“There is no question there is a concerted effort to make [the Ground Zero Mosque] a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded.”
— Nancy Pelosi
Calls to investigate the funding for those proposing the $100 million “Cordoba House” have fallen on deaf ears, though, as New York’s Mayor Mike Bloomberg has described such an investigation as “un-American.”
So it is “un-American” to investigate who’s footing the bill for the Ground Zero Mosque, but Pelosi has no problem calling for an investigation into the funding of the mosque’s opponents.
Speaking of opponents, did you know that Nancy Pelosi has a Republican challenger? You should investigate him. And fund him.
LOS ANGELES — Frankly, I didn’t think it could happen, and blogged to that effect. But when I stopped by for a cup of coffee with Evan Sayet, he told me that it was entirely possible to attend the Pamela Geller/Robert Spencer event at 7 p.m. and still make it to LAX in time to catch the red-eye flight back east. So I did.
Pamela Geller and America’s Favorite Funny Man, Evan Sayet.
Pamela Geller was in an especially good mood, considering the latest news about the Ground Zero Mosque. And she was laughing about the fact that Charles Johnson was going totally berserk:
Something about a “dish best served cold,” y’know. Hey, CJ, is Harry Reid a “hateblogger,” too?
Well, my flight starts boarding in five minutes. Goodbye, Hollywood — I’m going home!
“I’m all for seeing ecumenical centers at all sorts of hallowed sites, like Mecca, Medina, and Ground Zero. Because if ‘tolerance’ and ’sensitivity’ are not omni-directional, then they may just be cheap talking points proffered by the nefarious.”
And our senior critic from the Left, Young4Eyes, replied:
Your point is moot.
It’s not a matter of any tolerance or sensitivity being omni-directional or not; I’ve heard this argument before and it strikes me as sadly devoid of any reason.
Our principles are not theirs. Dare I say that our standards are better? Of course.
Therefore any excuse making that seeks to equate their ways with ours is pathetic. WE abide by principles that distinguish us from their Sharia standards.
You fools, unwittingly of course, are playing along into Sharias intolerance by letting your emotions get the best of you.Your arguments state: well Sharia laws wouldn’t allow for religious freedom, so why should ours?
Because we are America.
Anything else reeks of the phony Conservatism you folks espouse.
Actually, the point is well-founded on a reasonable argument. I even expounded on the point here.
The notion of deciding what is and is not tolerance is a purely moral case.
I can espouse and follow as radical a flavor of Christianity as I care to, even dropping out to become an Amish farmer.
Do I get to drag you with me, though?
No, that would be unethical.
WE, in fact, do notabide by standards that distinguish us from Sharia. Sharia, from casual reads of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Andrew McCarthy, is a totalitarian, Borg-like system that, in full bloom, really doesn’t play well with notions like, say, Western Civilization.
And, no, I don’t think Christianity, and its individual moral choices and doctrine of individual salvation require a completely passive acceptance of being treated like a doormat. Furthermore, the notion that the US is a “Christian nation” is truly radical to me, for reasons stated in the previous sentence: Christianity is an individual, apolitical, moral endeavor. If you want to attend my church, study the Bible in the King James version, and build some argument whereby you think your point is tenable, fine.
Until such time, all I see is projection: “You fools, unwittingly of course, are playing along into Sharias intolerance by letting your emotions get the best of you.Your arguments state: well Sharia laws wouldn’t allow for religious freedom, so why should ours?”
Who is being denied religious freedom here? Who has explicitly stated “You cannot go to location X unless you are a member of Y faith”? What, specifically, is intolerant about requesting your own views on a matter as emotionally charged as a mass murder receive respect? And not lip service, but tangible action?
What about a church at Ground Zero that was destroyed, and has not been rebuilt, but may not be receiving equal consideration?
I realize you’re here to troll, Young4Eyes, but even you must admit that the Ground Zero Mosque is achieving exactly the opposite of its stated intent, and this Saul Alinsky “Hold the opposition to their standards” tactic is a barrel of hogwash.
