Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August, 2010

And From Piece of Work In Progress, we have this disturbing video.

I have no love for the LaRouchies. I generally think of them the same way I think of Progressives and other Statists, but this did not sit well with me…a little too much “SHUT UP!” made manifest, I think.

Read Full Post »

Because an hour and half away from my home, I can get all of this in the same 24 hour period:

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

I give my fellow Hostage Rosetta the Impaler a bad time.  Sometimes, he even deserves it.  And then, in a fit of uncharacteristic sobriety, he manages to bang out something not only worth reading, but linking.  Today is one of those days.

From his new masterpiece, Open Letter to Moderate Muslims:

Assuming that you exist, we are to believe that you are the mainstream of the Muslim community as opposed to your extremist brothers that preach hatred from your houses of worship, kill women and homosexuals as sport, detonate bomb belts at weddings and fly planes into buildings.

This is an open letter appeal to you in regards to what has become known as the “9-11 Mosque”.

If your desire is to live in peace with America, a country that has already welcomed more than 2,000 Islamic houses of worship and over 200 in New York alone, you must find a different location for this planned Islamic center.

If your desire is for war with America, then you should proceed as planned.

Go.  Get over there and read the whole thing.  NOW.

Read Full Post »

The Reaction to This Was Muslim Tolerance In Action

 

The Washington Examiner goes toe-to-toe with TIME and its conclusion that Americans are “Islamophobic”, and drags the accusation kicking and screaming into the brutal light of reality.

But, as the article concedes, there has been no increase in violence against Muslims. In reality, Americans remain fastidiously tolerant of all religions, even one that inspired 19 fanatics to hijack four commercial airliners on 9/11 and kill more than 3,000 Americans in the bloodiest attack in our nation’s history. Time requires a peculiar sort of blindness to see so much imagined intolerance in America — especially based solely on “anecdotal evidence” — while nearly ignoring the religious intolerance in most Islamic countries. A group of triumphalist Muslims seeks to erect an Islamic center near Ground Zero in a city that already has 100 mosques, and they face, at worst, disapproval, stern looks and calls to relocate their project.

Its been a tough year for the Left.

The Race Card? Maxxed Out.

The Bigotry Claim? Rejected.

And the self-loathing Moral Equivalency Play? Over before it starts:

Contrast this with a news report by journalist Mindy Belz in the current issue of World magazine, concerning Afghanistan’s small community of Christian converts. Belz describes how an Afghan television station recently broadcast a video of a baptismal service, sparking riots in the streets of Kabul and leading to the arrest of 25 Christians. Nobody knows at this time the fate of those arrested. Because it is illegal for Muslims to convert in Afghanistan — as it is in most Islamic countries — people who choose any other faith face the death penalty. Adherents of other religions, meanwhile, are subject to official discrimination and persecution, despite guarantees to the contrary in Afghanistan’s constitution. Thus, the plight of Christians is shared in many Islamic countries by Buddhists, Baha’is, Hindus and Zoroastrians.

And one more kick to the crotch, for good measure:

As Time puts it, it is wrong to “conflate Islam with terrorism and savagery.” But the world must be dealt with as it is and not as we wish it were. That requires us to accept the reality that Muslim nations are the most religiously intolerant places on Earth, and that a startling number of Islamic clerics worldwide still refuse to condemn violence against nonbelievers. In contrast, Americans who oppose the mosque are not even demanding that its developers be arrested or harmed in any way for their beliefs. They ask only that the mosque developers voluntarily show common sense, decency and sensitivity for America’s loss on 9/11.

But it isn’t the same muslims who flew the planes into the towers, so it should be hunky dorey, right?

Read Full Post »

Moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity?  Not even close.  King Shamus of Baldilocks eviscerates this silly leftist meme.

Here’s just a taste…

What would it take to make Christianity the moral equivalent to Islam?

There would have to be groups of Christians that call for violent acts in the name of Jesus.  It could not just be the rare lone gunman-type with a Bible stuffed into his drawers and a raging desire to kill people for Christ wilding out.  You’d need to have densely populated structures incorporated for the purpose of fomenting Jesus-inspired terror.  These organizations would be populated by leaders that call for Christians to use terror to spread Christianity.  The power of Christ would compel the members of these religious groups to do violence to other humans.

And for Mayor Bloomie and the rest of the Useful Idiots, no, he isn’t done yet.  He doesn’t care how much it hurts.  Go read the hold thing.

Read Full Post »

David Limbaugh isn’t usually one of my favorite columnists, but he’s put his finger firmly on the flaws of the Prop 8 decision by Judge Walker:

He seeks to deconstruct (and then reconstruct) the definition of traditional marriage by describing its constituent elements and showing how those elements can be applied equally to heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage, thus concluding there is no difference between the concepts. It’s as if he compared my DNA with any of yours and concluded that because 99.9 percent of human DNA is the same in everyone, you and I are the same person.

