Obama on Burning the Quran

President Obama has opined on the "wisdom" of a Florida pastor burning the Koran this coming 9/11:

President Obama is encouraging a Florida minister to "listen to those better angels" and call off his plan to engage in Quran-burning this weekend.

Obama, on "Good Morning America", said that he hopes the Rev. Terry Jones of Florida listens to people who have asked him to call off the plan. The president characterized it as a "stunt."

"If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans. That this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance."

Wait! Isn't this the same President who championed the legality and right of Muslims to build a mosque and community center in the shadow of Ground Zero, but refused to comment on "the wisdom of it"?

Here we have a Florida pastor, exercising his right of free speech and suddenly, Obama finds his voice? Or did he just get bumped a "pay grade" when we weren't looking?

I'll comment on the "wisdom" of burning the Quran: It's a bad idea. It is, you will excuse the pun, inflammatory. If the good pastor ever hopes to reach out to any Muslims with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he will find even more resistance to what begins as a daunting task.

Aside from the peril it might increase for our troops on foreign soil and at home, it is an unnecessary bit of political theater unbefitting a supposed minister of God.

But, as even a blind pig can find an acorn occasionally, Obama characterized this as "a stunt", and so it well may be. It seems to be one way to make the point, that although some things are legally permitted, they can often be inflammatory or unwise, perhaps the Apostle Paul with his whole "cause your brother to stumble*" message had the right idea after all?

I suspect that at the last minute, with all the cameras rolling and the attention of a news cycle starved media circus attending, that the pastor will refrain from burning any books and declare the principle that just because something is legal doesn't mean you should always do it...like that Mosque at Ground Zero.

Then he could exhort them to use most of the arguments public figures have used against him and apply them to the so called "Ground Zero Mosque" in NYC.

And then, sit back and watch the spin.


*I Corinthians 10:23 "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." -KJV

H/T Rob Port

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Lady Cincinnatus, Say Anything

Obama and 9/11: Oil and Water

Politico has a piece on the dilemma Obama faces on this coming September 11th: How to commemorate the day?

Every year it’s a challenge for the White House: how to commemorate the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. This year is especially awkward, given the controversy around President Barack Obama’s remarks in support of an Islamic cultural center and mosque planned for a neighborhood near ground zero in lower Manhattan.

The White House has not yet announced the president’s plans for next week, though a source familiar with the matter was doubtful Obama would travel to New York.

Our Commander-in-Chief's record on this has not been sterling, even given his short time in office. Remember last year, when he proclaimed the Labor Day weekend to be days of "Prayer and Remembrance" As I posted on Sept. 7th, 2009 Obama's 9/11 Chutzpah:

Instead of commemorating 9/11 on say...9/11, the White House has proclaimed Friday, September 4, through Sunday, September 6, as National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. Did you get that? Have you even heard of it before now? The last three days are when you are supposed to remember 9/11.
Missed it? Too bad! Obama's got other things planned for the real 9/11!

He then tried instituting some "National Day of Service" for 9/11. (Shouldn't it have been the other way around? Day of Service on Labor Day, remember 9/11 on 9/11?)

And now, having stepped in it on the question of building the Ground Zero mosque by occupying exactly both sides of the fence, what does Obama do for Act II?

It is clear from his actions last year, that he does not have a sincere desire to elevate this remembrance in the eyes of the nation. It's a little late for him to show up at Ground Zero with a bullhorn and rally the citizens of the land he is entrusted to lead.
And after his flip flops on the Ground Zero mosque, I doubt that anything he might say would be accepted as either sincere or heartfelt.

What's a President to do? Hide in the White House? Go golfing?? Personally, I think he will sneak off to Camp David with Michelle and the kids so that he can avoid reporters and leave it to Robert Fibbs to put some kind of spin about his "private reflections of the day".

H/T Memorandum

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Lady Cincinnatus, Say Anything

From Waiter to Ground Zero Mosque Developer in Virtually Nothing Flat

I heard the audio from this video on the radio today. It appears to be mind boggling.



Video via Nice Deb

Waiter turned real estate developer? Paying millions in cash?? This doesn't exactly pass the smell test. And does this guy dodging the reporter look like a smart and successful business man able to persuade people to invest millions in real estate?
Or does he look more like somebody's bag man?

