Author Archive
Imam Feisel’s indecent proposal: the Ground Zero Mosque
Written by Chad Phillips
Tuesday, 24 August 2010 00:09
2 Comments

Unless you live in a cave (and are not a terrorist) you already have heard about what has come to be called the Ground Zero Mosque. If you don't know what the flap is about, click the previous embedded link and read the article before continuing further.

I have refrained from commenting about the issue, here, until now, mostly because new information kept coming to light and I wanted to give this thing a balanced treatment.  In general, I think most folks are quite confused about the mosque on both sides of the debate.

For example I keep hearing conservatives saying that that the Cordoba Initiative has no legal right to build this mosque in the proposed location. I've also heard liberals parroting the mantra of the imam (Feisel Abdul Rauf) who is behind this proposed structure, in saying that the building "is not a mosque; this is a cultural center."

So what's the big deal? Does Rauf have a legal right to renovate this structure so close to Ground Zero? Is it really just a community center and nothing more? Let's start with the legal challenges.

First, contrary to popular belief, Rauf and his organization have every right to build a mosque here. They're on solid footing with the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the freedom to practice their religion and they're on fertile ground from a real estate and property law point of view. So conservatives, please stop spewing the completely inaccurate blather that these Muslims and their organization have no legal right to build (or renovate) a structure at or near Ground Zero. They do. Kindly, get your facts straight or shut your pieholes…please.

Second, concerning the claim that this structure won't be a mosque: Rauf and his liberal allies get around the whole mosque problem by continually mouthing the words, cultural+community+center and not elaborating on the fact that this building will contain a mosque. Technically, the entire structure won't be a mosque, sure. But a mosque will be there and I highly doubt you'll see any Jews or Christians in there holding worship services. So from a certain point of view (the technical point of view) Rauf and his liberal allies are telling the truth when they say the structure won't be a mosque…technically. It all depends on your frame of reference…or rather, how you word things.

But here's another item which makes no sense: If there's no mosque, then why hide behind the Bill of Rights, Imam Feisel? If there's no mosque, then Muslim's won't be practicing their religion on the site will they? And if that's the case, then there's no infringement on the right to practice one's religion…so the whole freedom of religion thing isn't even applicable. After all, it's not a mosque; it's a "cultural center." (wink, wink…nod, nod)

That said, it has been stated that the "center" is meant to help foster an environment of peace, healing, interfaith relations, and better understanding between Muslims and the West, that it will exist to serve the community at large, meaning both Muslims and non-Muslims. If that's true, then why doesn't Rauf's proposal for this center include, a church, a Jewish synagogue, and perhaps, offices for the Council for Secular Humanism?

Moreover, if you were trying to reach out to Americans and show them that Islam is really about peace and fostering better understanding, why would you bend over backwards to bloody the noses of so many people in the process? Think about it; 70 percent of the country is against his proposal to put a mosque…(ahem) I mean "cultural center" on the GZ site and a majority of New Yorkers are against it as well. Yet, he is insisting on it. He is demanding it, in spite of the pain and outrage Americans are feeling at his proposal to build this thing so close to GZ.

Whatever Rauf's intentions with this structure, there's one thing we can be sure of: This isn't a matter of religious freedom. He could put this mosque anywhere he pleases (and he is doing just that). Rather, the issue is should he put it in the proposed location, given the circumstances? You see, it's a matter of propriety, of decency, of good manners. Just because some person, corporate or organizational entity has the right to do something, doesn't mean they should. The legality of a proposition isn't directly proportional to the morality of a proposition. I refuse to believe that a man as intelligent as Rauf doesn't understand this concept. And knowing this, what is Rauf's response?  Why, to move ahead with his indecent proposal, of course, and to refuse any discussion of other alternatives. And while from a legal standpoint I have no problem with his proposal, I find it troubling and offensive in the extreme that  Rauf and his organization could be so callous and insensitive to the ramifications of putting a new mosque on this site. I also find it insulting that he would actually claim to be trying to foster an environment of reconciliation, when his actions are doing just the opposite. I fail to see how driving a stake through the heart of this nation will help Rauf to achieve his stated goals. Instead, it will serve to inflame and further alienate the very people he claims he wants to reach out to. The whole damned excursion just smells bad. It smacks of duplicity and I don't buy it.

 
This conservative agrees with Barack Obama
Written by Chad Phillips
Wednesday, 21 July 2010 12:43
No Comments

I never thought the day would come, but it has. Today in an article entitled, Obama to GOP: Restore unemployment benefits now President Obama said the following, "These are honest, decent, hardworking folks who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own." For once, I agree with you Mr. President. That is, in general, I think most folks are hard working and decent enough. They're not greedy and they're not lazy; they just want to be able to work and support their families unfettered by government constraints. Most aren't interested in handouts either, although tough economic times have made that a necessity in some cases.

