On The "Ground Zero Mosque"

>> Saturday, August 28, 2010

I've stayed out of the discussion about the Mosque at ground zero controversy for several reasons. Mostly, because there really isn't anything to say about it that hasn't been said already. And, it doesn't require a lengthy statement to state my opinion which is:

They have the right to build it there, but they shouldn't.

However, allow me to respond to the points made by the left in their attempts to justify their support of the Mosque by repeating, ad nauseum, some, but not all of the following points:

1. The Mosque won't be built right on Ground Zero, but is instead a couple of blocks away.

2. It really isn't a Mosque, per se, but an Islamic "cultural center". The Mosque is only a small part of the entire center.

3. They have a legal, first amendment right to build their Mosque wherever they want.

4. Their stated intent is to dissolve the antipathy between Islam and all other religions and to unite the community.

5. Not all Muslims are terrorists.

6. Americans are racist bigots for not wanting to allow the Muslims to build their Mosque near Ground Zero.

7. We need to be tolerant of other religions and cultures. Intolerance is anti-American.

8. It doesn't matter who is funding the project.

9. Americans who oppose the building of the Mosque only oppose it because they hate Obama. (I've actually heard this)

10. Some of the families of the victims of 9/11 support the project.

This is my response to those points:

1. It doesn't matter if the Mosque isn't right at ground Zero. The intent is clear. It is a "victory" Mosque. Make no mistake. Muslims, by and large, consider the attacks on the WTC a victory for Islam. If one does the necessary research, one will find it is standard operating procedure for Muslims to build Mosques upon the rubble of property taken in battle. I'm sure the Muslims probably wanted to build it right at Ground Zero, but were disallowed because it is now considered an historical site, so they got as close as they were allowed.

2. An Islamic cultural center is even more dangerous to Americans than merely a Mosque. A cultural center, especially one that promotes itself as multi-culturist, will attempt to convert all who make use of the facility to Islam, and by extension, some of the more impressionable converts may become terrorists, or at least, terrorist sympathizers themselves.

Think of your local Evangelical Church establishing programs for the youth in the community for the purpose of evangelism. It's the same concept.

Except, Christian community programs don't usually teach kids how to blow things up.

An Islamic Cultural center may breed terrorism. Any true Christian should oppose this cultural center on the basis that Islam is a Satanic religion intent on wiping Christianity out, if for no other reason.

3. This is true. But, just because they have the right to build it wherever they want, it doesn't mean they have to build it wherever they want.

4. If they are truly trying to "unite" the community as they claim, they would build it almost anywhere else (with the exception, of course, next to the Pentagon or in a certain field in Pennsylvania).

5. This is true also, but most terrorists are Muslims, with very few exceptions. And, regardless whether certain Muslims are terrorists themselves, the majority of them support terrorism, or refuse to condemn terrorist acts.

6. Some Americans are indeed bigots and racists, but they aren't the only Americans who oppose the project. Muslims are bigoted against Jews, Americans, women, and homosexuals, along with every other group in the world that represents any group except Muslims. In fact, there are Muslims that are even prejudiced against other Muslims who are not of the same sect of Islam. Muslims, as a rule, are much more bigoted than the majority of Americans. Why doesn't the left have a problem with that?

7. Intolerance is a door that swings both ways. Why is there no outrage over the intolerance exhibited by supporters of the Mosque? Why do they have no tolerance for my opinions? I've said this often: I find Liberal intolerance of my intolerance intolerable.

8. This is true, also. I see no reason why Conservatives would use this as an objection to the Mosque. Does anyone ever ask who funds Baptist Church buildings? How about Catholics? Mormons? Scientologists? It doesn't matter who funds the project. The better question is why they are funding the project. What is their motive?

9. No, we oppose it because it is highly insulting and insensitive to the memory of the victims of the WTC attacks in 2001. We don't oppose the project because Obama supports it. Obama's support of the project is yet another in a long list of reasons why we hate Obama.

10. So what? Families of the victims have every right to be supportive of the group that destroyed their lives. They also have the right to be wrong, misguided, and deluded.

It's called Liberty.

Giving tacit approval of a bad idea doesn't make it a good idea.

Bottom line: Muslims have the right to build their Mosque anywhere they want. But, if they are truly a "religion of peace", as the Liberals claim, why would they want to build it near Ground Zero unless they want to intentionally insult and offend America?

Cross posted at Casting Pearls before Swine

Read more...

Who Would Hire? Who Could?

>> Thursday, August 19, 2010

The question of whether Obama and the boys are stupid or deliberately destructive came up in Eric's post below. This article from Investor's Business Daily lists ten reasons for the poor job situation in this country: (Hat tip--Wintery Knight)

-Executive orders and regulations promoting compulsory unionism.
-Obama's forced restructuring of GM.
-Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 (ObamaCare).
-Extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks — almost two years!
-American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.
-Minimum wage laws.
-Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.
-Moratorium on offshore oil drilling.
-Expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
-Obama's runaway spending.

Any number of the above list would make moving a company overseas a good idea. Why would anyone want to start a business or expand a business with all the above hanging over their heads? In the best economy, with everything laid out to the advantage of business, start-ups or expansion is risky. But now, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars and are too nervous to make a move, with some considering China, of all places, as the place to set up shop. Does anyone seriously think that's preferred?

The thing is, the detrimental effect each and every point has had on employment and/or the economy had been foreseen. Only a lefty could be so blind as to believe any of these moves would have a positive effect. If Barry's the brilliant one we're so often told he is, then this has to be a deliberate attempt to screw things up. Rank stupidity is the only rational explanation.

