Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama again speaks up for `Ground Zero mosque'

As you know, it has become widely accepted that President Obama walked back his original support for Cordoba House, and in the process, made a hash of his message about it. Though he never originally flat out endorsed the Islamic center, his subsequent claim that he wouldn't comment on the "wisdom" of the project led many to conclude -- for varying motives -- that Obama had retracted his support for it.

Others, meanwhile, argued that Obama's subsequent position was not really a brave one at all -- he was merely speaking up for the legal right of the project's builders to proceed, a position that's in line with that of a majority of voters.

Today, however, Obama again weighed in on the project, and came very close to duplicating his original statement about it:

I think I've been pretty clear on my position here, and that is, is that this country stands for the proposition that all men and women are created equal; that they have certain inalienable rights. One of those inalienable rights is to practice their religion freely. And what that means is that if you could build a church on a site, you could build a synagogue on a site, if you could build a Hindu temple on a site, then you should be able to build a mosque on the site.

Now, I recognize the extraordinary sensitivities around 9/11. I've met with families of 9/11 victims in the past. I can only imagine the continuing pain and anguish and sense of loss that they may go through. And tomorrow we as Americans are going to be joining them in prayer and remembrance. But I go back to what I said earlier: We are not at war against Islam. We are at war against terrorist organizations that have distorted Islam or falsely used the banner of Islam to engage in their destructive acts.

And we've got to be clear about that. We've got to be clear about that because if ... we're going to successfully reduce the terrorist threat, then we need all the allies we can get.

Though he framed it as a conditional -- he used the word "if" -- Obama clearly stated that those who have the right to build on the site "should be able" to do so, and that we should respect that right in accordance with American values. That seems very close to what he said on the first day -- the statement everyone said he "walked back." At a minimum, it seems equivalent in tone.

UPDATE, 4:13 p.m.: Edited slightly from original.

By Greg Sargent  |  September 10, 2010; 3:30 PM ET
Categories:  Foreign policy and national security  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Steele: Small businesses don't need lines of credit [UPDATED]
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

FLIP-FLOPPER!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The key is that there are EXCEPTIONS to the First Amendment.


Obama went to Harvard Law - and his is being deceptive by NOT stating that there are exceptions.


Clearly the CASELAW says that if there is a "COMPELLING INTEREST" Freedom of Religion can be curtailed.

This site at Ground Zero INCITES VIOLENCE - there is a "compelling interest."


In addition, giving the enemy a PROPAGANDA TOOL - OR A RECRUITING POINT is a "compelling interest."

Obama is LYING to the American People by not stating CLEARLY that exceptions do EXIST.

Instead, Obama wants to come down on one side - and Obama is HIDING behind a childish interpretation.


Obama never cared about Interstate Commerce on his health care plan - now all of a sudden Obama is such a CONSTITUTIONAL PURIST.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama seems clear here to me (finally) that he has no objection to the mosque. Greg and the rest should be happy with his statement.

I'll stick with Geraghty: "I don’t want a self-proclaimed Official Mosque of Ground Zero any more than I want a self-proclaimed Official Church of Ground Zero or Official Synagogue or other institutions of faith. The events of 9/11 are too big, and too deeply meaningful to too many people, to be shoehorned into one sect’s interpretation."

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/246219/obama-comes-out-and-defends-ground-zero-mosque

Posted by: sbj3 | September 10, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Joke2, have you decided whether or not to consider assassinating President Obama because you disagree with him yet?

You said that you're not considering it (yet).

Have you decided whether or not to consider it?

It must be weighing so heavily on your mind.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

If the people in the Middle East are trying to make the point that people should EXERCISE RESTRAINT - and not burn things - then WHY are they burning American flags ???


Restraint goes both ways.

This is why the liberal punits like Chris Matthews and Mika Brezenski have been so visibly angry on-air - they finally got caught in their moral equivalency.

The liberals are always trying to look down on people - somehow say their view make them inferior - if you don't want the mosque, you are an "islamophobe"

Well - finally the liberals are trapped - RESTRAINT FOR RESTRAINT.

That is reasonable - and it should not provoke on-air anger.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

sbj -- I think that's right. If Obama opened the door to the possibility that he didn't think the idea was wise -- a big if -- today he closed that door.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 10, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

I'm not considering it (yet).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Slightly off-topic and a little late, because evidently the Koran burning has been canceled, but I couldn't resist posting a hilarious (to me) comment I read on Kos. A professor's student said:

"Why don't they just download the Korans to their Kindles and angrily delete them?"

As Kos put it, a "good, old-fashioned, 21st century book burning."

Posted by: carolanne528 | September 10, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainForest wants to behave like those people in the middle east that he objects to.

What an addled Ultra Maroon he is!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

lol carolanne

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 10, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Earlier today;

SaveTheRainForest was singing the praises of this Nut Job Pastor Jones, for Inciting Violence. Now SaveTheRainForest wants to us the same "inciting violence" against the people in New York, who purchased a building, through all legal channels.

He was all for Terry Jones inciting violence against our Troops.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: "sbj -- I think that's right. If Obama opened the door to the possibility that he didn't think the idea was wise -- a big if -- today he closed that door."

