The Light: Hillary

Could be, according to the AFL-CIO president, Richard Trumka, if she doesn’t watch her words.

Okay – I have to stop right there. Can I just tell you how much I resent it when men tell women how they should talk? That would be a big pet peeve of mine. So, from the get-go, I am already irritated with this man. You might be, too, after you hear what he has to say:

Am I right? What a piece of work Trumka is. Never mind that Palin resigned her position because of the incessant, ceaseless hounding by Democratic operatives filing frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit, taking her time and money, as well as taking her attention away from the state for which she was supposed to be working. I imagine if someone hounded Trumka mercilessly for every word he had spoken, every deed he had ever committed, he, too, would have resigned his position, be it a mine worker or AFL-CIO president. But he has never experienced anything along those lines, not even close. Easy for him to pass judgment.

And passing judgment is exactly what he is doing. This seems to be the theme for the week with Vanity Fair publishing the worst kind of baseless smear masquerading as an article by Michael Gross on Sarah Palin, using anonymous sources, and operating from the most misogynistic point of view. Even her most outspoken detractors find this article sexist.

Just who is Richard Trumka that he feels he can arrogantly condescend to Sarah Palin and tell her to watch her mouth? Well, he’s an ally of Obama’s, for starters. I am sure that is not a surprise, is it? There is more to him, to be sure, as the following video highlights:

Yep – this frequent visitor to the White House also calls for a world-wide tax, and is a great “progressive” of the country. Great.

Well, as you can imagine, Gov. Palin didn’t exactly take his words lying down. As the Christian Science Monitor reported in its article by Dave Cook, “AFL-CIO President to Sarah Palin: “Change Or Be Linked With McCarthyism,” she had plenty to say back to Mr. Trumka:

[snip] Palin, Alaska’s former governor, responded to Trumka’s comments last week on her Facebook page. She noted that her husband is a proud former union member. Addressing his criticism of her language, Palin said, “It’s kind of ironic that a union boss has the gall to accuse anyone of threatening violence. After all, we remember the violent attempts by [the Service Employees International Union] to intimidate those who wanted to make their voices heard in last year’s town halls. And unlike Trumka, I never threatened that any effort to break a picket line would lead to violence.”

Palin added, “I never called union members ‘thugs.’ You lie. I called some union leaders ‘thugs.’ And I refuse to apologize for that because they have acted like thugs – at least in this day and age.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Oh, SNAP – I think Palin took this round, don’t you?

McCarthyism – good grief, how did Trumka possibly make THAT leap? No doubt, he expected a ratchet response from her, that she would tone down her rhetoric lest she be compared to someone of McCarthy’s reputation. She didn’t bite, and gave it right back to him.

Love her or hate her, that woman has more intestinal fortitude than most of her detractors could even imagine. What it really says to me is that they are afraid of her, hence the constant desire to tear her down, whether by the president of the AFL-CIO or some Vanity Fair writer.

We’ve seen this before. It is the MO of those who are threatened by powerful women. Hillary Clinton gets this a lot, too. Who can ever forget the treatment she received from her husband’s presidency through the 2008 election? Only now is she starting to get her due, after so many years of doing an incredible amount of work.

It begs the question: why? Why are these people so threatened by powerful women? Powerful men are treated like gods (just look at Obamessiah), even if they have done little or nothing to have that power. It often seems that powerful women must be torn down at all and any cost. If you can use their kids to do it, so much the better. It is a disturbing trend, one I cannot wait to see end. One day, some day…

That is what people who claim there are mosques four blocks away from Ground Zero, so what’s the big deal with building one near Ground Zero? How far is far enough to suit these Islamaphobic bigots anyway?

That is just apples and oranges – yes, there is a mosque four blocks away from Ground Zero, but it has been there for DECADES. Its site was not chosen specifically because it was close to an area targeted by Islamic extremists. The Masjid Manhattan was not chosen precisely because [art of the landing gear of a jet that had been turned into a WMD fell into it, as was the case for the Park 51 mosque. There is a world of difference between the two. It is disconcerting that people like Alex DiBranco, who wrote the article linked above, or since you've probably not heard of him, Mara Liasson of NPR, who made that argument Monday, 8/30, on Fox News All Stars:

[snip] Right, the critics of the project do have a responsibility to say where in Manhattan it would be OK, because there is a mosque four blocks from ground zero, currently. Would they like that one moved?