But hey, the nation was warned. He had no record of wisdom upon which to gamble a vote back in November of '08. True, McCain is no Einstein. But would we have it THIS bad? Doubtful. Keep in mind also that this is only the arena of economics. Barry's shown nothing resembling brilliance in any other area of leadership either.

Read more...

Depression on the Horizon?

I know a lot of our readers are drinking the Bam's Kool-Aid so none of what follows is likely to make any sense to them. But one has to wonder... is Obama really this stupid? Or is what he and the Democratic leadership doing intentional? Either, Or... both spell disaster for America. And judging strictly from what we've seen so far, America may already be lost.


Ex-Bank of England Official:
Dumping Bush Tax Cuts May Bring Depression

-Dan Weil, Wednesday, 18 Aug 2010

Many economists are worried about the possibility of a double-dip recession, but former Bank of England official David Blanchflower thinks it could be much worse than that if the Bush tax cuts aren’t extended.

"If we don't act fast, a plunge into Depression is a growing risk in... the U.S.," he writes in a column on Bloomberg.

"The so-called Bush tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire at the end of the year, should be extended as soon as possible."

President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress want to keep the cuts only for those with income of less than $200,000, while Republicans want the reductions to continue for everyone.

The weak economy begs for the tax cuts, implemented in 2001 and 2003, to be continued, says Blanchflower, now an economics professor at Dartmouth College and the University of Stirling in Scotland.

The Federal Reserve's recent decision to buy more Treasuries is a positive step, he says.

"But banks aren't lending and firms need incentives to hire, so the Fed move isn't enough, especially since quantitative easing will take time to work."

Blanchflower notes that unemployment stands at 9.5 percent, jobless claims are rising, bank lending is weak, housing prices aren't rebounding despite mortgage rates at record lows, consumer confidence remains depressed and consumer spending is slowing.

The whopping $49.9 billion trade deficit in June doesn't help either.

"It's time for tax cuts, which have the added advantage that they work quickly," Blanchflower writes. "Firms respond to incentives."

Rather than being eliminated, the Bush tax cuts should be adjusted to maximize job creation, he says.

In addition to extending the cuts, Blanchflower likes the idea of suspending the payroll tax, half of which is paid by workers, for 12-18 months.

"Households would experience an immediate 3.5 percent increase in disposable income that they could employ to sustain consumption and pay down debts," Blanchflower says, citing American Enterprise Institute estimates.

"And it would give an incentive to hire. This would inject an additional $625 billion a year and would jump-start the economy."

Martin Regalia, an economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, also says erasing the Bush tax cuts would have dire consequences, killing the economy’s chances for recovery.

"That's what you're suggesting, is a corporate bullet in the head," he said at a conference, The Hill reports.

"That is going to be a bullet in the head for an awful lot of people that are going to be laid off and an awful lot of people who are hoping to get their jobs back."

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, has a compromise solution.

"The prudent middle ground would be to forestall any tax increases in 2011 and to phase in higher rates on upper-income households in 2012, when the economy will be on firmer ground," he writes in The New York Times.

Read more...

Patiently Waiting For November

>> Wednesday, August 11, 2010



"The word 'hope' comes up with Obama as often today as it did during his campaign, just in a different context." ~ John Hawkins

My wife and I have been considering a move to the Midwest.

The idea first started from a leisurely search on the internet, in which my curiosity about the value of our house in today's real estate market taught me that real estate prices in my hometown of Wichita are less than half that of similar properties here in the Fredericksburg area.

We learned houses there that are even larger and better than ours are selling for less than half what ours is worth. Initially, it seemed we could sell this house and buy one in the Wichita area for cash and have enough money left over to literally live comfortably for at least a year while I search for a job.

So, we had a real estate man visit our house to do an assessment of it's value, and give recommendations for enhancing it's saleability.

The results were disappointing. Real estate values in our area have plummeted in the last few years.

Curiously, that happened about the same time the Democrats took over Congress.

I blame them and Obama.

It seems we will have to wait until the real estate market improves before putting our house on the market. It is a buyers market right now, not a sellers market.

Of course, I knew that beforehand. I'm not that stupid. I just didn't know how bad it was.

I told my wife we should wait until November when the Republicans re-take the Congress and, consequently, the market improves.

Some might say it will take quite a bit longer for the market to improve even if the Republicans immediately begin to repair the damage done to the economy by the Obama regime's reckless economic policies, but I have my own theory.

Now, I'm far from an economic expert, so my theory may be dead wrong. And, if I'm wrong, I know some economic experts (such as resident Liberal, Jim) will no doubt enumerate the many reasons why. But regardless, here it is:

The stock market is driven by speculation. Economic experts, whose entire existence depends on their ability to analyze and predict the ups and downs of the economy, stake their jobs and their reputations on educated guesses about what the stock market will do tomorrow.

This is called speculation.

The real estate market is influenced by the stock market exactly the same way as all other aspects of the economy. If the stock market is down, the real estate market follows suit. The same applies if the stock market goes up.

The fluctuations of the stock market, and by extension, the real estate market, are directly influenced by the movers and shakers in the industry, through the process of speculation.

When the Republicans win the majority in November, I'm thinking the experts in the industry will speculate (and rightly so) that the Republicans will begin to reverse the failed economic policies of the Obama administration and the stock market will immediately jump up several notches on whatever scale the market is measured.

In the same way it dropped immediately after the Democrats took over as the majority party in 2006.

Coincidence? I think not.

The stock market will improve, and with it, the real estate market.

Thus, come this November, I'm hoping I'm correct and real estate prices will improve enough that the move we're considering will be worth the wait.

I'm waiting for November.

Read more...

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP