By the way. Faith and believe? That’s no argument against burning it. There were people who prayed to Hitler. Not for him. To him. There were people in Nazi Germany BELIEVING that Hitler was second coming of Jesus. It was their FAITH. – Andreas K

Something tells me that the heroes who did their little bit to end the abominations of Hitler have a much better welcome waiting them than those who wrung their hands & pretended not to see. – Granny

Pacifism works only if everyone’s a pacifist. -Andreas K

Not taking an action because you think it will give the muslims cause to complain virtually guarantees that you’ll be bowing to Mecca before you can spit. If they do not have “cause” to complain, they will find cause and if they cannot find it they will invent it as they have done innumerable times previously. If you don’t understand that, then you understand nothing at all. – Granny

Chip, this is not just about spreading the Gospel. This is about your right to even have a Gospel to spread. This is, in fact, a war. – Granny

There comes a time when you must not only pay lip service to what you believe, you must lay your property, your reputation and even your life on the line and fight for it. – Granny

Every single time that we as a society allow ourselves to be cowed & silenced we deny the very principles on which we were built. – Granny

bg
August 21st, 2010 | 10:35 am | #111
++

the enemy of civilization, as we have been repetitively warned by both anti-Islamist Muslims & non-Muslims in the know is Political Islam aka: Sharia Law… Islamism is a religious cult of POLITICS…

[Jasser founded AIFD in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in order to provide a Muslim American voice that would genuinely advocate and defend the founding principles of the U.S. Constitution. He has taken the fight against radical Islam to heart and sees it as a responsibility of all “true” Muslims. Where many U.S.-based Islamic organizations, such as CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America, claim to support the U.S. Constitution but provide dodgy answers and shoddy excuses for terrorism when the rubber meets the road, Dr. Jasser’s AIFD is based on the founding principles of the United States. Where CAIR’s rhetoric tends to create a tension between Americans and its Muslim members, the rhetoric of Jasser and AIFD refers to Americans as an “us” and not a “them.”

“I have always looked upon myself, long before 9-11, as a Jeffersonian Muslim, if you will,” Dr. Jasser answers when asked about his identification as a Muslim. “Along with the ideas of liberty as embodied in the works of our founding fathers, naturally emanating from that is a deep antipathy for Islamism (political Islam), salafism, jihadism, governmental sharia, and the global collectivist movement of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Terms such as “moderate,” “secular,” and “radical” are innately controversial as any group is able to contort them to mean what they want. For example, Jasser posits, the term “moderate” has become synonymous with being non-violent or anti-terrorism. But this is an oversimplification that blinds Americans to the very political ideologies -- which he identifies as “Islamism” -- that are the cogs and gears of terrorism.

“I know everyone is looking for an easy label to know the ‘good Muslim’ from the ‘bad Muslim,’” Jasser continues, “but ... I believe that the ‘anti-Islamist’ or at least ‘non-Islamist’ Muslims are on our side and the pro-Islamist Muslims, those who believe in the Islamic state and governmental sharia, are not on our side but on the side of political Islam.”]

rtwt..

anti-Islamist Muslims have been reaching out, they have been, and still are warning US… unfortunately, the powers that be are not only silencing them, but for all intents & purposes, are in communion with Islamists against them…

UPDATE 22 AUG 2010: Great article by Doug Giles regarding feminist active smears of Sarah Palin — whose life is the epitome of feminist ideals — while they are silent on Islamic Shari’a Law, which is the absolute antithesis of feminist principles:

Nope, the fems’ fixation remains on Palin. Palin is the threat. Palin is the She Devil. Palin is the one who gets the nasty jabs — and not Islam and the potential spread of Sharia from sea to shining sea.

I know what you fembots are thinking: Sharia can’t happen here, right? Cha? Yes, we’d never allow Muslims to take us back to Bedrock legislatively. And I’m equally sure that’s what our snaggle-toothed feminist cousins in the UK thought right up until September 2008.

Facts be damned, however. For the feminists, the menacing foe they have to stave off remains Sarah and not Sharia.

