Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Well, Newt Gingerich, for one. He keeps saying that the government should decalre Ground Zero a war memorial (although the mosque/community center wouldn't actually be on the grounds... sort of a loop in that argument). Plus, there's this:
Let's break it down as simply as we can, using Obama as an example (I don't know as much about what Bloomberg said): Obama stated his position quite clearly a few weeks ago. (1) They have the same religious rights as the rest of us, and thus have the freedom to build their mosque/community center. To coin a phrase, he pleaded the first amendment. When he took heat for that, he clarified that (2) the location was in fact in bad taste.
You've very clearly stated (above) that you think that Obama is backing the project. Not steering clear of the project. Not ignoring the project. Not staying out of it and letting other people take care of it. Not even supporting the project. Backing the project. Your words.
So, assuming that you are once again making your points implicity and not flat out stating where you stand, let's ask the obvious question: what would Obama have to do in order to not fit your definition of "backing" the project? Obama not doing anything about it obviously isn't your answer. So, by every form of logic known to man, the answer is for Obama to somehow get involved. Perhaps you mean that he should perhaps make some sort of statement (like he has done with the Quran burner in Florida), but I'll eat my hat if that's enough to actually stop the mosque from being built.
I didn't compare first amendment rights to affirmative action. I compared affirmative action to your repeated complaining about inequities in the MSM, or your "Six Flags Over Mecca" comment I quoted above.
Saying that a conservative prefers to limit the power of the government isn't exactly "keen insight". In fact, I'd say that it's about as insightful as "socialists don't mind paying high taxes" or "Christians worship Jesus Christ as their savior".
Is declaring GZ a war memorial the same as prohibiting the backers from building their little club house? Truly, I'm not aware that Gingrich has suggested that, are you sure? And if we can establish that Gingrich has actually suggested government prohibit the construction of Jihadland, then your challenge becomes to name two people who have advocated that.
No one is suggesting or has suggested that "government" get involved in this matter from the standpoint of stopping the construction of the facility (you like that better?). Now opponants of the facility having been doing what opponants of all sorts of projects always do, they've availed themselves of the tools we give them to delay or kill a project, if legally possible. "Community organizers" do this every single day all across the country. So suddenly, in this case, that strategy is wrong. Why? Houses of worship of all denominations run into objections to plans for expansion or new construction every single day. Impact on traffic. Zoning. Neighborhood continuity. These are all cited by opponants as reasons why the expansion/construction shouldn't be "allowed." Somehow, in this case, involving an Islamic center, we have to automatically roll over and approve their plans lest we be accused of "Islamophobia."
Actually "the smartest leader in the history of the world" made a statement that everybody in attendance thought was approval of the building of Islamotran. All the NY papers (including the lying Times) put that on the front page of their Saturday editions, and many of BO's sycophants in the media immediately pronounced it one of his greatest moments. Moment turned out to be correct, since he walked back from his "greatest moment" almost immediately and had various WH toadies clarify his remarks (TWICE).
I should think someone allegedly as smart as our president should be able to feed something into his teleprompter that gives us a little exegesis on the First Amendment while at the same time making it clear he opposes the building of this Islamist Victory Arch. He had no difficulty whatsoever making clear what his view was of the Cambridge PD.
As to "affirmative action," I get it. When the MSM lie or report (as is customary) from a lefty perspective, we're not supposed to notice. And we're not supposed to complain. And we certainly shouldn't expect them to cut it out. To do so, is to establish some sort of "affirmative action," which conservatives generally don't like. Oh my, a "dual standard," har, har, har. Of course, I have a higher view of journalism than equating it with giving away government cheese, but if you want to conflate the two, knock yourself out. At least you're not denying MSM bias, for which you get points.
Finally, sniffed out the sarcasm, did you?
