Republican Party, Teabag Party and the Libertarian Party absolutely SUCK!

[Henry Hawk]

Perhaps, just to clue you in on a bit of why people may call B.S. on that whole line, is that Republicans (or conservatives as you like to call yourself) were just fine while the Republicans held control of the White House, and both houses of Congress for 6 years, spent money out the ying-yang, squandered a surplus, left the economy staggering and on the verge of collapse, yet they suddenly have a problem with government spending now that we have a black president in office. 

Something just doesn't quite wash there. 

See, that is what pisses me off.....NO!, we was just NOT fine while the Republicans held control of the White House, and both houses of Congress for 6 years...they DID spent money out the ying-yang...NO freakin arguement there.........NONE!!...........but, what is happening now makes that look like chump change..........seriously, I'm sick of ALL of them...........I have a handful of conservatives I feel like need to stay, but as far as I am concerned there are NOT enough conservatives IN Washington..........

and enough of the freakin race card bullshit..........that is showing signs of desperation by the left....THAT is all you have to stand on now, is try to make ANYBODY who disagrees with this POTUS as a bigotted racist..........and that is about as low as YOU can go.......

[Locutus]

See, that is what pisses me off.....NO!, we was just NOT fine while the Republicans held control of the White House, and both houses of Congress for 6 years...they DID spent money out the ying-yang...NO freakin arguement there.........NONE!!...........but, what is happening now makes that look like chump change..........seriously, I'm sick of ALL of them...........I have a handful of conservatives I feel like need to stay, but as far as I am concerned there are NOT enough conservatives IN Washington..........

Pardon me if I'm incorrect, but I certainly don't recall your vociferous objections to it during the time that it was going on.  And lest you forget, a large measure of the initial spending done by this Congress and administration was necessary to keep the economy from derailing completely and leaving us completely up shit creek without a paddle.  Although I don't expect you to understand the ramifications of what would have happened had an AIG be allowed to fail. 

 

and enough of the freakin race card bullshit..........that is showing signs of desperation by the left....THAT is all you have to stand on now, is try to make ANYBODY who disagrees with this POTUS as a bigotted racist..........and that is about as low as YOU can go.......

Oh, I'm not desperate at all HH, and there is certainly enough ammunition to use against the Republicans without even mentioning race.  However, make no mistake.  Racism is still alive and well in this country and it has become more clear since Obama's election.  Whether you've chosen to see it or not doesn't negate the fact that it's there.  They may try and perfume the pig and say that it isn't, but it doesn't change things one iota.  Much of the deep seated hatred of Obama (particularly from the birthers and such) has its roots in one thing.  Racism.

[Exterminator]

Pardon me if I'm incorrect, but I certainly don't recall your vociferous objections to it during the time that it was going on.

Becuase it didn't exist; Henry is trying to rewrite his own history much in the same way his hero Newt tries to do. 

Oh, I'm not desperate at all HH, and there is certainly enough ammunition to use against the Republicans without even mentioning race.  However, make no mistake.  Racism is still alive and well in this country and it has become more clear since Obama's election.  Whether you've chosen to see it or not doesn't negate the fact that it's there.  They may try and perfume the pig and say that it isn't, but it doesn't change things one iota.  Much of the deep seated hatred of Obama (particularly from the birthers and such) has its roots in one thing.  Racism.

Exactly, and pretending like it is anything other than that makes anyone doing so complicit.

[The Troll]

  What in hell is wrong with the Rapture Right Christians Wingnuts, Teabagger Party people who are ranting and raising hell with Obama for saying that the Muslims have the right to build their church on private property.

  Don't the stupid religious assholes know that when Obama took the oath of presidency he swore to defend the Constitution.

  Religious bigotries supreme.  I wonder how the Republican Party attack dogs will try to take advantage of this.  The hypocritical bastards.

[me]

  What in hell is wrong with the Rapture Right Christians Wingnuts, Teabagger Party people who are ranting and raising hell with Obama for saying that the Muslims have the right to build their church on private property.

  Don't the stupid religious assholes know that when Obama took the oath of presidency he swore to defend the Constitution.