Maybe Nancy Pelosi's curiosity about how this mosque is funded will rise to the level of her curiosity about the funding of those citizens who oppose it?

"Does Islam Suck?"

David Swindle over at News Real Blog posted this video of Andrew "Klavan on the culture". I might not have published it myself, but I came across an individual on a discussion forum who was either not too bright or not too honest. After reading the last post I* put up with a question mark in the headline (That's that little squiggly thingy at the end of the sentence!), he concluded:

"I stumbled on a blog that is fanning the flames of this Muslim rumor"

Stumbled could be apropos! He was referring to my post on the Pew poll about Obama's religion:
Is Obama a Muslim?

Is it "fanning the flames" to merely repeat the question? The reason I might question this person's aptitude or honesty, is that while he obviously took exception to what was said in the article, he linked to the site rather than specifically to the post in question. If you care to, you can decide for yourself whether or not I was "fanning the flames" of this rumor by reporting the existence of the poll and exploring why people might believe what they do. Though I will admit the line about the dog was meant to be tongue in cheek, I concluded the article by saying:

Obama's faith or lack thereof, is his own business. There's nothing wrong with being a Muslim, if he is one. The only problem would be if he had lied about it or mislead anyone about it for political expediency.

I think more people have a problem with his character and his economics than worry about his religion.

Cletus: You talked about "their idiotic conclusion that because Obama has a Muslim name, he must be one". Only, I didn't mention anything about his name other than to call him by it. Is this not customary on your planet as well? And I never said he was a Muslim, I don't know. Which part of "I think more people have a problem with his character and his economics than worry about his religion" didn't you understand?

So, Clete, in honor of your straw man argument, this post's for you!

*A couple of other writers on the blog have used the little squiggly, er, question mark in their headlines since!

Chill, Ms. Pelosi. It's Just a Zoning Issue! Right?

A number of people have commented on the chilling effect of having the Speaker of the House call for investigations of ordinary citizens simply exercising their right of free speech. And I know we're not really supposed to listen to what they say, but rather we should "feel" the way they feel...but has anyone else noted the incongruity of what Speaker Pelosi had to say?

"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded. How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City."

Audio here.

Well, which is it Speaker Pelosi? Is it a national political issue that needs investigations into who is funding the opposition? (Though it is curious that Nancy is not in the least curious about who might be funding the mosque!) Or is it a local zoning issue in New York? Have you ever heard a politician on the national stage call for an investigation regarding the opposition to a local zoning issue??

If it is only a local zoning issue, then why did the President of the United States feel the need to pontificate on it? If it is only a local zoning issue, why does the Speaker of the House want an investigation into its critics? And if it is only a local zoning issue, then why were two of the reporter's three questions about it?

The "zoning" talking point is mere misdirection. The Democrats know that this is a losing issue for them, even more so after Obama put his foot in it and then flip flopped within 48 hours.

Much like the straw man where they argue in favor of the rights of private property and religious freedom, which no one is seriously arguing, they ignore the question of the propriety of such a move, particularly if the stated purpose for such a center is to foster "positive interaction between the Muslim world and the West".

The lady doth protest too much, methinks!

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything, Lady Cincinnatus

Krauthammer on the Ground Zero Mosque

via American Glob

Krauthammer makes some great points on this video, particularly on Obama's lack of leadership. Guess Charles isn't big on that whole Wet Finger in the Wind school of leadership!

Muslim Leaders to Abandon Plans for Ground Zero Community Center?

In a breaking news story, the Israeli Haaretz news agency reports:

After weeks of heated debate over plans for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero - the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York - it seems Muslim leaders will soon back down, agreeing to move to a new site.

The decision follows a high-profile campaign against the project that included advertisements on New York buses showing images of the burning Twin Towers, an iconic landmark razed when al-Qaida terrorists flew packed passenger planes into them in 2001. The New York Republican party is also said to be planning a hostile television campaign.

Sources in New York said on Monday that Muslim religious and business leaders will announce plans to abandon the project in the next few days.

New York Governor David Patterson said last weekend that Muslim leaders had rejected outright his proposal to swap the site in for another in Manhattan.

In a related story, the New York Daily News has Harry Reid breaking rank with the President and essentially saying "Me, too!" to his opponent's position.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate's top Democrat spoke out against plans for a mosque near Ground Zero Monday, a public break from President Barack Obama's support of the controversial prooposal.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. is the highest-profile Democrat to respond to Obama's recent backing of the mosque.

