Pro Terrorist Liberals Give Approval to Ground Zero Mosque

More Info From Michelle Malkin

As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.

http://markkelly.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/muslims-oppose-ground-zero-mos...

So let's trash the Constitution intead?

BTW, I completely endorse the international covert assassination of nonuniformed terrorists, and the surveillance of those suspected to be terrorists. I support the death penalty. However, the first amendment enshrines freedom of religion" as the law, way of doing business and basis for our society. I do not care how much someone really, REALLY doesn't like a particular religion.

http://www.emophilips.com/video/video/244

Well those upset can support Greg's plan to build a gay bar for Islamic men right next to the Mosque.

thejohnchapman: COULDN"T AGREE WITH YOU MORE !!!

Also, I need to say that: The name-calling 'adults' are showing their immaturity and lack of personal dignity .....yet again. Grade-school mentality posts ( nanner~ nanner ~ nanner) and Tabloid Topic Headings only degrade AMG's Public Square (in my humble opinion).

If two blocks is too close, then how far away is OK?

Heh.

Read the entire Philadelphia Inquirer editorial, and substitute "Cordoba Initiative mosque" for "LDS temple," and "New York City" for "Philadelphia," and you might have had a national story about First Amendment rights, and private property rights.....

Or maybe hardy-har-har.

The lower Manhattan mosque has provoked many doubts and suspicions. Here’s mine: the whole thing is a phony-baloney publicity stunt by a developer in search of project financing.

I saw on the news this morning that the State Department is funding a trip for the Imam to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
I sent the following to State "Is it true that the US taxpayer is funding a trip to Saudi Arabia and the UAE for the Imam who wants to build a Mosque near ground zero? If yes exactly how is that cost to the taxpayer justified?"
I'll post the answer if I get one.

Al:

Is it ok if the ticket is one way?

Only if the Saudi's pay.

"Pro Terrorist Liberals".

Enlighten us, please. Are you suggesting the Muslims who want to build this mosque are terrorists? And by supporting their plans to build a mosque, the "liberals" are thus "pro-terrorist"?

Because if the thought process is that simple, then we could also call Catholics "pro-sexual abuse" because SOME Catholic clergy have been sexually abusing children. We could call Hindu's "pro-terrorist", after all some Hindus have been linked to terrorist attacks. Heck, even Buddhists have been linked to terrorism. Where does it end?

Bob, if Apollo doesn't mind, I'll attempt a response to a couple of these questions.

Are you suggesting the Muslims who want to build this mosque are terrorists?

The front-man for this effort is a Muslim cleric who is clearly ambivalent toward terrorism and who is sympathetic toward the general idea that Islam is the victim of Western culture. There are at least some terrorist organizations he refuses to repudiate. It is evident that the location of the mosque is intended as a symbolic thumb-in-the-eye toward the United States; it will be triumphantly represented as such throughout the Muslim world.

And by supporting their plans to build a mosque, the "liberals" are thus "pro-terrorist"?

If people sympathetic to terrorist aims want to build a mosque for purposes of political symbolism, it's not much of a stretch to argue that those who express support for their effort are "pro-terrorist".

Because if the thought process is that simple, then we could also call Catholics "pro-sexual abuse" because SOME Catholic clergy have been sexually abusing children.

Apropos of simple thought, this argument is wildly inapt. If a splinter group of Catholics had endorsed the sexual abuse of children and a group of mainstream Catholics who proposed to build a church refused to disavow that group, then your analogy might make sense.

So you're confirming the people who want to build the mosque are terrorists. I thought so but you (or Apollo or Melvin) weren't quite clear on that.

So if the people who want to build this mosque are terrorists, why are they allowed to walk the streets of New York? What can we do, round them up and deport them? I mean, they're terrorists, certainly we can detain them for that, right?