  Religious bigotries supreme.  I wonder how the Republican Party attack dogs will try to take advantage of this.  The hypocritical bastards.

Because they are building it so close to ground zero when they could have chosen a ton of other sites.  If they truly understood and respected the families of those who lost their lives that day they wouldn't have even considered building there. 

[Palehorse]

Because they are building it so close to ground zero when they could have chosen a ton of other sites.  If they truly understood and respected the families of those who lost their lives that day they wouldn't have even considered building there.

It is not government property, it is private property. That argument doesn't hold water and relies upon the emotional upheaval it drives to obtain footing. There is no legal reason to deny a religious organization the right to build there.

[me]

It is not government property, it is private property. That argument doesn't hold water and relies upon the emotional upheaval it drives to obtain footing. There is no legal reason to deny a religious organization the right to build there.

I'll say again, if they truly respected the feelings of the families of those who lost their lives that day they wouldn't have chosen that spot.  It is an in your face thing and nothing more.  It may not be legally wrong but it is wrong just the same.

[Palehorse]

I'll say again, if they truly respected the feelings of the families of those who lost their lives that day they wouldn't have chosen that spot.  It is an in your face thing and nothing more.  It may not be legally wrong but it is wrong just the same.

Why?

[me]

By Charles Krauthammer

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

When we speak of the World Trade Center site as hallowed ground, we mean it belongs to those who suffered and died there — and that obliges the living to preserve the dignity and memory of the place.

That's why Disney's early 1990s proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition — wiser than me because at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture — fearing vulgarization of the Civil War. It's why the commercial viewing tower right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the U.S. Park Service. It's why the idea of putting up a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their mission to pray for the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place, it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story Islamic center in lower Manhattan as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation."

Bloomberg was inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the Islamic center that ground zero is unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamic radicals either excusing or celebrating Sept. 11, he would not support its construction.

But, why not? By the mayor's view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? The government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show "special sensitivity" to anyone about anything.

Moreover, as a practical matter, who is to say that the Islamic center won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi — spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Detroit airline bomber, and former imam at a Virginia mosque attended by two of the Sept. 11 terrorists? An Aulaqi preaching at ground zero is a sacrilege.

Ground zero is the site of the greatest mass murder in American history, perpetrated by people of a particular orthodoxy in whose cause they died and killed. Of course, they represent only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more intrinsically terroristic than present-day Germany is Nazi — yet, despite contemporary Germany's innocence, no German of good will would think of proposing a German cultural center at Treblinka.

I wonder about the good will behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's proposal.

He has called U.S. policy "an accessory to the crime" of Sept. 11. When asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, he replied, "I'm not a politician. ... The issue of terrorism is a very complex question."

America is a free country where you can build what you want — but not anywhere. We have zoning laws. And, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz and no Islamic center at ground zero. Build it anywhere but there.

The governor of New York offered to help find land to build elsewhere. If Rauf were seeking a way to build bridges, his ostensible hope for the structure, he would accept the offer.
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/08/16/opinion/kkrauthammer_816081410.txt

[Henry Hawk]

It is not government property, it is private property. That argument doesn't hold water and relies upon the emotional upheaval it drives to obtain footing. There is no legal reason to deny a religious organization the right to build there.

I agree there is NO legal reason to deny them of this "privilidge"...they have that "right" to do so...but it does NOT mean it is the "right" thing to do...it is a very tacky, and classless act, with outrageous disrespect to those of that city, and across this nation.....there is ONE right that is loud and clear, is the right to speak out against this....and over 70% of American Citizens are doing so as we speak..

[me]

Ground Zero Mosque And Implications For Religious Freedom
SUNDAY, 15 AUGUST 2010 14:49 WRITTEN BY DANIEL GREENFIELD


At an Iftar dinner in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama proclaimed that he supports the building of the Ground Zero mosque as part of his "unshakable commitment to religious freedom". Which of course sounds very noble and good, until you ask a single question, Where is the religious freedom in the Muslim world?