Last time I checked, liberal lassies, Mrs. Palin does not believe that …

- Women are inferior to men.

- Women should have fewer rights and responsibilities than Larry the Cable Guy.

- Women count for one-half of a dude in giving evidence in a court of law.

- Women should be horse whipped if they ever make their husband feel like a dork.

- Victoria’s Secret Miraculous Bra (with extreme level 5 cleavage) makes God angry.

- Women can’t say squat in regard to whom they’ll marry, what they’ll wear, where they’ll live, or whether or not they can divorce their cheating and/or abusive husband.

- Girls can be wed beginning at the ripe old age of frickin’ nine.

- Women should be cool with hubby having a couple of hoochies or female slaves on the side.

- Women, on the pretext of “honor,” should be locked up, isolated and unable to have a girls’ night out at Mango’s on Ocean Drive.

Yep, last time I checked, Miss Sarah ain’t down with the above, but you know who is? I’ll tell you (because your lack of Ground Zero Mosque angst is auguring for the return to the cave man era): the Crapslinger Extraordinaire, Ground Zero’s grand zero, male chauvinist Imam Abtool Rauf.

Another great article today in the American Thinker by Sally Humhorth: Islam is the New Communism

Paul Hsieh wrote an excellent article about America’s weakness in regards to the war against terrorists. However, he claimed that the mosque is distracting us from the real issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. I respectfully disagree. The real issue is that we are fighting a war with Islam. The mosque, rather than distracting America, has brought her full attention to it. [ ... ]

This is has been a difficult road, because Americans are benevolent and naïve concerning Islam. They are used to freedom of religion and they find it hard to condemn one. And that is precisely the problem, Americans see Islam as only a religion. It is not just a religion, it is also a sophisticated, detailed political ideology with the expressed goal of taking over the entire world by any means at its disposal, even if it includes lying and killing. Americans need to think of it as a social/political ideology, but they are so used to separating religion from politics (which was a first at the time of our country’s founding) that they keep giving Islam the benefit of the doubt.

Frank Langan, site superintendent from Queens working at ground zero, says he is on the fence on the matter. When construction workers started to protest working on the mosque, he made a statement that is typical of people who are undecided about this issue, “It’s a tough debate. I sympathize with workers’ position, but at the same time, you can’t single out all Muslims because of a small number of terrorists.” That would be like saying, you can’t single out all Communists because of a small number of Communists. They are all Communists if they subscribe to the Communist ideology, and just like Communism has an ideology, so does Islam. Any Muslim who is truly innocent, must renounce Islam like other courageous Muslims such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Wafa Sultan. Not to do so, means that he still considers us as the enemy and supports the downfall of the United States.

Separation of church and state is something we take for granted. Islam does not separate the two. And Islam is the new Communism.

The always excellent Andrew McCarthy has a great take on this issue as well, in his latest article (via BigPeace): Which Islam Will Prevail in America? — That is the real question at hand in the Ground Zero mosque debate.

The real battle for religious freedom lurks beneath the Ground Zero mosque controversy. It is sadly ironic that our public debate presents the mosque proponents as the partisans of liberty: That includes everyone from imam Feisal Rauf, the project’s sharia-touting sponsor, to President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, and the rest of the Islamist-smitten Left, to the GOP’s own anti-anti-terrorist wing. Yet, wittingly or not, when they champion this mosque and its sponsors, it is the agenda of an alien and authoritarian Islam that they champion — an Islam against which many American Muslims chafe.

When it comes to liberty, no one in this society has been given a wider berth than the Islamists, the purveyors of this authoritarian Islam, which is the mainstream Islam of the Middle East. Their vise grip on the American Muslim community has been cinched for two decades by the government, the media, and the academy. For our post-American ruling class, “Islamic outreach” means prostituting themselves for Saudi largesse; it means putting the “moderate” label on the Muslim Brotherhood — the Saudi-backed saboteurs whose American operatives boldly promise to “eliminate and destroy Western Civilization from within.”

The victims of this lethal charade include American Muslims. They, too, crave religious liberty and Western enlightenment. Our elites abandon them to the sharia-mongers. That freedom destroyers have been allowed to pose as freedom defenders ought to tell mosque opponents something: We have done a poor job of explaining the stakes.