If it’s just the location, and it’s not the fact that a mosque is being built, where would it be OK? On Staten Island, the upper west side? Where would it be OK? Because there have been other anti-mosque demonstrations elsewhere around the country that are very far from ground zero.

So I think it’s important for the people against this to be extremely clear about exactly what they’re against.[snip]

Well, gosh, Ms. Liasson, I think people have been EXTREMELY clear about why they do not want this mosque built in that location by this developer and why.

Good grief. There is a serious lack of logic operating there (or rather, not operating). How can these people be so obtuse? Is it intentional, or do they really not see there is a huge difference between the two?

The same goes for Obama and his ridiculous, uh, I mean, “brilliant” statement to the effect if Jews wanted to build a synagogue there, or Christians a church, a Hindu temples, etc., that should be A-Okay. No problem with that at all. Well, for once I agree with him, but not because of the conflation and distortion he is utilizing, but because, yes, those groups should be able to build near Ground Zero if they wish (or perhaps an interfaith center to house them all). Why? Because THEY DID NOT MURDER THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS as a direct result of their faith (distortion that it may be). That’s why.

Jews, Christians, Hindis, Buddhists, Wiccans, any other group you can think of, did not pick a location close to where a group affiliated with their religion murdered thousands of people BECAUSE it was close to that site.

And it wasn’t their first attack on that site, either, though too many people seem quick to forget that. This was the second time in less than ten years that Muslims attacked the World Trade Towers. Again, they weren’t terrorists who happened to be Muslims, but because of their particular belief system, were terrorists because they were Muslims.

Just yesterday, we had two more Muslims from Detroitpicked up in Amsterdam who were conducting a dry run to see if they could get materials on board a US flight. The scary thing is, they were able to do so. There was the “Christmas Day” bomber. The NYC bomber. There are Muslim extremists planning – actively planning – to do us harm.

Of course, that does not mean all Muslims are bad, or out to get our country. We understand that, too. But to continue to deny that there ARE terrorists out there who want to harm the US because of their Muslim faith is the worst kind of “tolerance.” That isn’t “tolerance,” that is stupidity.

So, yes, there are over 100 mosques in New York City. We know this. That’s fine. Whatever. And yes, there is one four blocks away that was built decades ago. So? All these folks making that point, or what they think is a point, just need to stop trying to act like its the same thing. It is not.

As I have said before, it is about decency and compassion for those who lost loved ones at Ground Zero, and for the whole country, which may not ever fully heal from that attack on our soil. Conflating this one mosque being built (by a developer with a rap sheet a mile long, I might add) near Ground Zero in a building that had part of the jet land in it has absolutely NOTHING to do with where other mosques are, especially ones that have been there for decades. Nor does it have anything to do with other religious faiths being able to build near Ground Zero.

These are red herrings, obfuscations, the sole purpose of which is to deny the reality of what happened at Ground Zero through the appearance of “tolerance.” Maybe Mara Liasson can forget it. Maybe President Obama can forget it. But the majority of Americans cannot, have not, and will not.

Actually, here are a number of signs, in fact. Allegedly, these are real signs on Northbound I-5 in Washington State, below Seattle (and I wish I knew who to credit for these). With so much going on right now, there is nothing like a little humor to deal with it all, right (even if some of the words are misspelled)? Enjoy:http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=49609#edit_timestamp

And for some “News You Can Use,” there is this tidbit – guess who else owes back taxes (you know, besides Charlie Rangel, and Timmy Geithner before he became the head of the IRS)? That would be the developers of the mosque near Ground Zero:

The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.

Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show. (Emphasis mine.)

El-Gamal’s company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.

The delinquency is a possible violation of El-Gamal’s lease with Con Edison, which owns half of the proposed building site on Park Place. El-Gamal owns the other half but must pay taxes on the entire parcel. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Oops. So, after all of this brouhaha around this developer building a mosque so close to Ground Zero (for its proximity to that hallowed ground), all of the angst this has caused so many people may very well have been for nothing. Are you kidding me? Sure seems that way since this massive delinquency this could violate their lease.

Um, no one thought to check the tax records before? What a mess, and getting messier by the day.

Oh, and here is another good one from the Dallas News about Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas:

Longtime Dallas congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships to four relatives and a top aide’s two children since 2005, using foundation funds set aside for black lawmakers’ causes.