Generally, the liberals that are pushing for this mosque only want to do it to insult and get in the face of the citizens that survived the 9/11 attacks, driven basically by a hatred for the country they live in. As Ann Coulter said once, the only religion that liberals support is radical Islam, post 911. Think of it this way. Suppose someone wanted to put up a memorial in Oklahama City, on the site of the building Timothy McVeigh bombed, and call it the "Freedom Fighter tribute dedicated to the fight against big government tyranny" - same thing. It's basically all a moot point though in the end. Heard on Fox News that all of the construction workers in New York are refusing to build the mosque, lol.

Thanks, Apollo and Ann, for clearing that up. As a liberal, sometimes it's hard to remember which religions I am supposed to love, and which ones to hate. It's good to have folks like yourself out there reminding me what I think.

Bob, perhaps you could ask the Japanese if the Americans could come in and build a museum in Hiroshima dedicated to the history of nuclear power. If they reject the idea, you could always brand them as "haters" or racists or close minded xenophobes.

If you were a conservative you wouldn't need people to remind you how to think. You'd be able to think for yourself. We tend to search for information with which to make decisions, as opposed to talking points with which to defend our position.

Well, maybe, but are you sure the Muslims who want to build a Mosque aren't Americans?

Ah, thanks Stavros. I got my information from the Constitution, in part.

Why just this mosque? Why should we, as proud anti-terrorist Americans, allow ANY mosque to be built in our country?

PS Don't look now but I think Apollo gets his talking points from Ann Coulter.

Where exactly in the Constitution does it allow you to build a church, temple or mosque anywhere you want? How exactly can the same Constitution that your liberal heroes declare says one cannot mention God in school for fear of offending someone not allow for a method to prevent a place of worship from being built where it might offend someone. You love your double standards don't you?

I really wish people could read. How does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" have anything to do with the actions of a planning board? Furthermore, how is a voluntary prayer not protected by this same section?

Those pesky facts and words, the bane of all hypocritical liberals.

So you're confirming the people who want to build the mosque are terrorists. I thought so but you (or Apollo or Melvin) weren't quite clear on that.

No one confirmed that, you made it up so it would fit neatly into the talking point you were so desperate to regurgitate back to us.

I read Scott's reply and he neither said nor implied such nonsense.

So you're confirming the people who want to build the mosque are terrorists.

I'm understanding that distinctions aren't your strong suit but if you care to review my post, Bob, you will discover that I didn't confirm that the people who want to build the mosque are terrorists.

It doesn't say you can build it anywhere you want. You're right on that one. Seems to me, letting a planning board determine where a church or mosque can be built would run afoul of your conservative beliefs. And further, that allowing the placement to be denied because it hurts someone's feelings would really tick you off.

Should the planning board base their decision on the rules in place, or on how they feel about it?

So Economike, would you therefore agree that the people who are supporting the idea of building this mosque are not "pro-terrorist'?

I've been on planning and appeals boards and, in my opinion, "how people feel about it" is very relevant. That is exactly why there is time for public comment. It is the job of those individuals on that board to weigh everything they hear and make a decision. If it later goes to court then the courts need to decide based strictly on law. The impact to a neighborhood is very significant.

You can be sure if the KKK was looking to build a community center in Harlem no one would care about property rights. (Unless of course it was from their sister offshoot, Planned Parenthood, then they would be welcomed with open arms. But thats a whole other issue.)

The right to free association is in the Bill of Rights just like religion.

You can be pro-terrorist without actually being a terrorist. Ask any American. Half of the will tell you George Bush was responsible for arming the terrorists and is therefore pro-terrorist and the other half will tell you Obama's actions are supportive of the extremists who attack us.

They will all tell you that neither of them would risk their money, power and position to be a terrorist.

So Economike, would you therefore agree that the people who are supporting the idea of building this mosque are not "pro-terrorist'?

No, Bob. Here's what I wrote -

If people sympathetic to terrorist aims want to build a mosque for purposes of political symbolism, it's not much of a stretch to argue that those who express support for their effort are "pro-terrorist".

New York Democrat Governor Declares that Mosque Must Be Moved to New Site

Good work, Stavros. It's fun watching Bob M. walk backwards.

If he keeps it up, he'll develop chronic round heels.