[ ... ] By contrast, American Muslims grasp that 9/11 was an attack on their country, too. Their emerging leaders, such as Zuhdi Jasser and Steven Schwartz, have started organizations — respectively, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy and the Center for Islamic Pluralism — that promote freedom and offer Muslims an escape from the Brotherhood’s clutches. As Messrs. Jasser and Schwartz relate, American Muslims understand the significance of Ground Zero to our nation, to the families of those who were slaughtered, and to the enemy against whom we are still fighting. They know that, in contrast to the innate intolerance of sharia states, the United States opens its arms to people of all faiths, including Muslims. Like Ms. Manji, they are struggling, against daunting opposition, to forge an Islam that embraces Western values, that reveres religious faith but denies it temporal authority.

The Ground Zero mosque controversy is not about religious liberty for Muslims. It is about which Islam will thrive in the United States: the one that is fighting Americans, or the one American Muslims are fighting for.

In Only 7 Years, We’ve Gone from Simply Accepting Homosexuality to Finding a Right to Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S. Constitution

Justice Antonin Scalia warned this would happen when he wrote his dissent in the Lawrence v Texas case:

We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indiana’s public indecency statute furthered “a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality,” … State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” …

And he was exactly correct, despite the outcries from the GLBT movement at the time who called him a scaremonger and stated they had no interest in pushing same-sex marriage. Plain and simple, they lied. This has been their goal all along… not just to gain acceptance, but to push their lifestyle on the nation and force acceptance and promotion of their lifestyle in every aspect of our culture, from same-sex marriage to adoption to teaching the homosexual lifestyle in public schools to forcing acceptance in the religious community.

That said, this is a good comment (with which I agree completely) left in response to this post at AoSHQ:

“Similarly, a government cannot mandate what sort of sex is legal and what sex is illegal.”

That’s simply wrong as a matter of fact — as well as of policy. The law can and should prohibit many kinds of sexual activity. The last time I checked, adultery, for example, was still a crime in Maryland, Virginia, and D.C.

Incest, bestiality, rape, and other forms of sexual abuse are all still illegal (at least this week).

Here’s the problem with our contemporary approach to homosexuality: our culture cannot support a policy of toleration — toleration meaning leaving alone what we strongly disagree with. In our culture, it seems, it’s either complete prohibition or total acceptance. (It reminds me a bit of R.J. Neuhaus’s dictum: where orthodoxy is made optional, it will eventually be proscribed.)

This is how we go, in a matter of a few years, from a situation where half the states outlaw sodomy to a federal judge saying the Constitution not only permits but actually requires SSM.

Here are the reasons I oppose any public recognition of homosexuality:

(1) It’s unhealthy. This has been documented a thousand times over. The AIDS crisis was driven by an ocean of unsafe homosexual practices. But instead of AIDS ushering in a new Victorian era, as a sensible society would have had it, instead we’ve had a further weakening of sexual morality.

(2) Homosexuality is not a purely biological or genetic phenomenon. Twin studies have proven that (if it were purely genetic, then all identical twins would share the same sexuality — but they don’t). That means that there is a huge cultural component to it. If the culture supports it, then there will be more of it. Young people who are in an unsteady state with regard to their sexuality can very easily be tipped on to the wrong side.

(3) Homosexuality as a political movement has in the last few years made it its goals to attack the bedrock institutions of society: marriage and the military, the very institutions that protect women and children on the one hand and the nation on the other. Excuse me if I oppose those who threaten me and mine.

(4) Public acceptance of homosexuality and SSM permanently alters the understanding of marriage as the primary means of reconciling the sexes and of providing for the orderly procreation of children. I don’t say that homosexuals led on this front: the acceptance of contraception, abortion, and divorce led the way, but SSM seals the deal. There’s no going back from that change–short of apocalypse now.