The recipients were ineligible under anti-nepotism rules of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which provided the money. And all of the awards violated a foundation requirement that scholarship winners live or study in a caucus member’s district.

Johnson, a Democrat, denied any favoritism when asked about the scholarships last week. Two days later, she acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules but said she had done so “unknowingly” and would work with the foundation to “rectify the financial situation.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

As Rev. Jeremiah Wright said, “Americans chickens are coming home to roost…” Amen to that, brother, but I bet this isn’t what he meant by it. Still, truth will out, at least sometimes.

Just ask the drivers on Northbound I-5…

“You’re either with us, or you’re not,” so says Dr. Wilmer Leon, a radio talk show host, about Obama and the African American community, in this article by Caroline May in The Daily Caller, “African-American Leaders And Intellectuals Express Dissatisfaction With President Obama.”

Oopsie daisy – sounds like another faction unhappy with Dear Leader. The African American community has been one of the most stalwart groups in supporting Obama in the polls, so this could be a troubling change for Obama. Those days may be coming to an end, at least for some in the community, and with good reason:

[snip]Since Obama has taken office African Americans have faced a number of disproportionate “highs,” few of them good, such as an exceptionally high unemployment rate, a high foreclosure rate, and a high number of African-American political figures deprived of the president’s support or dismissed from his administration (such as former White House social secretary Desiree Rogers, former Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod, South Carolina Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alvin Greene, former green energy czar Van Jones, Democratic Illinois Sen. Roland Burris, Democratic New York Gov. David Patterson, would-be Democratic New York Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., and Democratic Reps. Charlie Rangel of New York, Maxine Waters of California and Kendrick Meek of Florida).

Dr. Cornel West, professor of African American Studies at Princeton University, is one African-American leader who has been far from pleased with Obama’s neglect of African-American issues. West told The Daily Caller that he has been extremely frustrated with the president’s relative disinterest in civil rights
issues.

“He can take the black base for granted because he assumes we have nowhere else to go,” West said. “But we just won’t put up with it. He has got to respect us.”

West is not the only black leader who feels this way. Behind the scenes, West says, many African-American leaders are not happy with Obama’s failure to address issues important to the black community, especially considering the support the community gave the president during the 2008 election. But, according to West, many of those dissatisfied leaders are hesitant to step forward.

“There hasn’t been a lot of talk about it because I think most black spokespeople, at the moment, are scared of the Obama machine,” West said. “A lot of us are trying to put the pressure on him without aiding and abetting the right wing.” [snip]

I just have to say, as someone living in SC, surely no one really expects Obama or ANY Democrat, for that matter, to support Alvin Greene. For heavens sake, the man was just indicted on two counts of showing pornography a couple of weeks ago. He was kicked out of a SC restaurant on Tuesday. Originally, it was a campaign stop – until those pesky little indictments came down. The organizers canceled the meeting, but Greene came anyway. He, and a companion, were, um, ushered out of the establishment. Heck, even I don’t blame Obama, or ANYONE, for steering clear of this guy. Just saying.

As for my former professor, Cornell West, it is a bit surprising that he, and others, like Dr. Leon, are speaking out already. Now, West was a Hillary supporter, just to be clear, prior to Obama’s being given the nomination by the rule-breaking DNC. But that does not mean he wouldn’t have some real expectations about what Obama might do for the African American community in this country.

Shelby Steele from the Hoover Institute, has some thoughts on the matter, as well:

[snip] Steele pointed out that Obama does not owe the black community as much as they believe he does due to the fact that whites were the ones who elected him — specifically by throwing their support to him during the Iowa caucus. Initially, the African-American community was significantly supporting Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

“Once blacks began to see that whites were with Obama they didn’t want to be left standing at the station so they jumped on board,” he said. “They were not his base anyway. So he is not confused about that. That said, blacks will continue to vote for him. They vote for every Democratic candidate at a rate of 90% so Obama can absolutely take them for granted and will.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

This raises a couple of points for me. One, not only are whites the ones who elected Obama, they are also the ones who REARED Obama. It is remarkable to me how completely and fully both Obama’s mother and grandmother have been wiped from history. They are the ones responsible for rearing him. That is to say, he was not raised in a traditional African American community. To pretend otherwise has been one of the most glaring manipulations of the entire election.