I'll give credit where credit is due. Although I don't believe the "thing" will ever be built, I admire Obama for sticking to his guns, standing on principle, and (finally) making himself clear. He needs to keep on doing this, which means all that blather about him moving to the center after November should be ignored. I don't like the policies he pursues but I would respect him even less if he started caving (even more). At this point I think that Obama needs to regain our respect - Americans can respectfully disagree but they disdain a hypocritical wimp.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 10, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

sbj3

Exactly - Obama has all sorts of legal avenue available to him to OPPOSE the location of the mosque.


But Obama has CHOSEN to side AGAINST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.


Obama's legal interpretation IGNORES THE CASELAW.

Obama is just looking for an excuse to side with the Imam and the muslims -

Obama does NOT want to side with the American People and their sentiments about 9/11.

You call this leadership ? It isn't. It is weakness - It is turning his back on the American People.


I want to hear Obama say ONCE THAT THERE ARE COMPELLING INTERESTS WHICH NECESSITATE THE MOVING OF THE MOSQUE - in line with the case law.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not considering [assassinating the President of the United States] (yet)."

Why not?

It is obviously weighing on your mind.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Liam

I am pointing out the moral equivalency


If you are for the mosque and the exercise of that First Amendment, then you are in favor of the burning.

It is that simple.


Restraint for restraint - one or the other.

Last I heard, Paster Jones in Florida was trying to get a FIRM ANSWER FROM THE IMAM IN NEW YORK.

Apparently he was lied to by the Imam in Florida - who stood there next to Pastor Jones during the first news conference.

Anyway - the liberals can be as hypocritical as they want - but I am still going to point it out -

Hypocrites are NOT superior - they are worthless.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

@str: Don't sweat it. They will never be able to raise the money. It'll never be built. This is a simple case of a couple of developers trying to make money on some crappy property that they can't unload. They figured they'd hook up with this persuasive Imam who might be able to pitch this grand idea and raise + $100 million overseas - ain't gonna happen, not after all of this.

Posted by: sbj3 | September 10, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The building is all ready built and being used now, as a Community Center.

What is proposed, is just a major refurbishing of the same building, in order to allow more people of all religions and backgrounds to meet, and participate in ecumenical events, in more accommodating rooms.

I still think they should put a gun shop in the lobby. That will get the Nutty Rifle Association on board, and drive Quitter Palin around the bend.

I am all about finding reconciliatory solutions, such as this proposal.

I sure hope the Nobel Peace people are not reading this, because I hate receiving awards.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the President:

"I've got Muslims who are fighting in Afghanistan, in the uniform of the United States armed services. They're out there putting their lives on the line for us, and we've got to make sure that we are crystal clear for our sakes and their sakes: They are Americans. And we honor their service. And part of honoring their service is making sure that they understand that we don't differentiate between 'them' and 'us.' It's just 'us.'"

One more time -- IT'S JUST US.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 10, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

OT

"Over Anchorage, AK. Looking everywhere but can't see Russia from here. Will keep you updated as search continues," - Arnold Schwarzenegger.

h/t sullivan

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 10, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60 - I'm glad you quoted the president about it being "just us."

I agree with him too. It's a point I think can't be stressed enough.

Posted by: carolanne528 | September 10, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

All this Pastor Jones stuff started when Obama started coming down on the side of the ANTI-RESTRAINT CROWD.


Obama is to blame.

Obama is not a leader - Obama FAILS to understand the American People.


Obama had his RAMADAN DINNER at the White House -


Obama had his little lefist rant which made him feel superior to everyone else.


I am just saying that the American People DESERVE BETTER. The American People deserve a LEADER who represents their sentiments on such national security issues.

The American People DESERVE BETTER than Obama has given us.

Federalist papers - whatever - there is caselaw which says if there is a "compelling interest" the mosque can be stopped.

Obama is NOT acting like a LEADER here - he is NOT acting to resolve this issue.

The ONLY way Obama could have acted like a leader is to get the Imam to STOP THE PROJECT - NOT HAVE THE STATE DEPARTMENT PAY FOR A TRIP FOR THIS GUY TO THE MIDDLE EAST.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I am off to do my daily round of visits, and phone calls to bring out the votes.

Let me conclude my day on Plumline with this:

What would you call an exclusion zone, where only American Muslims are forbidden to conduct social gatherings?

What I would call it is: Segregation or Apartheid.

Have good evening and weekend all.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"All this Pastor Jones stuff started when General Petrayus, Commander of CENTCOM and leader of ISAF started coming down on the side of the ANTI-RESTRAINT CROWD."

There, fixed it for ya.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 10, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

Because I don't think that Obama is a tyrant and/or as bad as Hitler (yet).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

Because I don't think that Obama is a tyrant and/or as bad as Hitler (yet).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 4:32 PM .

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

OK,

So if the time comes, that you think that has "become as bad as Hitler", what will you then do about it?

Will you then carry out your threat?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 10, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

SBJ ""I don’t want a self-proclaimed Official Mosque of Ground Zero"

Wow...no snark intended but that's the first time I've heard this referred to as a "self-proclaimed Mosque at Ground Zero. You can educate me here...again no snark...my impression is that these folks have gone out of their way to compromise. Point by point here..
1.) Of course it's not at ground zero...that fight took a good month to win but most folks now concede it's two blocks away..although of course the zealots say it's still too close.
2.) It's not actually a Mosque. It's a community outreach facility with a natatorium, meeting rooms..and yes a prayer area...but if you've seen the artists renderings it's certainly nothing like a stand alone Mosque...e.g. their are no minarets for Imam's to make a call to prayer or provide the type of architecture that would offend the Islmaphobes.