That said, extending unemployment is not the best way to help people, especially when you’re increasing the deficit to do it.  Long term, the best way to help Americans is to roll back our current free trade policies. These are the same free trade policies championed by most politicians on both sides of the aisle. In particular the GOP backs these utterly failed and morally bankrupt policies as a matter of course. As I said, democrats do as well. But the Dems aren't pretending to be the Party of Mom, Apple Pie, and everything that's wholesome, good, and fiscally responsible for America. The GOP is…and that's why their commitment to unchecked free trade in the U.S. is all the more reprehensible.

When our free trade policies level the playing field and give corporate America incentives to come back to this country, the jobs will come back as well. Equally important is America's once intact standing as self sufficient. Our founding fathers knew this and legislated after that fact. But then, they believed in enduring principles. Our current legislators only operate by one guiding principle: Me first…everyone else last.

As most of you know, I am a paleoconservative. Therefore, I am against extending these unemployment benefits in principle. However, I would support this band-aid action if (1) it could be paid for, and (2) our legislators would go back to the free trade policies which helped make this country great. Since neither of these actions are going to happen EVER! I reserve all of my ire for the self serving bastards on the Hill.

UPDATE!!!!! At the time of this writing, the bill to extend unemployment without any way of paying for it had not yet passed. The Obama administration, which includes democrat legislators, were waiting on the votes of three turncoat GOP senators, who according to Obama, “put politics and partisanship aside” when they voted for this bill.

I’d like to make a couple of observations here:

First, Obama repeatedly cast GOP opposition to the bill as heartless, partisan, hyper-political maneuvering. But that was hardly the case. Rather, the GOP was for extending benefits, provided they were already paid for, as opposed to Obama’s plan, which is going to increase the deficit even further. To that end, Obama proves he’s more than able as a political opportunist and liar of the highest order.

Second, I find it most convenient that any time members of the GOP go along with whatever lame assed, stupid, irresponsible, myopic legislation the Dems want, it’s applauded by the prez as being bipartisan. Yes, Mr. President, all of us out here in the Land of Stupid are far too “dumb” to understand what you mean when you say that these GOP backstabbing, gutless, Benedict Arnolds, “put politics and partisanship aside.” That simply means that the legislators in question “went along.” They played your rigged little game. They sided with you, and our children’s, children’s, children’s children will be paying for it, along with the rest of the irresponsible spending bills you and your pals have rammed down our throats over the past 6 years. You people are reckless and you’re destroying this country.

 
Attorney General Eric Holder is a big fat bleeping idiot
Written by Chad Phillips
Monday, 12 July 2010 12:30
5 Comments

It's true you know…Only complete dunces like Eric Holder and the rest of the Obama regime could force me out of retirement to blog politics. Why, you may ask? Okay, I know only a liberal would ask that question, but I digress…

FROM THE AP: The Obama administration sued Arizona on Tuesday, arguing that the state is impinging on federal responsibilities for dealing with immigration.

Well, it doesn't take a PhD to understand that if the Feds were doing their flipping jobs in the first place, Arizona wouldn't have to do it for them. Duh!

Furthermore, this is the same Eric Holder who said that the Arizona law was racist and that he was considering bringing a lawsuit against the Arizona legislature without ever having read the law. This is coming from the highest law enforcement officer in the land? That he's considering bringing suit on the basis of his assumptions about a law he hasn't even read? Of course, now we know the man is serious, even if functionally insane. Since Tuesday last, the feds did in fact sue. Is this what we're to expect from your henchmen Comrade Obama? That your goons will go after any state which refuses to breathe the tainted air inside your liberal bubble? This isn't getting way out of hand; it's already there…like so far off the map, we're talking another galaxy here. (Sorry about the mixed metaphors, but I've just finished watching the entire series of the original Star Trek.) Anyway, I just feel so privileged that I can watch the buffoonery of the Obama administration from the comfort of my captain's chair, parked squarely in front of my computer. I mean, good God America- how long must we endure this complete moronathon in the guise of "good" government?

If that weren't bad enough, he's at it again! Now, Eric Holder is threatening another suit based on racial profiling. According to the AP:

The Justice Department hasn't ruled out filing a second lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration law if evidence shows racial profiling at work, Attorney General Eric Holder says.

Once again, this is just more of the Obama administration's moonbattyness to the inth degree. The law is written to inoculate against racial profiling. But don't take my word for it; see for yourself:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…

Emphasis mine

The operative words here are "lawful" and  "contact." Lawful contact means that the officer is already in the act of detaining the individual because they broke the law. This language was crafted  explicitly as an antidote against racial profiling. That means that either Eric Holder is an incompetent dingbat who still hasn't read the law and thus has no flipping idea what the hell he's talking about, or…he has finally read the law and is incapable of understanding it, in which case, I stand by my original assertion that the man is a big fat bleeping idiot,  intent on steamrolling Arizona's right to protect its citizens.