Walker takes the various principles the courts have enunciated through the years concerning marriage and the right to marry, labors to show there’s no logical reason to differentiate in the application of these principles between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage and, presto chango, concludes that these legal precedents demand that the definition be changed to conform to his worldview.

All the while, he denies he’s changing anything.[Emphasis Added]

He states, for example, that “marriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history of the United States.” It requires that two parties “give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household,” and that “the spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents.”

He cites case law affirming that “the state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace,” and that “the state respects an individual’s choice to build a family with another and protects the relationship because it is so central a part of an individual’s life.”

Because he believes these statements can be applied equally to homosexual unions, such unions, in his opinion, also fit our concept of marriage. The problem with that is that he can’t artificially extend to homosexual unions ideas that were, by their context, intended to apply only to heterosexual marriage.

The fact that two types of unions contain certain similar attributes does not negate the fact that at their core, those unions are fundamentally different. For example, just because heterosexual unions also include the free consent of both parties doesn’t mean the court can be read to have equated those unions to heterosexual marriage.

And the Examiner Editorial Board points out that the good Judge’s objectivity on this topic isn’t above reproach:

Yet, this latest decision marks the third time Walker has been rebuked by appellate courts since he was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan. Earlier this year, after Walker required disclosure of Prop 8 supporters’ internal communications, the Ninth Circuit cut him off by issuing a highly unusual writ of mandamus directing him to stop what would clearly be an excessive and unnecessarily intrusive discovery process. That the higher court used such a writ — defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as indicating a failure to “perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly” — is suggestive of the appeals panel’s opinion of Walker’s jurisprudence. The second instance came shortly thereafter when the U.S. Supreme Court blocked Walker’s plan to televise the proceedings in his courtroom prior to issuing his ruling. Had he been allowed to proceed, the case would have become little more than a circus.
Dude.  DUDE
 
When the Ninth Circus has to tell you to dial it back, in a Writ of freaking Mandamus, you really shouldn’t be hearing the case.

 

Read Full Post »

Up until now, I haven’t really let go with a full commentary on the Ground Zero Mosque, although I have commented here and there about it.  But with the President’s misleading remarks about it at the White House Ramadan Iftar last night, any doubts that it is a national issue have been erased.

September 11, 2001.  

Four domestic airliners are hijacked by acolytes of the Religion Of Peace, and true to their religion, they turn them into weapons.  One crashes into the Pentagon, one ends up making a wreckage strewn hole in the Pennsylvania countryside, and the remaining two each crash into one of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan.   These last two are the ones that cause a nation to hold its breath, until the towers fall, dispatching 3000+ souls in mere moments, including scores of heroic first responders, and spreading a cloud of dust and ash over most of the island, while a nation watched the tragedy unfold through its tears on television broadcasts from coast-to-coast.   

This is what murder on a grand scale looks like.
A Cloud for the Dead
The Consecration Of Hallowed Ground

  

A Legacy Of Destruction

 It was a galvanizing event. A moment when Americans volunteered their blood, their money, and for some, their lives. All to assist in recovery after the first attack on American soil in 60 years.And now, almost 10 years later, there still is no memorial to those who died there.  And on an island where there are 30 mosques already, an Islamic group believes that it is imperative for them to build a 13 story mosque less than a block from one of the most stunning examples of their faith in action for the purpose of “building bridges”.   This imperative, aside from being an affront to good taste, overrides the sensitivities of the families of those who died there, and resists the offer of the governor to obtain for them a suitable location elsewhere.  

City officials, eager to deflect the criticism of a righteously outraged public, claim that nothing can be done…something that anyone who has contended with zoning boards across the country knows to be untrue.  The muslims themselves continue to preach on tolerance, understanding, and sensitivity, while demonstrating that they only expect that to work one way…their way, as Greg Gutfeld so ingeniously demonstrated.The usual suspects acted on their typical M.O., dodging the real issue by pretending not to have an opinion, or like my friend Rutherford, playing coy by saying that it isn’t appropriate to place the mosque in the graveyard, but how close is too close?  And all the while, the one person in the office with the gravitas to craft an acceptable compromise remained silent, too distracted by fund-raisers, his golf game, and a never-ending series of vacations to intervene in a matter that called for his intervention.   

Until yesterday.

The President’s remarks at a Ramadan Iftar held at the White House:

 Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities – particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.  

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.   