A more accurate analogy of what this is would be is a YMCA was building TWO BLOCKS away from Ground Zero..and inside along with the swimming pool and basketball courts was a Chapel..standard fare at Y's btw. Is that praying area a chapel or a church...would we call the entire YMCA structure a church?

3.) "Self described Ground Zero Mosque"? The Imam and his fellow organizers changed the name very early in this debate to the Park 51..in order to mute any criticism of the name...which I thought was Cordoba..not "Ground Zero Mosque"

Perhaps you can provide a link where Imam Rauf described his facility as "The Ground Zero Mosque."
Whatever they immediately compromised on Cordoba when Newt and others blew that up totally out of reality..and switched to the Park 51...a concession by the Imam

4.) Fox news humiliated themselves...in as far as they can be embarrassed by facts when they went on the witch hunt about the "funding" for this center and where it's coming from. Fox singled out some nefarious Saudi Prince who they would never mention by name...but insisted that he was funding madrassas and terrorist groups around the World. Turns out this "sponsor of terrorists" is one of Rupert Murdoch's biggest investors owning a 10% stake in Fox. Which of course means by Fox's own logic...watching Fox is helping to fund terrorists. At least Fox's disingenuous reporting gave John Stewart a couple of nights of hilarious shows.

Now in a show of sensitivity..aware of questions about the money..the Imam has offered to provide a list of all donors and to identify where the money is coming from. Again a concession by the Muslims.

There can logically be only one take from all of this...we are at war with Islam OR all this braying is nothing but political posturing. If we accept that 19 criminal co-conspirators and a couple of hundred guys hiding in a 3rd world country did this...then objecting to a Mosque simply makes no more sense than objecting to a Roman Catholic rectory full of priests sitting two blocks from a boy's school.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"Because I don't think that Obama is a tyrant"

Then why do you use the Thomas Jefferson quotation that implies that the "tree of liberty" needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants?

Why do you use that quotation if we are not under the thumb of a tyrant?

"and/or as bad as Hitler (yet)."

What -- specifically -- would make Obama "as bad as Hitler"?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

@ruk: "Wow...no snark intended but that's the first time I've heard this referred to as a "self-proclaimed Mosque at Ground Zero."

It pains me to have to slap you down so hard, via Geraghty:

"There’s quite a bit of sophistry from the defenders of the current project, arguing that “Ground Zero Mosque” is a misnomer, because it is not actually on the World Trade Center site. Of course, it is as close as the project organizers could get... It is also worth noting... that the organizers specifically chose the site because of its proximity to Ground Zero and used the phrase pretty regularly until it became a point of controversy:

"A December 8th, 2009, New York Times article stated, “The location [next to Ground Zero] was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims,” and quoted Rauf as noting that they got a property “where a piece of the [9/11] wreckage fell.” ASMA then touted the piece in its 2009 Year End Report.

"A simple Google search of the Cordoba Initiative’s website reveals the phrase “Ground Zero” to be seeded throughout as a rather inept 1999-era SEO tactic to bring people looking for information about Ground Zero to the mosque promoters’ website.

"On May 5th and 6th, ASMA’s Daisy Khan was on her Twitter account, boasting first that the “new muslim center near ground zero gets unaminous vote of approval from community board one in downtown nyc,” and then that she had a “Media blitz day for ASMA / Cordoba [on the] muslim commuity center near ground zero.”

"On June 15th, Daisy Khan told the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn that “a divine hand” led to the Ground Zero proximity.

"Second, you hear arguments that the term “mosque” is simplistic, because the site includes so much more. Well, St. Peter’s Basilica has a gift shop, but that doesn’t make it a commercial center."

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/243955/two-mosques-islamic-centers-currently-within-1-5-miles-ground-zero

Posted by: sbj3 | September 10, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

More BHO:

One of the things that I most admired about President Bush was after 9/11, him being crystal-clear about the fact that we were not at war with Islam. We were at war with terrorists and murderers who had perverted Islam, had stolen its banner to carry out their outrageous acts. And I was so proud of the country rallying around that idea, that notion that we are not going to be divided by religion; we’re not going to be divided by ethnicity. We are all Americans. We stand together against those who would try to do us harm.

And that’s what we’ve done over the last nine years. And we should take great pride in that. And I think it is absolutely important now for the overwhelming majority of the American people to hang on to that thing that is best in us, a belief in religious tolerance, clarity about who our enemies are -- our enemies are al Qaeda and their allies who are trying to kill us, but have killed more Muslims than just about anybody on Earth. We have to make sure that we don't start turning on each other.

And I will do everything that I can as long as I am President of the United States to remind the American people that we are one nation under God, and we may call that God different names but we remain one nation. And as somebody who relies heavily on my Christian faith in my job, I understand the passions that religious faith can raise. But I’m also respectful that people of different faiths can practice their religion, even if they don't subscribe to the exact same notions that I do, and that they are still good people, and they are my neighbors and they are my friends, and they are fighting alongside us in our battles.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 10, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

BTW For those who enjoy a good laugh...and want to see visual evidence at just how low Fox will sink in their propaganda...here is a link to the funniest show of all time...

Again the morons on Fox and Friends were all going on about.."where is the money coming from for this Mosque?" They pointed a finger at a mysterious Saudi Prince...they NEVER mentioned him by name...and ohhh surprise surprise..he is a 10% shareholder in Fox and a big investor with Rupert Murdoch. And so the premise of this piece is why would Fox not report this FACT...Is it because Fox and Friends are stupid? Or is it because they're Evil.