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else."

Meanwhile, the White House sought Monday to bow out of the Ground Zero mosque debate the President jumped into three days ago, sparking criticism from both ends of the political spectrum.

H/T Tom Sullivan
Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything, Lady Cincinnatus

Update: The New York Daily News is saying the story is not true. We will keep you updated.

The President, Constitutional Illiteracy And Ground Zero

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

The President supports the Ground Zero mosque

If New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a fool – and it’s hard to argue the point – then how exactly would (or could) one characterize President Barack Obama?

Be creative.

My bag of hackneyed adjectives has been raided so much during the first nineteen months of the Messianic Age that I’m left with nothing but literary lint and a deep aching for a “What Could Have Been” McCain presidency. (That’s pretty scary in and of itself).

Michael Bloomberg - sage, arbiter of social justice, salt and cigarette warrior – has openly supported the construction of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center in the name of tolerance and acceptance, much to the delight of the New York Times. The irony, of course, is that such a center is needed least of all in America, the most accommodating and tolerant nation on Earth.

Bloomberg has carelessly and inappropriately yanked on the First Amendment as some sort of justification (and validation) for the Islamic Cultural Center’s construction two blocks away from the site of the worst terrorist attack in this nation’s history, an attack perpetrated in the name of Islam. The fact that the entire issue has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with religious freedom somehow escapes the billionaire three-term mayor.

It’s a point worth beleaguering.

Muslims are, in fact, perfectly free to practice their religious beliefs in the United States of America. That’s precisely what the First Amendment says. They cannot be denied the right to be observant Muslims. And, as has been noted endlessly, they can do so in any of the over one hundred mosques located in the Big Apple, if they so choose.

But King Bloomberg says the proposed Ground Zero mosque and cultural center must go up because the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom is on the chopping block.

It’s an argument that makes a lot of sense … if you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

Religious freedom isn't the issue here. There is no threat whatsoever - not a scintilla's worth - to the Constitutional right of religious freedom in the opposition to this mosque and cultural center.

This issue is about sensitivity, compassion and common sense.

It's also about the Mayor being terrified of enflaming Muslims.

New York Mayor, Mike Bloomberg

You’ll recall Bloomberg is the same mayor who asserted that the Times Square bomber was probably a disgruntled opponent of Obama Care.

The Mayor doesn't seem to get the point that it is not unreasonable for people directly affected by the 9/11 attacks to object to a house of worship being constructed mere steps from the site of an act of unprecedented evil - a terrorist attack carried out by those who murdered nearly three-thousand innocents in the name of that particular faith.

But in Bloomy’s world, if people do object, it’s simply too bad.  Their objections are not to be tolerated.

It is up to them to adjust.

But now, into the ever-growing bouillabaisse of ignorance, insensitivity and stupidity – taking his rightful place along side the term-limit smashing mayor of New York - goes the young metrosexual from Chicago – our President - so enamored with intrusive government, so in over his head, so out of touch with the people he is charged to serve, that his incompetence in all arenas outside of the campaign-trail is (or should be) unquestioned among those who have functioning synapses.

On Friday, Barack Obama came out in favor of the construction of the controversial Ground Zero mosque.

Of course he did.

It’s Ramadan.

And while he would not participate in the National Day of Prayer Service at the White House in May, he did take part in an iftar dinner last week - the evening meal at which Muslims break their fast during the month of Ramadan.

Iftar is a religous observance ... and the White House was more than happy to host the event.

He, like Bloomy, went on to justify his position by (conveniently) referencing the country’s founding principals, saying:

As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.

How exactly does one characterize a man who could make such a foolish statement?

How exactly is America’s commitment to religious freedom being compromised?

How is religious freedom in danger when the entire discussion is about one specific location in an area of Manhattan considered sacred to many – a war zone - where thousands were murdered in the name of Islam?

No one – repeat, no one - is calling for the removal of any already existing mosques in New York. No one is asking for any Islamic cultural centers – of which there are many in New York – to be shut down.

This is about the area in and around Ground Zero; a place where two tall towers used to stand, brought down in an act of war by followers of the very faith that did so in the name of that faith.

It is not unreasonable for people to object.