This is what happens when a leader fails to be a statesman, and simply remains a lawyer.  It isn’t about freedom of religion.  Governor Patterson’s offer of assistance in obtaining another site should be ample proof of that, if indeed the other 30 mosques on the island are not.  And it isn’t about what is legal.  That was never the question.  The question is, and remains “What is right?”. By spinning the issue into what it is not, the President dishonors the dead, and insults the living. 

 Never one to resist the chance to lecture to those he holds in contempt, or to miss an opportunity to damn Americans by implication, he wraps himself in a document that he earlier condemned as flawed, and implies that we are the hypocrites for not wanting a religion soaked in blood to hoist a banner atop the site of its greatest contemporary triumph, willfully turning a blind eye to the rank hypocrisy demonstrated by the backers of the mosque earlier this week. 

It would be easy to dismiss this as another example of how 52% of the electorate chose a very small man to fill very large shoes in November of 2008.  It would be easy to point to this and say that once again he missed the opportunity to represent all the American people.  It would be easy to say that he opted for what was easy, to turn the argument to the law, and then boldly stand behind it, wagging his finger at the unwashed hoi poli who can see the real issue very plainly.  I’m no longer convinced that these things are correct.  I think that he decided a long time ago that the courageous play was to stand against America.  Whether it is a contempt for those who are “bitterly clinging to their Bibles and guns” or the assertion that Americans can no longer live the way they have been, or his disdain for American Exceptionalism, his eagerness to “fundamentally transform America”, or the need to constantly apologize for us while travelling.    

The legal excuse is merely a pretext.  A means to diffuse criticism while allowing those who have no love for us to put their finger in our eye.  If the law mattered, then our tax dollars would not be refurbishing and building mosques overseas, because that would be indefensible here.  To do it elsewhere is unthinkable.  If the law mattered to him, this would not be occurring. 

Our submission to a faith foreign to this people is already under way.  It is being facilitated by the government, largely without your knowledge, and without your consent.  The Ground Zero Mosque is merely a provocation, a test of your awareness, and your resolve to resist the rule of outsiders.   Our willingness to be lectured to about tolerance and sensitivity by people who have no interest in reciprocating that which they would shame you into is all the warning you should need.  Changing the narrative about the real issue is merely another act of a surly teenager who continues to hand Mom and Dad’s valuables out the back door to waiting thieves, in an act of contempt and revenge.

Oh, and Rutherford?  You asked “How Close Is Too Close?”   

Look at the pictures from that day.  Look at the reach of that dust cloud…that dust that was all that remained of two skyscrapers containing 3000+ people.  Any place that dust reached is the resting place of people killed in the name of Islam, and they don’t deserve the insult of a mosque and calls to prayer over them, now or ever.

Read Full Post »

So while I was waiting for my laptop to boot up, I turned on the news for a minute. I started with Keef Olbermann, and his Worst Person In The World segment. While it was amusing to hear the Cornell Ag School grad rail against Rush as a drop out from Southwest Missouri State, I could feel my IQ dropping with each drop of spittle that flew from his diatribe darkened mouth. FOX is the next channel up on out Comcast band, so I switched, and watched Blago walking through the metal detectors at court today…something I do everyday without too much thought, and it occurred to me: Why, in the city of Chicago, would it be necessary for him to walk through a metal detector? After all, they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Why would an honest citizen like Blago be forced to go through that indignity? I mean, those gun laws make everyone safer, right? ;-)

Read Full Post »

…because the usual suspects would be all over that!

From the Washington Times:

Americans also may be surprised to learn that the United States has been an active participant in mosque construction projects overseas. In April, U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania Alfonso E. Lenhardt helped cut the ribbon at the 12th-century Kizimkazi Mosque, which was refurbished with assistance from the United States under a program to preserve culturally significant buildings. The U.S. government also helped save the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque in Cairo, which dates back to 642. The mosque’s namesake was the Muslim conqueror of Christian Egypt, who built the structure on the site where he had pitched his tent before doing battle with the country’s Byzantine rulers. For those who think the Ground Zero Mosque is an example of “Muslim triumphalism” glorifying conquest, the Amr Ebn El Aas Mosque is an example of such a monument – and one paid for with U.S. taxpayer funds.

The mosques being rebuilt by the United States are used for religious worship, which raises important First Amendment questions. U.S. taxpayer money should not be used to preserve and promote Islam, even abroad. In July 2009, the Office of the Inspector General published an audit of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) faith-based and community initiatives that examined whether government funds were being used for religious activities. The auditors found that while USAID was funding some religious activities, officials were “uncertain of whether such uses of Agency funding violate Agency regulations or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution” when balanced against foreign-policy objectives.

I guess that “wall of separation” only applies to Christians and Jews. 

On the other hand, I suppose we should be grateful.  The government is doing something productive with the money it is borrowing from China.  Just not something productive for Americans.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 381 other followers