About :45 in this gets hilarious...the infamous Team Evil versus Team Stupid..
Fox is literally a joke!!!

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/the-daily-show-debates-is-fox-news-evil-or-stupid-video.php

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

We need a 'Report stupidity' button next to SavetheRainforest's posts.

Posted by: PedroGonzales | September 10, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I agree with the President on this one, and it may be the 1st time. Under the constitution a Mosque can be build near ground zero. Under the same constitution that Pastor in Florida can burn as many Korans as he wants. So why doesn't the President support freedom of expression with same fervor that he supports freedom of religion. Now the excuse that the burning of the Korans many cause U.S. Troops harm, building of the Mosque may cause others harm as well. What is without question, and there is no doubt about is that on both issues he sides with Islam, as always sites some BS excuse, to keep building the Legend of Obama the Great .

Posted by: southernrican | September 10, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

SBJ...Thanks for your answer. Alas not sure that it satisfies me. It makes a great case that the organizers were hoping to get near ground zero...but not that any of them "self described it as THE Ground Zero Mosque"

If they did then we'd have to examine motivation wouldn't we? Was it to rub our faces in an Islamic win over Christians..and Newt and crowd would preach...or is it even possible that they were hoping to show that Islam isn't evil by placing a "community center" there which they would open to people of all faiths in a hope to heal old wounds.
Perhaps misguided in the America of 2010.

But I am not naive enough to think the righties on this blog would give an Imam the benefit of the doubt...and some of them would not believe whatever the Imam said anyone...we have some posters here who are able to divine what other humans are thinking despite a record of words that indicate otherwise. In other words these guys changed the name to avoid offending sensibilities...they are prepared to reveal their funding sources..and we are prepared to....s*it all over their Constitutional rights.

In fairness I have not read of all the offers of compromise from our side. I am aware that the Guv offered free land somewhere else...don't know whether that was in his purview or even possible..but perhaps you SBJ or another poster can tell me what compromises the "anti-mosque" crowd have offered. I'm sure there have been some I'm not aware of..again no snark intended....however now switching to snark...one compromise I have heard about is that some pastor of the 50 member church in Gainesville Fl has offered to NOT burn Qurans if the Muslims will simply move the center...some terrific compromise.
Almost as good as..I won't beat you to within an inch of your life if you'll simply hand over your money.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

I answered that question on the previous thread. Do you want me to copy/paste it here too?

Liam-still:

It's not a "threat". If -- look up the word "if" since you don't seem to understand it -- if Obama becomes "as bad as Hitler", then I will consider assassination, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer did before me (which was the context that I brought that up in the original thread ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

I think Chris Matthews is reading these posts.


I think he addressed that he was visibly angry on the air.


Chris Matthews also put up "Moral Inequivalency" on the screen.


Several posts said that Chris Matthews was visibly angry at the MORAL EQUIVALENCY - between Pastor Jones and the mosque in New York.

BURN BABY BURN.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

@Pedro Gonzales

"We need a 'Report stupidity' button next to SavetheRainforest's posts."

Join the crowd of STRF's admirers. :-)

I've been nagging Greg to have his techies put our names at the head of our posts instead of at the rear...we could all choose and pick who to scroll past.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Sorry - Matthews has "Immoral Equivalency" on the screen

Hilarious.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

rukdding7:

Hopefully, Greg's techies can talk to Chris Cilizza's techies and completely change the format so that NO ONE posts here anymore : )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

SBJ3

read what Liam said - the building is probably usable without a major renovation - they might be in there right now.


The question is whether this nation is going to allow these people to INCITE such a PROVOCATIVE situation.


Obama is showing no leadership on this issue -


I keep on thinking that Obama is suddenly goint to "get it" and start being the President, start being the leader - but Obama always seems to drop the ball.


Obama simply doesn't understand the job - he doesn't understand economics.


This country needs a change - The country DESERVES a LEADER who will LEAD, represent the sentiment of Americans - and be able to knock these things out of the ballpark.


Obama is sitting on the sidelines like he is some ballboy.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

rican-

Can you elaborate on the harm caused by the building of a mosque?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 10, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

rukidding at 4:36


You sidestep the obvious issues - and you ignore the sentiments of the American People.


Clearly, if it is NOT a mosque, it has NO First Amendment protections -

So we all agree, it should NOT be built, right ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

@southernrican

"So why doesn't the President support freedom of expression with same fervor that he supports freedom of religion."

Wow talk about the classic straw man argument. Are you serious. On one hand you have a group of people who simply wish to open a neighborhood center where their people and btw they've invited folks of other faiths to join them...can worship their God as they see fit.

On the other hand you have a hillbilly preacher from Tennessee who has moved to Florida and is simply trying to desecrate the holy book of another religion.

Do you enjoy porno? The President hasn't come out in support of the porno industry's freedom of expression.

Do you recall what he said about Kanye West after the rapper stole the mike from Taylor Swift at the MTV awards...the Prez didn't support West's freedom of expression.

You've made an absurd comparison...folks building a community center..to a moron who is just unleashing his hate.

And now wait....baddah boom yeah there it is...I hear it now....but the Muslims are burning our flags overseas so why can't we burn their holy book. Because it's not all Muslims and because we are Americans with higher values and more respect than people who are burning anything anywhere.
Why do people suggest that if others engage in rude offensive behavior we should feel free to do the same thing.