(5) Lastly, there is a theological point: Acceptance of open homosexuality and SSM is basically a proclamation of atheism. It is a repudiation of all traditional religious belief about the distinctive and complementary nature of the sexes and about the universal moral law — the law of nature and of nature’s God. It is the establishment of unbelief and the disenfranchisement of the majority of religious believers in this country. Won’t I now be a thought criminal when I teach my children that homosexuality is wrong and SSM is a tragedy and a fiction?

Posted by: Leo Ladenson at August 20, 2010 04:34 PM

Catholic Pedophiles vs Muslim Terrorists

The liberal defense of the Ground Zero Victory Mosque is getting continuously more and more mind-numbingly ridiculous. And the liberal and MF-ing media defense of Obama’s support for the mosque is even moreso.

Case in point: in defending Obama against the public perception that he is a Muslim, the MF-ing media is now saying that he is even more a Christian than Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush:

The irony here: The big irony of this story: President Obama is more religious than Reagan or H.W. Bush ever was; in fact, he gets Bible verses sent to his blackberry EVERY DAY.

As a commenter at AoSHQ sarcasticly stated:

I get Viagra spam sent to my e-mail address every day, too. Doesn’t make me a pr0n star…

Posted by: Drumwaster at August 19, 2010 01:21 PM

Heh.

It really is no surprise that more and more Americans suspect that Obama is a Muslim. He has continuously mocked Christians and Jews; his entire background is full of associations with anti-Semites, Islamists and those who support Islam; and the only “church” he has ever attended was a Black Liberation Theology “church” which was/is anti-Semitic, anti-American and pro-Islam. Not to mention, Obama has made numerous statements of his admiration for and support of Islam and Muslims. As I stated on my Facebook today, imagine this scenario:

Imagine if Sarah Palin had said the following:

“I consider it part of my responsibility as Vice President of the United Stated to fight against negative stereotypes of Christianity wherever they appear”.

Think the MF-ing media would turn that statement into a major scandal? Damn right they would.

But, she never has stated anything like that. However, Barack Hussein Obama has stated the following:

“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United Stated to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear”.

And the MF-ing media said nothing about it.

Well, I actually could be wrong there. The MF-ing media probably did say something about it, but I’d bet anything that they addressed it in order to defend Obama on his statement. But, I would also feel 100% comfortable betting that the MF-ing media would not give similar treatment to Sarah Palin — or any conservative politician — were she to give a similar statement about Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism or even Mormonism.

And that’s because there is a despicable double-standard with liberals when it comes to religion. They abhor Christianity, Catholicism and Judaism — and, to a lesser extent, Mormonism, about which they only get upset when Mitt Romney comes on the scene or with regards to Proposition 8 in California — and make every effort to lie about, smear, mock, ridicule and spew vitriol at these religions at every chance they get. However, when it comes to Islam, they are 100% in support of this despicable, intolerant, totalitarian cult.

I started thinking about this while reading this post by Ace at AoSHQ: Email Response to a Rightie Suggesting We Support the Ground Zero Mosque

Has there been built a single Muslim museum of 9/11 atrocities with the message that this was wrong? Have there been powerful ecumenicals circulated of the Muslim religion taking any responsibillity or showing any shame for this?

I do not believe this happened in a vacuum: This happened because, as we’ve seen time and time again, defending terrorism, or explaining the NUANCES of murder, is far too common in Muslim circles. This creates an atmosphere of social acceptance and encouragement of terrorism.

Are most Muslims terrorists? Of course not. But, speaking among themselves, would most Muslims continue insisting this is a far more “complicated” issue than we in the West can comprehend?

I believe the answer is “Yes.” And yes, I think a majority. When clerics appear on tv and refuse to forthrightly and unambiguously repudiate terrorism, preferring instead to give a qualified statement of disfavor followed by a list of reasons why the West is to blame for our own murders, I have to imagine that these clerics are not free-lancing, but instead offering the basic sentiment of their congregation.

This Ground Zero Mosque has nothing within it to *disclaim* a glorification of 9/11. There is no museum for the dead; no exhibit showing the bloody fruit of religious extremism. It permits itself to be taken two ways — to the West, they will say “moderation” and “tolerance,” but will the more excitable elements within the religion get that message? Well, I don’t think so — because there’s nothing, nothing in these plans to expressly repudiate that.