You'll recall that the White House was originally silent on the matter, saying only that it was a local issue ... even though it was the United States of America, as a nation, that was attacked on September 11, 2001.

site of the proposed Ground Zero mosque

Now, with Ramadan upon us - and the Ground Zero mosque controversy ever-growing across the country - the President has done an about face and decided that the matter is, indeed, a national issue worthy of his commentary and Constitutional prowess ... even though (once again) this is not about the Bill of Rights or religious freedom.

It never has been.

The moment the government keeps anyone from being a Muslim, please call me.

The second anyone is denied the right to follow Islam, let me know. It'll make for a fascinating article.

Rather, this is a matter of spectacular insensitivity on the part of the pro-mosque contingent - including our Commander-In-Chief.

Why is it that the feelings, emotions and sentiments of those supporting this mosque and cultural center are the only ones that matter here?

If this really is an issue of tolerance, why are the wishes of the 9/11 family members (as well as a majority of Americans opposed to its construction) not tolerated?

And let's keep in mind that there is not a Muslim community in lower Manhattan, save for street vendors and cab drivers. The goal in constructing this facility is to create a Muslim community in that portion of the city so that, in part, the 9/11 narrative can be changed.

On Saturday, Bammy tried to backtrack a bit, doing his best to have things both ways, saying:

I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.

You can't make it up.

Does he honestly expect us to believe that he was not endorsing the mosque and cultural center with his original remarks? That he was speaking in generalities? He specifically referred to the mosque in lower Manhattan in his comments on Friday, didn't he?

Come now, Mr. President.

Where in the Constitution is the expressed right to construct a house of worship anywhere anyone pleases?

What right is being infringed upon if construction is denied on that specific location? Aren't there over a hundred mosques in the city already?

Liberals are incredibly tedious, aren't they?

The real question is: Had America not been attacked on September 11, 2001, is there anyone who truly believes that this mosque and Islamic cultural center would still be built right there at the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory? (It might still be open had the building not been damaged by a wheel from one of the 9/11 hijacked planes).

And while many have not touched upon it, this is also an issue of national security.

The truth is, we would afford our enemies a sense of victory precisely because the mosque would go up within spitting distance of Ground Zero. The mayor said it himself … he supports this to show how tolerant we are. He, like so many on the Left, thinks this will impress the world - particularly Muslims - with American open-mindedness and acceptance.

What the Left doesn't comprehend - what they will never comprehend as long as they remain on the Left - is that our enemies don't see an olive branch. They see weakness.

Of course, after President Obama stepped away from his original statement about the mosque on Saturday, White House spokesman Bill Burton came out and said that Obama’s pullback was premature. The President, according to Burton, is “not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night.”

Why should he?

Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of Hamas

President Obama continues to be in wonderful company. Support for the mosque has just come in from Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of the terrorist organization, Hamas – as if Saturday’s ringing endorsement from The Center for American Progress, a powerful leftist group, wasn’t enough.

Mahmoud al-Zahar said, "We have to build everywhere."

None of this is to be confused with yet another report from an “unnamed White House official” that the President made his support for the mosque public “purely on his own.”

Indeed, when the controversy was still a “local issue” – a position so drenched in stupidity as to be criminal – the President, at least, was out of the crosshairs of public sentiment.

Weak, but somewhat effective.

Now, with the Commander-In-Chief apparently taking it upon himself to let the world know that he endorses the construction of the mosque, stupidity (and downright ignorance) has been elevated to a new level at the expense of the citizenry he is charged to serve.

And no, he didn’t speak with Mike Bloomberg about this before hand either. It looks like Bammy did this all on his own.

Politically speaking, this is a disaster for The One.

Morally, he has hit rock bottom.

Tolerance is not caving into phantom visions of sugar-plum unity at the expense of the very real pain and suffering of 9/11 family members. Tolerance is not about crapping on Americans (like myself) who, to this day, feel the catastrophic effects of those attacks on our nation by people who did so in the name of that religion.

(I’ll keep repeating that until my fingertips explode)

It’s remarkably difficult to listen to rhetoric from proponents of the new Islamic cultural center about reaching out and building bridges when the moderate Muslims of the world who actually do renounce extremism remain silent and refuse to stand up loudly and proudly against terrorism with the rest of us.

This is not about legalities - about having the right to construct a mosque.

This is about what's right.