Well we are free and so we CAN do it if we wish..and if you feel the need to say, "I know you are so what am I" or perhaps "neener neener you flag burners" then knock yourself out with that mature behavior.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

There's one important thing missing here:

The statement Obama made that supposedly "walked back" his earlier support of the right of Muslims to build their community center was made in response to a reporter's question phrased in a way that distorted Obama's statement to suggest he had ever said he approved of the specific location of the center -- a decision that should be left to the local zoning board or whatever authority approves building construction. The supposed "walk back" was just a clarification for a reporter trying to inflame the controversy further.

It's an old corporate media trick to fan a controversy they want to keep going. They did the same thing with the loony who's threating to burn Korans in Florida. Obama volunteered no comment about this story, but responded when a reporter asked him about it. Then some in the media blamed him for raising the profile of the crazy preacher by commenting on him and suggested it wouldn't be a big story if the president hadn't gotten himself involved. The Koran burning circus is 100% the fault of the media but they've got to make it appear otherwise.

Posted by: Spacer | September 10, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

btw,

southernrican calls the constitutional defense cited by Obama of the right to build a mosque a "BS excuse".

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 10, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD

Haven't ever been to Chris Cilizza's blog. I did hear a couple of folks including STRF wondering why nobody posted there anymore.

No snark...just not sure about your point. Are you suggesting that putting names at the head of the posts so that people could pick and choose which posters to scroll past...including my posts as well...is somehow going to chase off all the posters....or do you have some other insight to offer that will protect this blog?

I have read at least two other posters who claimed STRF and one of his friends thread bombed "The Fix" out of existence. I have no personal knowledge of this however since I never visited the Fix and perhaps STRF just created enemies who were out to get him.

Just last night I read of two posters who were bragging about some of the blogs they've been banned from....not sure why getting banned from ANYBODY'S blog...left or right should be a mark of pride. Personally I'd feel embarrassed if I became so coarse on a regular basis that Greg felt the need to run me.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

rukidding at et


How much closer to Ground Zero do you want to be?


The landing gear from one of the planes landed on THIS BUILDING

It may have actually gone through one of the buildings to land here.


That is PART OF THE DEBRIS FIELD.

The people who say this is not at Ground Zero are trying to be deceptive - and are just trying to spin this.


The question is - do you want to give the RADICAL MUSLIMS A PROPAGANDA TOOL - A RECRUITING POINT -


or DO YOU WANT TO SIDE WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

If you don't get the question, you don't shouldn't be answering.

This country is STILL at WAR - ignoring the war is not going to make it go away.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

"Certainly, it's intended as a warning"

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 4:56 PM

"It's not a "threat"."

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 5:08 PM

Joke,

In the English language, these words are what we call "synonyms" -- words which have the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language.

Now that you know that, would you care to explain why your suggestion that you are contemplating assassinating the POTUS is a WARNING, but not a THREAT?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7:

I am not here to offer any insight that will protect this blog.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Joke,

While you're thinking of your explanation of the difference between "WARNING" and "THREAT"...

You also forgot to answer my question about tyrants. Here it is:

Why do you use the Thomas Jefferson quotation that implies that the "tree of liberty" needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants if you admit that we are not under the thumb of a tyrant?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

@STRF...I'm bored today and so I'll bite against my better judgement :-)

'Clearly, if it is NOT a mosque, it has NO First Amendment protections'

Are you suggesting that only religions have First Amendment protections? How about Atheists? Since the majority of the 19 co conspirators responsible for 9/11 were of Saudi descent would Saudi's who became naturalized citizens be able to open a Saudi restaurant near Ground Zero.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 5:30 PM


That statement is not true at all


There was a group of 8 - 10 liberals who bombed the blog out of existence.


All they did was harass people - and there was no way for anyone to keep up with them - so to try to blame someone else is ridiculous.


I would suggest you go to the archives - and READ THEM before you make statements


Everything is there - plain and simple - for you to see.


Case closed.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

@STRF

I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're truly dense (as against posturing to be so), and try and respond to just one of your posts...

'you ignore the sentiments of the American people':

There isn't one overarching sentiment of the American people here. There is the sentiment of bigots and the sentiment of Muslims, just to name 2 groups. Hard to satisfy both. But in any case, we're Americans, we shouldn't decide on what's right based on sentiments, if something can't be decided based on common sense, look to the constitution instead where our rights are codified. If we had let sentiments guide us all this while, women would never have been enfranchised, colored people would not have civil rights in the South and witch hunts would have gone on in the North East for another 100 years! So, don't project your sentiments as representative of the whole countries, and in any case, sentiments count for squat!

"Clearly, if it is NOT a mosque, it has NO First Amendment protections"

WTF? Dude, I'm thinking you're probably not a mosque. How then do you have the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion?

Tell me if you do not understand these simple first steps to developing an analytical thought process.

Posted by: PedroGonzales | September 10, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

I am NOT contemplating assassinating the President of the United States, regardless of your repeated accusations that I am. A "warning" is not necessarily a "threat" (for instance, was that guy in the movie JAWS "warning" people to get out of the water, or do you think that he was actually shooting at them instead of the shark?)

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010

At this point, you are harassing Jake.


You made your point - 20 posts ago.


Why don't you just go try and defend Obama? You don't like doing that anymore ?

Leave Jake alone - he already answered your question.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan...Obama can't be a tyrant in Jake's world because he is not even Jake's President. Apparently anybody Jake does not like and does not vote for has no standing...even if they were elected by a landslide in comparison to all the other recent Presidential elections.

