AMERICA FUNDING ITS OWN DEMISE

A large protest at Ground Zero against construction of this Mosque. Did you see this on the nightly news?

WASHINGTON — The imam behind controversial plans for a mosque near the site of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks is being sent by the State Department on a religious outreach trip to the Middle East, officials said Tuesday, in a move that drew criticism from conservative lawmakers.

The department is sponsoring Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s visit to Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, where he will discuss Muslim life in America and promote religious tolerance, spokesman P.J. Crowley said. He said the imam had been on two similar trips and that plans for the upcoming tour predated the mosque controversy.

Two Republican members of Congress, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Peter King, called government sponsorship of Rauf’s trip “unacceptable” in a joint statement. They said he had suggested in at least one interview that the United States was to blame for the 2001 attacks and that taxpayer money should not be used to fund the tour. LINK

So let me get this straight: with all the ranting and raving about “separation of church & state” I constantly hear, the US Government’s State Department’s funding of this Islamic radical is nothing to squawk about? The silence over this outrage is deafening. OUR VERY SCARCE TAX DOLLARS are going to fund a junket for a religious figure on a religious mission. That’s OK? Can anyone imagine the US GOVERNMENT FUNDING THE POPE’S TRIP ANYWHERE? This is another in a long list of outrages being committed against the American people by Islamic radicals. What is horrifying is that our own government is responsible.

Look this guy is shrewd. He knows the Obama administration is as weak as Buster Douglass’ jaw. He knows they will not challenge his building a Mosque at Ground Zero because of their delusional approach to radical Islam. So he is taking us to the cleaners. He is doing what Islam has always done: Built Mosques on ground they have conquered while at the same time bullshitting the petrified politicians into going along with this atrocity by using politically correct arguments like “tolerance” “religious freedom” “outreach” ‘sensitivity”and (my personal favorite) ” UNITY”.

We are at war with the likes of this guy. We seem to forget that. Would the Japanese have been allowed to build a Shinto Shrine at Pearl Harbor in 1950? Of course not. The politicians in New York have sold out every American on this issue by not having a backbone just like they caved on Guantanamo Bay. There is NOTHING WRONG or ILLEGAL about prohibiting THIS Mosque to be built by THIS Imam at THIS location. Even New York Gov. Patterson tried to get them to reconsider by offering state land in another location. THEY REFUSED! Where is the TOLERANCE, COMPASSION, RESPECT or DECENCY of the Muslim community when it comes to people of other faiths offended by this effort?

Nowhere. And that’s the point.

Advertisements

21 Responses to AMERICA FUNDING ITS OWN DEMISE

  1. Ingineer66 says:

    I can’t believe the ACLU isn’t all over this story. What happened to separation of Church and State that they are always harping about. Now if the State Department would have paid a Catholic Priest to go make friends with the IRA or a Rabbi to make friends with Israelis then maybe they would have a case for doing this.

  2. Randal Graves says:

    2 questions sir:

    1. What legal grounds would they use to prevent the building of the mosque?

    2. So if they can’t build the mosque where they currently plan to build it, exactly how far away is the “right” distance?

  3. 1. Eminant Domain for starters. Oh wait- I forgot, liberals only use that against average American citizens. 2. They could have used the city landmark status but refused. 3. Any other bureaucratic means they would use if it were a strip club or something else that wasn’t up to their liking. They could have also bought the building outright.

    2. Well if these Muslims were truly seeking peace and understanding they would be able to negotiate a settlement that didn’t leave them in the footprint of the WTC site. I’m quite sure the state of NY’s offer would have been MORE than generous.

    This isn’t about people seeking to peacefully practice their religion (which I am all for). It is about radical Islam attempting to influence and eventually overwhelm and dominate our country and culture from within. Thats a bad thing.

    • Randal Graves says:

      You didn’t answer #2. How close is too close: 2 blocks away, 15 blocks away, 300 miles away???

    • Randal Graves says:

      Eminent Domain – Why take something away from the people of the city when the majority of the city is not against or doesn’t care either way if the mosque is built? Since it doesn’t “benefit the general public”, there’s no reason to take it by Eminent Domain; you can thank Executive Order 13406 by your boy GW for that one.

