intoning the "noble" reasons for favoring the Ground Zero Mosque......
Posted on 08/17/2010 3:30:22 AM PDT by markomalley
If the Muslims planning the building of the mosque on THAT site would take out a full page in say, the NYT or WSJ and publicly disavow ANY connection to or agreement with violent fundamentalist Islam, Terrorism and its supporters, etc ... then, that would go a long way toward SORT OF making it right.
(I still do NOT think it is advisable for THAT structure at THAT site and if the ‘President’ or the Muslims proposing it had an ounce of intellect or sense of propriety, it would never have been suggested OR even considered at all.)
Has the ‘President’ taken an oath somewhere along the line to insult and defame Americans as much and as often as possible in his term of office??? Because if not, what “O” is doing really makes NO SENSE!
Selective incorporation is an abomination.
I thought he had a "Doctorate in Dhimmitude"...
If the Muslims planning the building of the mosque on THAT site would take out a full page in say, the NYT or WSJ and publicly disavow ANY connection to or agreement with violent fundamentalist Islam, Terrorism and its supporters, etc ... then, that would go a long way toward SORT OF making it right.
No, it wouldn’t make it right but that’s a good point.
We’ve been waiting TEN YEARS for just that kind of
statement from the Islamic ummah and it hasn’t been
forthcoming. I don’t expect it any time.
“I might add that selective incorporation pursuant to a 14th Amendment that was fraudulently ratified is an even greater abomination.”
BUMP
I don’t see any identical posts
The kind of ‘expression’ we are expecting from them will NEVER come, because they DO NOT (REPEAT... DO NOT) disagree with radical Islam. PERIOD!
If this “President” buys some OTHER explanation for their lack of contrition over the Terrorist assaults on the US, that is HIS business.
The rest of us know better and having their mosque crammed down our throat is really too much! This is a blueprint for social discord which could not be more destructive if the Muslims wrote it themselves. Even the most intellectually challenged and jejune ‘President’ in American history should be able to figure this out.
Just as Americans are expected to (and seriously punished if they don't) observe deference and respect for foreign authority when abroad, WHY CAN'T GUESTS TO AMERICA OBSERVE SOME KIND OF RESPECT FOR AMERICA AS THEIR HOST COUNTRY????????? FURTHERMORE....guests HERE demand and get way more consideration than any American gets when traveling ... no matter HOW respectful he is.
It's not a religion.
It's a murderous totalitarian ideology bent on world domination.
Don't forget the ones who jumped because plummeting 1000 feet to go 'splat' on the pavement was preferable to being incinerated alive.
That gets us into the issue of "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights. Many of us didn't like it when it was argued that the Second Amendment only applied to the Federal Government and that the states could do whatever they wanted to limit or ban guns. It seems like a similar argument.
Nor any matches searching just on the individual words “Clueless” or “Professor”.
Not even a slight he endured.
The "slight" is the story of his father's torture by the Brits (during the Mau Mau rebellion, as I recall), which may or may not be true.
His father's dream was the destruction of Western Civilization, turning the whole world into a socialist/Marxist utopia. As described in the title of The Won's book "Dreams From My Father", he inherited that dream.
It was further stoked by the people he's associated with his entire life, from Frank Davis to "Reverend" Wright to Bill Ayers, nurturing from his earliest memories the hatred of Western Civilization, English-speaking people in general, and the United States in particular, an intense burning desire to destroy them all.
Yep. I've written about that here.
Many of us didn't like it when it was argued that the Second Amendment only applied to the Federal Government and that the states could do whatever they wanted to limit or ban guns. It seems like a similar argument.
From a legal perspective, I had concerns about Gura's approach of using the 14th. Whether or not he proves logistically correct remains to be seen, in that with more gun owners and more proof of how that works out we gain ground politically. OTOH, with the delays in how long it takes to throw out bad state laws, I'm not encouraged by what I see. The thugs of this world are committed to our subjugation.
The big problem with Gura's approach is that when we ask FedGov to enforce a right against the States we are giving the likes of Obama means to enforce bogus means to violate them completely without recourse, particularly by treaty. OTOH, natural law competition was proving that gun ownership drops gun violence; States with gun laws more liberal than Congress is likely to ever allow especially so.
“Because some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn. “ — Alfred Pennyworth
I read somewhere about another being refered to as 'the father of lies'...
seems like pure evil is required to tip its hand, and gets off on openly doing so...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.