You see Ethan..Jake does not respect YOUR VOTE. In Jake's universe he gets to decide who is and who is not President.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

I already answered why I use the Thomas Jefferson quote (look up "moral case").

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

So Joke, please explain why your specific usage of "threat" and "warning" were appropriate.

In this specific case, how is it a "warning" that you are contemplating assassination of the President of the USA, but not a "threat" that you are contemplating a violent act against a public official?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

@STRF If you read my post it was not I who made those accusations. I simply reported what two other people had posted. And if you read carefully you'll see...

"I have read at least two other posters who claimed STRF and one of his friends thread bombed "The Fix" out of existence. I have no personal knowledge of this however since I never visited the Fix and perhaps STRF just created enemies who were out to get him."

At no point did I corroborate their posts...in fact I made a clear point of saying I have no personal knowledge...I also gave YOU the benefit of the doubt when I pointed out that perhaps it was just a couple of people you had angered who were trying to get you.

I truly do respect your right to post STRF.

Hopefully you'll respect my right to scroll past on a busy day if Greg puts the names at the front of the posts. I certainly respect your right to scroll past my often overly wordy posts with gross misspellings.

I am not out to get you STRF. However I'm also not out to read all of your posts. ;-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Pedro

You know EXACTLY what Im saying, so don't play dumb


The mosque INCITES VIOLENCE - it is provocative -


The mosque is a PROPAGANDA TOOL FOR THE ENEMY - IT IS A RECRUITING TOOL FOR MORE TERRORISTS.

You seem to forget that ANOTHER BOMB was placed in Times Square this past April - and 3,000 people more people could have been killed.

So, the MOSQUE SHOULD NOT BE BUILT


The liberals are being so blind to the American People - so INSENSITIVE.


Practically ALL CREDIBILITY of the liberals rests on this issue - if the liberals can not "get it" on this issue - they PROVE that they are so out-of-touch with American - they have no business governing.

Seriously folks, if you don't "get" the mosque issue, you have no business being around government.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010 (for the last time):

I am NOT contemplating assassinating the President of the United States. If you can't even understand that, I doubt that I can convince you of anything else.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan...I think Jake is on to you. He's is not going to convict himself on a blog. I completely disagree with Jake and his "2nd Amendment" solutions but apparently he's played the blogging game long enough to know exactly where the line of legality is drawn.

BTW Ethan if you haven't utilized that link I provided to the John Stewart piece and you haven't seen Team Evil versus Team Stupid you really should check it out.

It is the best take down of Fox news ever...hard to imagine anybody but a total stooge watching Faux after seeing this.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 10, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

rukiddin, Pedro et al


As I said in the first post above - the caselaw clearly states that Freedom of Religion is NOT absolute - if there is a "compelling interest" Freedom of Religion can be set aside in specific cases.

By saying the mosque has to move, that is NOT telling anyone that they have to CONVERT - individual Freedoms are preserved.


There are many "compelling interests"


The liberals are either LYING, or trying to use an absolute position as a COVER to side with the TERRORISTS.


CLEARLY THE MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO WILL HELP THE TERRORISTS -


IT WILL BE A PROPAGANDA TOOL - AND IT WILL HELP THE TERRORISTS RECRUIT ON THE INTERNET.


The liberals are being silly - their positions are deceptive - OR they are siding with the TERRORISTS.

Obama KNOWS that the First Amendment is not absolute - and he is being deceptive.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

This is nice-

Former Speaker. of. The. House. doubles down on Islamophobia: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/this_is_the_final_struggle_newt_gingrich_sells_a_m.php?ref=fpa

The TeOP is being taken over by bedwetting whiners who are afraid of their own shadows. Or, just want your $19.95, postage included.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 10, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Because the caselaw on Freedom of Religion obviously allows for exceptions involving "compelling interests," there can be no other way to interprete Obama taking an absolute position: Obama WANTS TO SIDE WITH THE TERRORISTS.

Clearly this is true.


Obama could easily side with the American People - and seek a resolution to this issue which would move the mosque. That would be LEADERSHIP.


Obama has made this issue worse -


Obama has made the economy worse, his policies are a drag on hiring.

Pretty simple.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

rukidding


Do whatever you want - what is clear is that you refuse to engage in constructive discussion on a blog


That is, unless it is nothing but a pathetic liberal echo-chamber.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 10, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Joke,

It must be on a different thread.

Can you make your case again?

Why not just answer the question:

Why do you use the Thomas Jefferson quotation that implies that the "tree of liberty" needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants if you admit that we are not under the thumb of a tyrant?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/happy_hour_roundup_85.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 10, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

"As I said in the first post above - the caselaw clearly states that Freedom of Religion is NOT absolute - if there is a "compelling interest" Freedom of Religion can be set aside in specific cases."

Pardon us if we decide not to accept legal opinions from someone so dense that they don't know the difference between the Presidential Oath of Office and the Armed Services Oath of
Enlistment.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | September 10, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

@ Spacer: "The Koran burning circus is 100% the fault of the media but they've got to make it appear otherwise."

I agree. The media needs to pull out of Florida and stop giving the nutcase an international stage. That's obviously the responsible thing to do. He's had his 15 minutes.

Posted by: Beeliever | September 10, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Beeliever-

And I bet his bank account is bigger...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 10, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

Why should I, since you keep accusing me of considering, contemplating, etc. the assassination of the President? What I am admitting is that Obama is not a tyrant (yet). Take a look at the prior thread: "...it's intended as a warning and, just in case Obama continues down this path (Hitler wasn't a 'tyrant' in 1932 either), I want to have my moral case for opposition ready to go."

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

ChuckinDenton:

If Obama ordered the Army to take over Denton, do you think that "Second Amendment remedies" would be in order?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Joke2,

Why do you need use the Thomas Jefferson quotation that implies that the "tree of liberty" needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants if you readily admit that we are not (yet) under the thumb of a tyrant?

Are you expecting that Obama will become a tyrant any time soon?

Given your "preparations" imply that Obama will become a tyrant imminently, when can we expect him to become a tyrant?

Tonight? Tomorrow? Next week? 10 years from now? When?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 10, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

@ STRF

Unlike you, I will respond to your specific statements, instead of just repeating phrasology about how you just don't 'get it'.

"the caselaw clearly states that Freedom of Religion is NOT absolute - if there is a "compelling interest" Freedom of Religion can be set aside in specific cases."

That compelling interest would be if the Imam starts to preach hate, subversion, treason, or other antisocial anti-US propaganda in his mosque, not if he is able to take a 2 block walk to the PATH.

"The liberals are either LYING, or trying to use an absolute position as a COVER to side with the TERRORISTS."

Yes, that's what that they indoctrinate us liberals with while we get our post graduate degrees - pro-terrorist anarchic subversive philosophy. Get a grip dude, we love the USA as much as the conservatives do.

"CLEARLY THE MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO WILL HELP THE TERRORISTS -"

Oh, now you have me convinced.

"IT WILL BE A PROPAGANDA TOOL - AND IT WILL HELP THE TERRORISTS RECRUIT ON THE INTERNET."

They don't need a mosque in downtown Manhattan to recruit on the internet. Images of burning Korans are far stronger, or haven't you been following the news lately?

"The mosque INCITES VIOLENCE - it is provocative -"
The only violence the mosque seems to have incited so far is from the far right against Muslims. So, your solution is to take away the rights of the victims here, rather than to lock away the offenders?

"You seem to forget that ANOTHER BOMB was placed in Times Square this past April - and 3,000 people more people could have been killed."
I haven't you moron. I live and work just off Times Square. I walk past that street everyday. I would have walked past it that day if the police hadn't cordoned the area off! Do you know who was closest to that bomb? The guy that would have most likely taken the biggest brunt of it if it had exploded? The Bangladeshi (read Muslim) gyro stand guy that i buy my dinner from most nights. Don't assume you speak for all of America. Most of us aren't bigots!

I'm done. I need a drink.

Posted by: PedroGonzales | September 10, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Jake is lock-step in the current paranoid/winger gestalt. In fact, he has followed it to its ultimate conclusion: Obama=muslim terrorist. I have to hand it him for breaking it down to such a simple formula so I can therefore *equate* Jake with it everytime I see his posts. Is this OK with you, Jake?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 10, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010:

Q. Why do you need use the Thomas Jefferson quotation that implies that the "tree of liberty" needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants if you readily admit that we are not (yet) under the thumb of a tyrant?

A. As I said, it's intended as a warning and, just in case Obama continues down this path (Hitler wasn't a 'tyrant' in 1932 either), I want to have my moral case for opposition ready to go. I think I mentioned Deitrich Bonhoeffer too. There are many other moral justifications for the defense of others.

Q. Are you expecting that Obama will become a tyrant any time soon?

A. I cannot predict that.

Q. Given your "preparations" imply that Obama will become a tyrant imminently, when can we expect him to become a tyrant? Tonight? Tomorrow? Next week? 10 years from now? When?

A. I don't know.

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:34-36)

NOW: please answer why should I continue answering your questions, since you keep accusing me of considering, contemplating -- now preparing for -- the assassination of the President?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

ChuckinDenton:

I would be more than happy to answer your later-asked question to me, just as soon as you answer my already-pending question to you.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

NOW: please answer why should I continue answering your questions, since you keep accusing me of considering, contemplating -- now preparing for -- the assassination of the President?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 10, 2010 6:55 PM
---------------------------------------
I feel like I've entered the schizophrenic ward. The better question is why anyone would ask Jake questions to clarify his "position". His willingness to assassinate is crystal--the rest of his parsing is some kind of weirdo game he likes to play to mess with your head. The only thing that keeps Jake from taking action is that, at heart, he's a coward and a loudmouth. Of course, loudmouth cowards HAVE carried out their threats.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 10, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Americans are hypocrites.

Posted by: Anonymity | September 10, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

PedroGonzales -

Oh, PedroGonzales, I wish I weren't so late, b/c you probably won't read this (you'll be sipping your well-deserved adult beverage), but thank you for your posts on this thread :)

Posted by: carolanne528 | September 10, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS CRAZY.

Doesn't he understand his speeches are flaring the violence and tension related to this issue?

It seems almost as though he wants this violence for some reason.

If according to the comment above, freedom of religion can be curtailed, why, as the President has he been deceiving the country?

And what about he role of the Islamists around the world trying to rule America through blackmail of violence?

Who is ruling America - the Americans or the Islamists around the world?

Why doesn't Obama condemn them?

yes, apart from being crazy, he is also a COWARD AND LOUDMOUTH.

Does he have the right to remain president in face of this grand deception and presumably deliberate attempt to flare tensions and violence?