The message remains open, open to differing interpretations, and I believe that’s by design — just as Imam Rauf’s nuanced views of organized murder are open to differing interpretations, one designed to placate the West, the other designed to offer succor and moral uplift to killers.

Yasser Arafat did this all the time, offering one message in English for his patrons in the West, and another one for his supporters in the terror cells of Palestine.

Enough, enough.

Ace is exactly correct. However, compare how liberals reacted to the pedophile scandal within the Catholic church and how they treat the entire Catholic Church to how liberals react to Islamic terrorism and how they treat Islam and Muslims in general.

With regards to the Catholic church pedophile scandal, at most about 10% of priests were involved in the scandal. People were rightly outraged not only with the actions of the priests themselves, but also with the lousy way the Catholic Church handled the issue. As a result, the Catholic Church as a whole was smeared and all Catholic priests were branded guilty by association based on this scandal.

Similarly, with regards to Islamic terrorism, at most about 10% of Muslims are terrorists. However, in contrast to the MF-ing media and liberal reaction to the Catholic priest pedophile scandal, they exhibited no outrage with Islam nor broad-brushing of all Muslims as terrorists. This despite the fact that Muslim leaders worldwide acted in a similarly poor fashion as the Catholic church in response to their scandal. In fact, instead of taking responsibility for the actions, Muslims leaders worldwide actually claimed victimhood and smeared anyone who criticized them as being irrational, even creating the phony term “Islamophobia”. Imagine if Catholic leaders had claimed victimhood and then deemed everyone who was smearing them after the pedophile scandal as “Catholiphobes”. Think they would have gotten away with that? Not on your life (and rightly so). Yet, this is exactly what Muslms and Islam are getting away with thanks to Liberals.

What I don’t understand at all is the fact that Islam is the intolerant, human rights violating, woman-oppressing religion that the liberals wrongly smear Christianity and Catholicism as being. Yet, liberals are in full support of Islam and have a seething hatred for Christianity and Catholicism. It makes absolutely no sense.

Ironically enough, there actually should be the terms “Christianphobe” and/or “Catholiphobe” to describe liberals, as their fear of these religions is ridiculously irrational. Meanwhile, “Islamophobe” is akin to the Left’s favorite discussion-stopping term “racist!” It is simply thrown around to shut down anyone who dares to expose the evils of the cult of Islam. A cult that includes subjugation and opression of women, “honor” killings, female genital mutilation, killing of apostates and opression and killing of homosexuals.

So liberals have an irrational hatred of a religion — Christianity — whose ideology welcomes women and homosexuals into its congregation, but simply stands against promiscuous sex and against redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Meanwhile, liberals respect and celebrate a religion — Islam — whose ideology believes in opressing women and killing homosexuals.

Maybe that’s why liberalism/progressivism/socialism/Marxism and Islam get along so well… they are all backasswards ideologies.

Once again, Ace states it well:

What it’s about is the utter shamelessness of this. The utter refusal for anyone involved in this grotesquerie to exhibit the sense of decorum and taste that even animals possess and evaluate what impact their designs may have on other people, including the direct victims of radical, triumphant Islam.

Shamelessness.

I would suggest that Cordoba House fixate itself less on selling Islam to the West and more on selling Western values of anti-terrorism, render-unto-Caesar, and tolerance to Islam.

Were they actually doing that, I would support this — wholeheartedly!

But they’re not. Next to a hole in the ground created by Muslim excess and Islamic equivocation over the rightfulness of murdering the infidel, they want to erect and advertisement — not for peace, not for understanding, not for dialogue, not for anti-terrorism — but just for Islam.

And they didn’t bother to ask if anyone would have a problem with this, and that’s because they never cared. It was never about that — it was about, just as suspected, erecting a trimuphal tower to the might of Islam.

And they didn’t ask about that, and now that people have — since they weren’t asked in private, we have to tell them in public — they still don’t care.

So don’t tell me this is about tolerance and moderation and building bridges.