  4. Dustoff says:

    #3. Why is it, that this group who is building this Mosque. Are doing all they can to stop anyone from learning where is money is coming from for this mosque?

    What is there to hide.

  5. “they would be able to negotiate a settlement that didn’t leave them in the footprint of the WTC site.”
    I don’t know exactly but far away enough to be “sensitive” to the feelings of the victims.

    The protest I posted seemed pretty large. Do you expect all 7 MILLION New Yorkers to storm Lower Manhattan?
    The Supreme Court decision allows land to be seized for PRIVATE redevelopment as well as PUBLIC. Taking it to create anything would be more palatable than a Mosque.

    • Randal Graves says:

      ““they would be able to negotiate a settlement that didn’t leave them in the footprint of the WTC site.”
      I don’t know exactly but far away enough to be “sensitive” to the feelings of the victims.”

      But it’s not in the footprint of the WTC site.

    • Randal Graves says:

      “I don’t know exactly but far away enough to be “sensitive” to the feelings of the victims.”

      So you give no answer/boundaries, just the fact that it’s too close now.

      So if 1 victim (and since you haven’t clarified “the victims”, but it’s easy for you to use all non-Muslim Americans) thinks the closest new mosque should be 95 miles away, we can just put the mosque in one of Philly’s browned-out fire stations, okay?

      • Wyatt Earp says:

        There are no legal reasons to deny the building of the mosque. That being said, if this were really about “peace and understanding,” they would be a little more sensitive to its placement.

        Of course, it isn’t about “peace and understanding.” It’s a little bit about gloating. That’s why the “Victory Mosque” is such an apt title. They won, we lost, and they are using our own laws against us – as they are doing in Britain. Not much we can do about it, but it is what it is.

        As for the “how far away” question? I would say 10 blocks.

  6. Bob G. says:

    Cap:
    This diversity/tolerance BS is a real two-edged sword…only trouble I’m seeing THESE days, is that ONE side is blunted to the point of ineffectiveness.

    Good call.
    And an excellent comment, I66!
    (where IS that blasted ACLU, anyway?)

    Stay safe.

    • Dustoff says:

      Has the ACLU ever gone after any Muslims or Islam?

      We know they support the bad guys at Gitmo.

      Speaks volumes doesn’t it.

  7. Diversity, tolerance, sensitivity, compassion are all one way streets in liberal America.

  8. Ingineer66 says:

    For my money 10 blocks would be an appropriate minimum distance. Out of respect for the victims.

  9. Wyatt Earp says:

    Don’t forget, these tools are going to open the building on September 11th of next year. But hey, it’s not about rubbing Manhattan’s nose in their victory or anything . . .

    • Well said dude. You are right, there are no LEGAL reasons to deny it, but there are plenty of MORAL reasons. It’s about rubbing our noses in it.

      • Randal Graves says:

        Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait…

        On August 12th at 9:03 a.m. you give me 3 legal reasons that could be used to stop the building.

        23 hours, 29 minutes later, there are no legal reasons.

        Make up your mind, sir.

  10. 2 questions sir:

    1. What legal grounds would they use to prevent the building of the mosque?

    2. So if they can’t build the mosque where they currently plan to build it, exactly how far away is the “right” distance?

    Legal REASONS or GROUNDS? Maybe I misunderstood you.I don’t believe there are any legal REASONS for the government to stop constructions. I could be wrong but as far as the law is concerned no.

    LEGAL GROUNDS is a bit different and what I probably thought you were talking about (since that’s what you said). Eminant Domain is a legal procedure correct? It’s not a REASON to take property, it is the procedure by which property is taken. Hope that helps.

  11. Randal Graves says:

    Why didn’t you bitch about the spending of tax dollars back in 2007 when your boy GW did the same thing:

    “Feisal Abdul Rauf was dispatched on speaking tours by the past State Department on multiple occasions to help promote tolerance and religious diversity in the Arab and Muslim world. In 2007, he went to Morocco, the UAE, Qatar and Egypt on such missions, a State Department official confirmed”

%d bloggers like this: