Obama’s Position on the Ground Zero Mosque: Why is Anyone Surprised? September 2, 2010
Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a commentby Doug Powers
I wrote a little bit about the Hamas-backed “Ground Zero mosque” over at Michelle’s place (here and here) this past weekend.
Some people were actually surprised that Obama didn’t ask the Park51 group to show more sensitivity to the situation, but why? There’s nothing in Obama’s past that would indicate that he’ll ever to anything but back the Muslim point of view on any issue — or the radical point of view on any issue, for that matter.
As a reminder of why the mosque shock should be minimal, here’s a New York Times article from 2007:
Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
I’m sure that hearing it while standing where the World Trade Centers once were will be very moving indeed.
And after the news of the past three days, in hindsight, the George Stephanopoulos interview where Obama said “my Muslim faith” and then Steffy kick-saved it for him doesn’t seem to be a simple slip-of-the-tongue anymore, does it?
Popout
And of course the absolutely endless praise for Islam over the years:
Popout
Couldn’t Obama have said, “The developers of the mosque so near the hallowed ground of the 9/11 attack would be showing great compassion for the feeling and emotions of the families of victims of the attack — compassion that the holy Koran instructs its followers to practice — if they would find another location for their place of worship”? I know — not a chance in hell.
Given Obama’s no-win on the question of his faith (being a Muslim vs. being a Christian who was a member of the racist Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years), he’d almost be better served politically to give atheism a try heading into the 2012 race.
The shamelessness of Barney Frank September 2, 2010
Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a commentby Phineas
Remember when the financial crisis hit and the Democrats, especially Barney Frank, said they couldn’t be held responsible for the poison mortgages that triggered the whole mess? It was the Republicans’ fault, especially that evil and stupid George W. Bush, but never the Democrats. Never, in spite of passing Community Redevelopment Act in the late 70s that was later used, under Bill Clinton and his Housing Secretary, Andrew Cuomo, to force banks into easy-lending policies to home-buyers who weren’t otherwise qualified. The Democrats had no responsibility, according to Frank and others, even though they then pressed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to guarantee these bad mortgages, buy them up, and sell them as (lousy) bundled securities on the open market and thus poisoning the financial system. The Democrats had no responsibility, even though they blocked three different Republican attempts to reform the two agencies after 2000. Instead, the Democrats, lead by Frank and Senator Chris Dodd (D-Countrywide), defended Fannie and Freddie tooth and claw and even cried racism at any attempt to tighten up lending requirements.
All this lead directly to the September, 2008, financial crisis, but none of it was the Democrats’ responsibility, according to Barney Frank.
That was then, this is now:
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
“I hope by next year we’ll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,” he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that “it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.” He then added, “I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie.”
When I asked Frank about a long-term phase-out plan that would shrink Fannie and Freddie portfolios and mortgage-purchase limits, and merge the agencies into the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for a separate low-income program that would get government out of middle-income housing subsidies, he replied: “Larry, that, I think, is exactly what we should be doing.”
This is like the guy who was warned not to drink and drive killing someone in an accident and then saying “I made a mistake in judgment.” It in no way relieves our imaginary drunk driver nor Barney Frank of the responsibility for the tremendous harm they’ve done. With a beautifully impersonal “it was a mistake,” he hides the fact that he, himself, was one of the powers making that mistake and turning it critical.
And this fat, incompetent clown wants more power? He expects to be reelected? “Shameless” does not begin to describe this slug.
Please, if this November does see a Republican wave, let Bawney Fwank be one of the ones drowned in it.
You can help make this so by donating to his opponent, Sean Bielat.
The real deal September 1, 2010
Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a commentby Phineas
To wash away any bad tastes left by the President’s address on Iraq, let me offer this palate cleanser: the Republican response, presented by US Senate nominee Marco Rubio of Florida:
Now that is how one addresses the nation. Unless something goes very wrong, he’ll be Florida’s next US Senator, and I predict we’ll all be grateful for that.
GROUND ZERO MOSQUE: THE REAL ISSUE September 1, 2010
Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a commentBy Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be — as many mosques throughout the nation are — a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center. It is not the worship of Islam that is the problem. It is the efforts to advance Sharia Law with its requirement of Jihad and violence that is the nub of the issue.