Obama has made the case for Islam in America, on the grounds that America's religious diversity promotes the religious freedom of all. Islam no less than any other belief system. Yet if introducing Islam into America promotes religious freedom, then why is there no religious freedom in the Muslim world? Why are churches firebombed in Malaysia because Christians presumed to use the word Allah? Why are non-Muslims forbidden to enter the city of Mecca, from which Jews and Christians were ethnically cleansed by Mohammed? Why are Coptic Christians being oppressed and humiliated by the Egyptian government? Why are Muslims murdering Buddhist teachers in Thailand? There are a thousand examples, all of which add up to a single conclusion-- Muslims demand religious freedom, yet are not willing to give it to others.

This has ominous implications for the prospects of religious freedom in America. Nor is this a theoretical issue. Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution. The recent case of Malmo, highlights the fact that Islam actually threatens religious diversity. Simply to protect themselves, Malmo's 650 Jews were forced to spend half a million Kronor a year. The situation is much the same across Europe, as Jewish institutions are forced to become fortresses. What the Nazis did not succeed in accomplishing in Europe, the rise of Islam seems to be doing.

Nor are Christians safe, they are simply in the majority for now. But Christians and other religions were once in the majority in the Middle East. Until they were massacred and repressed by the tidal wave of Islam. Today the religions that were once a majority, whether it is Jews in Israel, Christians in Byzantium or Zoroastrians in Persia, have become oppressed minorities. Some may take comfort in the notion that "It can't happen here." But the fate of Europe's Jews, shows that it can happen here. And that it is happening here.

Religious freedom requires that the religions which enjoy it, agree to tolerate each other. If they do not, instead of religious freedom, there is a religious war.

Looking at the religious map of the world today, Islam has grown in non-Muslim countries, while non-Muslims continue to dwindle in Muslim countries. And even the number of non-Muslim religious believers in non-Muslim countries dwindles, when Muslims are introduced into the equation. If Islam were a fish in a fish tank, it's clear that it would be a piranha. If you put it into the fish tank, very soon you have a lot of Islamic piranhas and only a handful of other fish that survive, only because the piranhas need to keep some of them alive in order to feed on them. If you don't like that picture, take an honest look at the Muslim world, with its dominant Muslim caste and inferior non-Muslims living in the cracks of their walls, and draw a better one.

The question is do we want to import this into the United States? Because history and current events show that there is no better way to insure the end of religious freedom in the United States, than to introduce Islam into the picture. Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom. And those who fail to learn from that past, will be doomed to repeat it.

Obama attempted to position his remarks as being against religious intolerance, but yet he spoke in defense of religious intolerance. Because what greater act of religious intolerance could there than building a mosque in a place where Muslims had previously murdered 3000 Americans? Nor are such actions unique on the part of Muslims, who have routinely hijacked other people's sacred areas and structures to make a statement about Islamic supremacism. If Islam were truly as tolerant as Obama claims, its adherents would not attempt to build a massive mosque complex that they do not actually need in this place.

And what of the Iftar dinner itself which Obama spoke at. The Iftar dinner is the nightly break in the fast of Ramadan. And what is Ramadan? It commemorates the revelation of the first verses of the Koran to Mohammed. And those first verses of the Koran conclude with, "Guide us the straight way, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)." That same verses appears in the daily prayers of Muslims.

Seen in that light, Ramadan marks the beginning of Islam's intolerance for other religions, as embodied in its scriptures. When Muslims schools teach pupils that Jews are apes and Christians are pigs, they are relying on the wellspring of hate already in the Koran. A non-Muslim country holding an event to mark any aspect of Ramadan is as mad as sheep celebrating their own slaughter.

Let's look at how some of the participants in Obama's Iftar dinner embody that famous Islamic tolerance. There is Hassan Jaber, Executive Director of ACCESS. "ACCESS paid for commercial driving lessons and attempts at hazardous material hauling certificates for two men convicted as part of the Detroit Al-Qaeda sleeper cell. Testimony at their trial revealed that the men planned to bomb the MGM Grand Casino and a host of other prominent US sites." (Debbie Schlussel). Access has funded a conference at which Sami Al Arian, of Islamic Jihad, spoke. There's also Ingrid Mattson, who is against any reform of Islam and places loyalty to Islam before America. There's MPAC's Salam Al Marayat, who has defended Hezbollah who has been described as having "disturbing sympathies for Islamic terrorists". Dalia Mogahed, an apologist for Sharia law and the subjugation of women. And those are only some of the names in attendance.

Finally let's turn to Obama's own enthusiasm for religious freedom. That enthusiasm was markedly absent when Caplin and Drysdale lawyers were intimidating conservative. churches. They even intimidated Jewish non-profit groups who wanted Palin to speak at an Anti-Ahmadinejad rally, by threatening their tax exempt status. Mortimer Caplin was a major supporter of Obama, and part of Obama for America. But Obama was not upset when his supporters were silencing the religious freedom of Christians and Jews.Which suggests that his "Unshakable Commitment to Religious Freedom" is actually rather shaky indeed. And appears to be reserved for Muslims. Which would reaffirm what Obama himself said in his own book; "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction".

His endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque is another case of Obama standing "with the Muslims" and against Americans of all other faiths, who want the freedom to practice their religion in peace without harassment, persecution and violence from the followers of Islam, who believe that all other religions are invalid, and that all forms of government and law that are not governed by the Koran, have no right to exist.

Religious Freedom must be defended, from all those who would take it away. The history of Islam is the history of genocide, oppression and ethnic cleansing practiced by Muslims against non-Muslims. Islam is the death blow to religious diversity and freedom. And nowhere better is that seen than Mecca, a city that was once a mecca for different religions, which is now barred to all but Muslims. Mecca is the Muslim ideal. And it exemplifies what they hope to accomplish.

Meanwhile, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, the Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, has praised terrorism saying "Allahu Akbar! These are signs of victory: Jihad has remained the only wining card and the light of hope in the hands of those sincere people among the Ummah". He has called Jews "scum of the earth" and "rats of the world", Christians, "cross-worshipers" and filled with "rotten ideas and poisonous culture" and had similarly charming things to say of Hindus. This is how the world looks from Mecca, the heart of Islam. And this is why Islam and religious freedom are incompatible.

Obama concluded his remarks by saying: "And we can only achieve "liberty and justice for all" if we live by that one rule at the heart of every great religion, including Islam — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us." But that is not the rule at the heart of Islam. And this is not the first time that he has tried to sell that particular lie. But Islam never equates Muslims with non-Muslims, as Obama pretends it does. Its offer of brotherhood is only open to fellow Muslims. Its tolerance is only for fellow Muslims. And that is at the heart of the problem. And it is why the rise of Islam means the end of liberty and justice for all. To stand for liberty and justice is to take a stand against Islamic bigotry.



Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a columnist born in Israel and currently living in New York City.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/201008157029/ground-zero-mosque-and-implications-for-religious-freedom.html

[Palehorse]

This is America and our principals, in particular the one surrounding religious freedom, apply equally to everyone.

I wonder if you would feel the same way if it were a Christian group building upon that same privately owned piece of land?

[me]

This is America and our principals, in particular the one surrounding religious freedom, apply equally to everyone.

I wonder if you would feel the same way if it were a Christian group building upon that same privately owned piece of land?

Under the same circumstances, yes.

[Palehorse]

Under the same circumstances, yes.

Please elaborate surrounding circumstances. Nothing changes whether it is a Christian, Muslim, or Satanist group. Religion is religion.

So you are saying you would be opposed if this group sold the property to a Christian group who wanted to do the same thing with the property?

[The Troll]

   "ME"  you full of bull shit,  the mosque is four blocks away and unless you get way, way up you can't even see the damn thing.  I am an atheist and I don't give one damn about religion.

  But, I do give a damn about our Constitution and freedom of religion is in and any religion is protected by it.  To hell with what supposedly 70% of the so call Americans that want to do away with our Constitution.  You Republicans are always screaming about being free and the freedom of the American Constitution.

   All of this is a Red Herring to get the sheeple minds off of how bad the Republican Party has screwed the American people and all of the jobs they destroyed.  Plain and simple, it's all bull shit.