Gryffn Musings

If you do not want to get fired from NPR, do the following:  Get arrested — Use a fake, photoshopped picture of Sarah Palin as a real photo on your news show — Express your opinion to close Guantanamo bay (if you say it should stay open, you could be fired) — Wish that a Senator you disagree with gets AIDS — Imply that someone you disagree with is crazy and needs to speak with his/her psychiatrist.  This can all be used to KEEP your NPR job!

Why did President Obama choose tolerance (yet again) as the subject of his speech at the Pentagon on 9/11? Wasn't this day to express our deep regret for the lost lives of the murdered Americans? When will he stick up for us, for Americans instead of preaching that we should forgive and tolerate Muslims?

Then again, we are talking about President Obama here. He is the same person whose response to the beheading of Daniel Pearl (on the Internet no less) has to do with( freedom of press. No, it was because the man was Jewish! Hello. Anyone home?

Stop the dumbass spin. Stop trying to convince us that we do not see what we really see! How arrogant of you.

Then comes the Ft. Hood shootings. Obama gave an unrelated (and head-scratching) shout-out" to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow, who has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand – and the reason Obama was there.

I mean, the killing of 12 soldiers and a security guard by U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood is a mere footnote to him and he is more concerned with the Muslim Hasan than the Americans shot down and their grieving families.

Don't even get me started on the Cole incident in Yemen. He just refuses to do anything on the matter leaving the victim families justifiably bitter and angry.

But it's not Obama's curiously bloodless behavior and strange disconnectedness (as British journalist Toby Harnden put it) that is most vexing. It's his reflexive instinct to lecture Americans, when they're not the ones who need lecturing. Perhaps he is the ultimate illegal alien – like from "out there"?

His first reaction, for example, when Americans protested the building of the ostentatious mosque at ground zero was to assume Americans were being intolerant and bigoted. He came out strongly in favor of the mosque and the importance of religious tolerance. He later pretended he was talking about the Muslims' and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's First Amendment rights, but no one was suggesting they didn't have the right to build.

You will note that when Pastor Terry Jones threatened to burn the Koran, Obama didn't come out stumping for his First Amendment rights — so his double standard ad favoring of Muslims is clear.

He and Defense Secretary Robert Gates thought they had to personally contact Jones to dissuade him from engaging in his gratuitously provocative act, but they didn't similarly feel the need to contact Rauf to dissuade him of his grossly insensitive act.

You would think that if Obama wanted to lecture someone on the need for tolerance, it would be the imam, who denies that Ground Zero is a cemetery.

If he truly wants to make a point about tolerance, especially religious tolerance, why hasn't Obama even considered pointing his finger at the Muslim world, asking them why they are so uniformly intolerant in their countries? Why they don't permit churches? Why they don't permit Muslims to convert to Christianity? Why they commit so much violence against Christians and Jews?

Is it not the United States that permits virtually unfettered religious liberty for Muslims, as well as all other religious people — except for the persistent discrimination against Christians? Is America not the home of some 2,000 mosques?

While leftists are congratulating themselves on their moral superiority in mouthing tolerance, more people's lives are at risk as a result of their refusal to consider radical Islam a motive in many murderous attacks, which is hardly the same thing as categorically indicting the entire Muslim religion — as Obama implies.

Surely it should be obvious to Obama and his ilk by now that Islamists don't attack us because of our alleged "intolerance." They don't even respect tolerance. They don't aspire to it. They reject it. And they reject us — and will continue to, regardless of how nice and "tolerant" we are.

– based upon David Limbaugh's Tiresome Tolerance Lectures
 

Professor Krugman and others among America's elite blame some of the rage on talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Kinda.

What talk shows have accomplished is they've ended the isolation of many ordinary Americans. When the liberal mainstream media dominated the airwaves, Americans who were against race and sex quotas were made to feel as though they were racists and sexists. We stayed in the shadows.