There is a global effort to advance Sharia Law and make it the legal system of the world. Most major banks and financial institutions offer Sharia Compliant Funds which have their investments vetted by the most fundamentalist and reactionary of clerics to assure that they advance Sharia Law. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of the proposed Mosque, helps to prepare a Sharia Index which rates countries on their degree of compliance with Sharia Law. In the United Kingdom, many courts have recognized Sharia as the governing law on matters between two Muslims.
Not only is Sharia Law a vicious anti-female code which orders death by stoning, promotes child marriage, decriminalizes abuse of women, and gives wives no rights in divorce, but it also explicitly recognizes the duty of all Muslims to wage Jihad against non-believers and promotes violence to achieve its goals. In this respect, violent Jihad is as inherent in Sharia Law as revolution is in Communist doctrine.
But there are non-Sharia mosques where peaceful and spiritual Muslims worship God in their own way without promoting violence. A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, found that 20% of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80% are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of Jihad and its inevitable concomitant — terrorism.
Which brings us to the ground zero mosque. There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia Law and will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west. That such a facility should be located right next to the place where Jihad achieved its most hideous triumph is unspeakably inappropriate.
President Obama is confusing the issue when he describes it as one of religious freedom. There is broad latitude to worship God as one chooses. But there is none to promote violence and terrorism. The record of involvement of Sharia mosques with the 9-11 attackers and the Ft. Hood massacre shooter is so deep and extensive that it vividly underscores the difference between a religious institution and an organization that promotes terrorism.
Politically, President Obama’s defense of the mosque and his efforts to make it a First Amendment issue are incredibly self-destructive. They raise questions about his political sanity. It is hard to believe how tone deaf he must have become to take such a position. He has now embraced two positions that are anathema to two-thirds of all Americans — the mosque and opposition to Arizona’s immigration law. Neither was a controversy that sought him out. He waded into each one voluntarily with flags flying. He had no role in the Arizona law but his lawsuit to invalidate it made it his fight. He does not sit on the New York City Planning Commission, but his endorsement of the mosque puts him squarely in the center of controversy. What is he using for brains these days?
To continue the efforts to battle Sharia Law and the attempts of radical Muslims to use it to destroy our values and the gains of feminism, please follow the work funded by the Center for Security Policy and conducted by David Yerushalmi. To help to fund their efforts, go to centerforsecuritypolicy.org.
Congresswoman redirected scholarships to relatives, aide’s children August 31, 2010
Posted by seeineye in : Politics , add a commentby Ed Morrissey
As if Democrats didn’t have enough troubles on the ethics front with two trials coming up in the House. Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters have company after the Dallas Morning News reported that Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson gave scholarships from a charitable fund to four relatives and the two children of her aide. The scholarships violated an anti-nepotism rule that keeps Congressional Black Caucus members from using such charitable funds as payoffs and featherbedding accounts:
Longtime Dallas congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships to four relatives and a top aide’s two children since 2005, using foundation funds set aside for black lawmakers’ causes.
The recipients were ineligible under anti-nepotism rules of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which provided the money. And all of the awards violated a foundation requirement that scholarship winners live or study in a caucus member’s district.
Johnson, a Democrat, denied any favoritism when asked about the scholarships last week. Two days later, she acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules but said she had done so “unknowingly” and would work with the foundation to “rectify the financial situation.”
Oh, please. That doesn’t pass the smell test. Under what system would it ever be acceptable for someone to award scholarship funds from charitable accounts to their own family members? Common sense would tell most people that a line had been crossed, even if it wasn’t explicitly spelled out under the CBC’s own rules — which it was.
Johnson claims she didn’t “personally benefit,” but her family certainly did. So too did the family of her district director, Rod Givens, whose two children got money from the fund. That at least gives the appearance that Johnson used the CBC charity money to pay Givens outside of his normal salary and benefits structure, which is publicly disclosed.
It’s for this precise scenario that most charitable organizations use independent boards to select recipients for outlays. Instead of putting the individual Representative in the role of paymaster, a smarter and less fraught method would be for the CBC to handle these applications in an aggregate manner and then have an independent panel make the final decisions, even while Representatives nominate constituents for the awards. Why don’t they do that? Because the entire purpose of the scholarships is to make the individual Representatives get the credit for giving the money to the students, so they can get their names in the paper and keep getting re-elected.
Johnson may get re-elected anyway, but it’s clear that she represents the swamp that needs draining, and soon.
Update: Jeff Dunetz thinks this is a perfect example of Congressional arrogance.