Conservative blogger Pamela Geller, founder of a group called Stop Islamization of America and a vocal opponent of the mosque near Ground Zero, blasted Mr. Obama in a statement. The president, she said, “has, in effect, sided with the Islamic jihadists.”
It’s as if Obama is trying to help Pamela sell books — as is Hamas:
A leader of the Hamas terror group yesterday jumped into the emotional debate on the plan to construct a mosque near Ground Zero — insisting Muslims “have to build” it there.
Having Hamas on your side isn’t exactly a formula for success in American politics. Obama has screwed the pooch on this one. This morning I was watching MSNBC, where Rep. Martin Frost (D-Texas) was telling Obama to keep his presidential nose out of New York’s business and Pat Buchanan was opposing the mosque saying, “This is sacred ground!” Clearly, Pamela is winning this argument.
I’m all for seeing ecumenical centers at all sorts of hallowed sites, like Mecca, Medina, and Ground Zero. Because if ‘tolerance’ and ‘sensitivity’ are not omni-directional, then they may just be cheap talking points proffered by the nefarious.
On the other hand, it’s a shame to see this issue eat up so much mindshare. One wonders if that outcome isn’t somewhat deliberate.
. . .my belief is that these people take a psychological comfort, a psychological delight, in taking positions that the majority of their fellow countrymen find repugnant, because this affords them what they really want: A method of differentiating themselves from the common and thereby elevating themselves to ranks of elite.
And note this is quite necessary: The “elite” are not made up of the rich. Sure, there are many rich in the elite, but that’s not what makes them elite. There are many poor “elite” who claim to be elite not due to their salary or position but due to thinking what the other elites think only.
RTWT. It’s a nice variation on the Codevilla theme, and the Shatner “Common People” chaser is a hoot.
Update II: Some further thoughts from the purveyor of Rhiel politik:
In that case, a member of the ruling class might even be considered somewhat Center Right; however, money, education and position matter a great deal. And that presents a real challenge for both conservatives and libertarians. Having such individuals in the ruling class, like Bush and others, compassionate conservatives in that instance, makes it extremely difficult for an honest small government mindset to prevail.
Gosh, Dan: are you implying that a Senator might be more beholden to the plutocrat who buys the Senate seat with campaign contributions than (s)he is to that annoying Oath of Office?
We gave King George a thumping. We wrote a Constitution. We allowed it to be honored in the breach. We’re now taking it in the breaches, but we can still rise against our contemporary King George.
Update III: The mighty Victor Davis Hanson surveys the GZM madness, contrasts it to the AZ border, and concludes:
In short, the great enigma of our postmodern age is how American society grew so wealthy and free to create so many residents that became so angry at the conditions that have made them so privileged—and how so millions abroad fled the intolerance and poverty of their country and yet on arrival almost magically romanticize the very conditions in the abstract that they would never live under again in the concrete.
This November, far from being a repudiation of the Constitution, promises to be the greatest test yet of the notion of the House coming up for re-election every two years. It’s almost like those dead Presidents kinda knew what they were doing, in their pre-transistor wisdom.
The charges against the 80-year-old Democrat include allegations he traded favors for donations to a program he founded at City College of New York, improperly obtained a rent- stabilized apartment and failed to report income from a Caribbean vacation home.
“In Harlem, he’s not going to be judged on that; that’s a regular practice here,” said Jack Broughton, 38, as he sold T- shirts from a sidewalk table on 125th Street.
Voters will remember how Rangel helped them, Broughton said. “My sister was facing eviction with three kids, and his office made one phone call and got her a place she’s been living at for 15 years,” he said.
The Anti-Defamation League, which describes itself as “the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry,” released a statment this morning opposing the building of the 13-story mosque near Ground Zero.
“In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right,” says the ADL.
OK, so the ADL — historically, a liberal organization — feels compelled to side with Pamela and all those right-wingers who opposed the mosque. As you might expect, the Left is not taking this news cheerfully:
Kristin Davis is the Anti-Prohibition Party candidate for Governor of New York. She is a Libertarian. She is a follower of individual liberty philosopher Ayn Rand and a devotee of free market economics. She is a staunch supporter of drug legalization. She is also pro-defense and a patriot.