This is about a shameless attempt to grab up a piece of property on the cheap, a piece of property in downtown Manhattan that is only on the market at all because of the actions of some Muslims, and the shamelessness of other Muslims in plunking down cash of dubious sourcing to purchase the land at jet-fuel fire-sale prices.

Exactly.

This commenter summarizes the issue it well:

For Kat (and liberals) history begins when they wake up each morning.

You see Kat…. the headchoppers have been roaming the globe targeting women and children in marketplaces for over 30 years, with impunity.

And US citizens have lived peacefully with Muslims for 30 years. They know they have nothing to fear from us, if we were calm on 9/12, and calm for the last 10 years… they know that Americans are no threat to them or their mosques.

This provocation at GZ is a deliberate attempt to desecrate our war dead…. they started this…… not us.

Posted by: pam at August 19, 2010 02:54 PM

A-freaking-men to this:

They will do this.

Because they do not care.

Because our feelings, our sensitivities, are irrelevant.

They will use the freedom of a Western philosophy that they largely treat with disdain as a justification to do the shameless, and demand our tolerance.

But one good thing will hopefully come out of this. Once you bite that apple, and proclaim proudly, “I do not care whom is hurt, or whom I insult, it is my RIGHT!” you cannot go back. You proudly proclaim that you have the *right* to be as big an a**hole as you want and gosh darn it you are going to do it, suddenly when people treat you rudely you have no argument, no appeal to sensibility and shame.

Because tomorrow, the next day and the next, more of those little minor grievances to Islam, that really amount to nothing, that many in the religion wail about without end, they will occur.

Denial of official recognition of Sharia law.
Artist renderings like Draw Mohammad day.
Literature like the Satanic Verses.
Comedy like episode 201.

And when you wail, and cry about the sanctity of your religious beliefs and make that appeal for sensitivity. An intemperate mass will point at that building and say “F#ck You!”

For once you have given up your shame, you cannot demand it from others. So go ahead, bite that apple, and watch your perfect little garden disintegrate; open that box, and loose the trappings of a free society upon yourself in earnest for the first time.

Who’s with me in asking, that Comedy Central, in order to promote tolerant and peaceful outreach to the Muslim community, re-air episode 201 without censorship? I’m in the mood for a good laugh at Islam’s expense right about now.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 19, 2010 03:10 PM

UPDATE 20 AUG 2010: Great article at The American Thinker on this topic. (Even better that it references one of my all-time favorite shows, Seinfeld. heh)

Of course, none of that makes any sense — and that becomes clearer and clearer to more and more Americans under the microscope of the Ground Zero Mosque issue. And it’s not the mosque issue alone, of course. As theorized by J.R. Dunn, that could simply be the tipping point.

There’s the skipping of the Boy Scout’s 100th Anniversary Ceremony. There’s the golf instead of church almost every Sunday. There’s the “clinging to their guns and religion” comment. There’s the anti-Israel comments and policies. And on and on.

So now we have a president haunted by the idea that he is really a Muslim — and not a Christian at all. How delicious it is that his blatantly secular liberal supporters are totally impotent at fighting this battle for him — given that so many Americans take faith seriously?

And going back to Wright’s Trinity Church will not help. There will be no Jesus Cred available there. Listen to the tapes or order the books. You will simply find Black Liberation Theology and Marxism and so on. Jesus? Not so much.

So Americans will likely continue to think of Obama as a Muslim in increasing numbers. But hey — “not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

Obama is Not the President, He is the Ayatollah of America

Heh. Great comment in response to this post at “This Ain’t Hell” regarding Obama (once again) celebrating Islam: I’m Just Sayin’…

Adirondack Patriot Says:
August 13th, 2010 at 10:59 pm

Where was Obama on the issue of the Mojave Desert Cross, which was located on private property?

Guess it was the wrong religion.

And when it came to the Israelis building apartments in East Jerusalem, Vice President Bite-Me and Secretary of State Clinton both condemned the plan, even though it was entirely legal and located on Israeli land.

Guess it was the wrong religion.

He’s not the President. He’s the Ayatollah of America.