Americans who were against big government were portrayed as mean-spirited and uncaring. We said nothing.

What talk radio and the massive expansion in non-traditional media have done is not only end the isolation, but more important, the silence amongst ordinary Americans. There are lots more like us!

Krugman says that what we're witnessing is "political craziness." So if you think our borders ought to be secure and think we should have the right to determine who enters our country, then you are  politically crazy. Americans who can find nothing in the U.S. Constitution granting Congress the power to take over our health care system are politically crazy. Americans who think a mosque should not be built in the shadows of the Muslim-destroyed World Trade Center are simply religious bigots.

While America's liberal elite have not reached the depths of tyrants such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, they do share a common vision.
Both denounce free markets and voluntary exchange.
They want control and coercion by the state.
They believe they have superior wisdom to the masses and they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us.
They, like any other tyrant, have what they see as good reasons for restricting the freedom of others.

– Walter Williams, Townhall

A founding member of a group run by imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, that imam who wants his victory Cordoba mosque built on Ground Zero, has made claims that the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 were an “inside job” and that Muslims have been falsely and improperly made into scapegoats.

Ah, what has happened to all this "getting along" they want?

According to the New York Post, Faiz Khan has preached at the proposed Cordoba site on at least two separate occasions and has partnered with Rauf for years in the American Society for the Advancement of Muslims. The Post reported today that Khan also serves on the advisory board of Muslims for 9/11 Truth and co-founded the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (MUJCA). On the MUJCA Web site, Khan wrote: “the inescapable fact [is] that 9/11 was an inside job.”

Another Truther. Great.

“The criminal mission known as 9/11 did not come from ‘militant Islam,‘ although those ’militant Islamic networks’ may have played the role of patsy and scapegoat,” Khan wrote.

So Islam and Muslims shouting 'Allah akbar' had nothing to do with it. Uh huh.

Khan has been quoted as saying: "I am certain of a few things . . . The towers and WTC 7 could not have collapsed without controlled demolition place from the 'inside.'"

From a reader this insight: "The hypocrisy of the left can only be described as a mental disorder."  Well said.

Ground Zero Imam Claims Attack Will Come if He Doesn't Build Mosque

video link

Ah, so now we are to be blackmailed and threatened into silence while these Muslims take over our country!

I say Bring It On! It is time to stand up and stop being a doormat.

I will not be dictated to while you steal my country out from under me. You want sharia? Go to Saudi Arabia! It's not like there is no place for Muslims to go. There are countless countries all based on Islam. Go there. Be happy.

The President of the United States of America is a dishonest man. He is also a poor excuse for a constitutional law scholar. Both of these accusations can be supported by looking at his handling of the recent controversies involving the Ground Zero mosque and an unhinged pastor’s planned burning of the Koran.

When the Ground Zero mosque controversy broke out, President Obama had this to say about religious freedom:

“As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And 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. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are.”

A few weeks later, when the Koran-burning controversy broke out, President Obama had this to say about religious freedom:

"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.”

What the President should have said was that Muslims a) Have a legal right to engage in offensive religious expression by building a mosque near Ground Zero but that b) It would be a very bad idea to do so because it would make Muslims look like uncouth barbarians.

The President could have then maintained consistency by saying that Christians a) Have a legal right to engage in offensive religious expression by burning the Koran but that b) It would be a very bad idea to do so because it would make Christians look like uncouth barbarians.

Instead, Obama took the position that the Mosque building is a form of free religious expression while the Koran burning is an attack on free religious expression. Is there any explanation for holding these two positions simultaneously? Sure there is.

The common thread between Obama’s two positions is favoritism of Islam. Barack Obama was educated in a Koranic school as a child in Indonesia. He subsequently claimed to have rejected Islam in favor of Christianity in what some consider to have been an insincere political move. That may sound harsh but consider this alternative: If Obama actually did convert to Christianity, the document he defends, The Koran, would call for his execution.

Hmmmm.

Audacity of Smoke