Posted by: Globalseek | September 11, 2010 12:28 AM | Report abuse

If you can piss on the cross and make the Virgin Mary out of Dung funded with taxpayers money through the NEA , then you can BURN the Koran its settled Burn the damn thing!

Posted by: md18 | September 11, 2010 1:55 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday President Obama said he wanted "to remind American people that we are one nation... and THEY are US." Not that simple.
First of all we are the most tolerant nation in the world, and don't need a reminder to remain so.
Secondary, we are not that stupid to be unable to distinguish that THEY are a diverse group of people. Moderate Muslims are our allies, radical Islamists are the enemies of Muslim and non-Muslim Americans at the same degree.
We should be blind not to be concerned about the threat that radicalization presents to our national security.
Imam behind the mosque is an example of such elements which should be kept out of the country for their radicalism instead of letting them use our values to outrage them.
A man who said in 1977 that "in a true piece, Israel will, in our lifetime, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority" clearly sees the same future for America. "The revolution in Iran was inspired by the very principles
of individual rights and freedom that Americans ardently believe in." He has been delusional but WE are not.

And about the mosque: building it at the site of Ground Zero is no less absurd now than it was on 9/12 2001.

Posted by: lovelystill | September 11, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama was born to a Muslin father. Obama went to a Muslim school during his young formative years, Obama has groveled to Muslims while being rude to Israel and Christians. Remember his covering of a Christian symbol at a college speech he made? The only Christian church he attended has a Anti Semite Anti American racist preacher. 20 years my friends. He has not attended any church since. Obama wants a victory Mosque at ground zero to be erected before the new tower goes up. So unless you all are butt kissing Obamatons that facts are he is a MUSLIM. I think if we caught him on his prayer rug praying to Allah some of you would still deny it. If we in this country are going to keep acting like total fools we will be taken over by Sharia law. Obama is well on hid way in his plan to destroy us by killing our economic power. Just like Bin Laden wanted. So live in your fantasy land Obmamtons but when they come for you don't act surprised.

Posted by: harley2002 | September 11, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Should there be a mosque near Ground Zero? In fact, what is pro posed is not a mosque -- nor even an "Islamic cultural center."

In Islam, every structure linked to the faith and its rituals has a precise function and character. A mosque is a one-story gallery built around an atrium with a mihrab (a niche pointing to Mecca) and one, or in the case of Shiites two, minarets.

Other Islamic structures, such as harams, zawiyyahs, husseinyiahs and takiyahs, also obey strict architectural rules. Yet the building used for spreading the faith is known as Dar al-Tabligh, or House of Proselytizing.


AP
TOWER: The Ground Zero project doesn't fit the traditional minaret.
This 13-story multifunctional structure couldn't be any of the above.

The groups fighting for the project know this; this is why they sometimes call it an Islamic cultural center. But there is no such thing as an Islamic culture.

Islam is a religion, not a culture. Each of the 57 Muslim-majority nations has its own distinct culture -- and the Bengali culture has little in common with the Nigerian. Then, too, most of those countries have their own cultural offices in the US, especially in New York.

Islam is an ingredient in dozens of cultures, not a culture on its own.

In theory, at least, the culture of American Muslims should be American. Of course, this being America, each ethnic community has its distinct cultural memories -- the Iranians in Los Angeles are different from the Arabs in Dearborn.

In fact, the proposed structure is known in Islamic history as a rabat -- literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.

The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word "raid"). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.

After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat -- or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.

It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).

Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American "Great Satan," this would be of great symbolic value.

Posted by: Patriot_765 | September 11, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

No rabat should be allowed to be built in the US. This is not a mosque! This is not a community center.

Wake up folks, this is not about religion - this is about conquest.

----------------RABAT---------------

(Wiki spells it Ribat)

Posted by: Patriot_765 | September 11, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

MUSLIMS did this. NEVER let them take the spot light off of that fact. Muslims are creating havoc all over the world. MUSLIMS kill even their own family members for not being muslim enough. The "peaceful" muslims are simply the fifth column they have insinuated inside our gates. Perhaps the "peaceful" muslims are not even aware of their role in this war. But if typhoid Mary was not aware of her role it did not make her any less dangerous and in need of control. islam is a cancer on mankind. An intelligent atheist would have to admit it is a murderous destructive cult. A person of faith would have to acknowledge it as the work of satan himself.

Posted by: nogard | September 12, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Of course Obama is for the mosque. He is for everything that the majority of Americans are against and against everything that the majority are for.

Posted by: dfox71 | September 12, 2010 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Here is a fact that no one can deny.
If McCain had chosen a much much better VP. If he had been elected there would be none of this. There would be no Mosque at ground zero.period

Posted by: banger909 | September 12, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

banger909:

First of all, McCain reportedly was going to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Would that have been a "better VP"? Second, I would argue that McCain would have still lost the election if you just replace Lieberman with Palin. Third, as President, McCain could not have done anything legally to stop the Mosque.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 13, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

A moment of truth:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/257500/will_the_world_trade_center_debris.html?singlepage=true&cat=5

Posted by: lovelystill | September 13, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

I feel the same way: "yet", but possible that we have totalitarian regime before complying to the sharia law.

Good news: our Fathers Founders took care of the mechanism of Democracy to work properly - election of our representatives. Just do your homework.

Posted by: lovelystill | September 13, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

http://groundzeromosquetheamericanway.blogspot.com/

Posted by: dseigler2 | September 14, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company