Two, yes, many in the African American community were breaking for Hillary Clinton. My first rally in Charleston was easily, easily 1/2 African American, if not more. But, when Obama and his campaign played the race card against Hillary Clinton in SC, employing that turncoat, backstabber, Jim Clyburn, that many in the African-American community turned away from her. She, along with her husband, were characterized as racists by Obama, and for some reason I still cannot fathom, the community, the COUNTRY, bought that, despite their long, long history standing in stark defiance of that claim. But they believed Obama.

Instead of a hard-working Hillary Clinton in the White House, who would indeed have worked on behalf of the African American community, and ALL Americans, who would not be taking vacation after vacation after vacation while the Home sales worsen, more jobs are lost, and the DOW tanks, they got Obama. Even if he IS vacationing in the “historically black section of Martha’s Vineyard” at a gazillion dollars a week, I might add.

Still – it begs the question: just what did the African American community think Obama was going to do specifically for them? Oh, wait – I remember:

Wow. That is still hard to believe, that anyone thought that would happen if Obama became president. But someone clearly spread that word – she was not the only one who seemed to think that was the case.

Anyway, I think Leon sums the issue up perfectly:

[snip] “My take on that is, you have to treat him the same way you would treat any other president,” Leon explained. “Especially since he is not giving you any reason to treat him otherwise. And it is going to be very difficult, whether it is 2012 and he is not reelected or it is 2016 and we’re dealing with a new president — who most likely will not be African American — it is going to be very difficult to hold that new president to a different standard.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

There’s a concept – treat Obama like every other president. That would be a change, wouldn’t it? Holding Obama to all the same standards as every other president or presidential candidate? What a novel idea. It’s too late for the latter now, but 2012 is not that far away (it just feels like it is).

I guess we will just see how this continues to play out, and if the dissatisfaction with Obama trickles throughout the African American community, not just the leaders and intellectuals. Time will tell…

Well, at least according to Newsweek, that is. Yes, the brain trust at Newsweek have decided that the US ranks eleventh in the world.

Why? Well, I bet you can guess if you think about it for a minute. Give up? This headline by Brent Baker at Newsbusters will make it clear, “Newsweek Ranks U.S. the 11th ‘Best Country’ – Bush’s Fault, Obama Can Stem The Tide.” Yep, it’s all Bush’s fault, but Obama the Messiah can right this listing ship:

Newsweek, recently sold for one dollar by the Washington Post Company but still in its hands, ranked the United States 11th, just behind Denmark, in this week’s “The Best Countries in the World” cover story which put Finland at #1, followed by Switzerland and Sweden. There’s hope for improvement, however, thanks to George W. Bush’s departure from the White House and Barack Obama’s arrival. Michael Hirsh explained the beyond the top ten rank:

America hasn’t recovered from the serious blows to its stature delivered by nearly a decade of policy debacles. As Obama never tires of reminding the American public…he inherited a Herculean task: the Augean-stable-size mess left behind by George W. Bush.

The August 23 & 30 two-week edition cover story package certainly reflected Obama’s policy agenda. A sidebar (apparently not online) on the nations with the best health care, which put Japan at the top, touted fourth-best Spain where “universal coverage is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and there are no out-of-pocket expenses aside from some prescription drugs.” The U.S. wasn’t even one of the top ten countries listed (the full list online has the U.S. at #26 in health, tied with the Czech Republic and Chile and behind Slovenia.) [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Blech. Seriously, these people need to put down the Hopium pipe, and you know they’re on it. How else to explain selling a magazine for a BUCK? I mean, I know things are tight right now, but c’mon! Ahem.

Perhaps it would interest the authors of this piece to learn that Bush is actually more popular in some major “frontline” districts than their Revered One. It seems those areas are ones of great concern to Democrats since they currently hold the seats there. Oops!

But back to being Number 11 – woohoo, celebrate, woot, woot! I’ll let Stephen Colbert have the last word on this (again), and Newsweek, too:

Yes, yes, more about the whole mosque thing in New York, though this is about a different aspect of it. And that would be our First Amendment right to free speech.

Remember how Obama went on and on about the mosque-builders and freedom of religion, as if this had anything whatsoever to do with freedom of religion? I know, I know, how could anyone forget THAT little debacle.

But get this. Now the concern is about those of us who are speaking OUT about building the mosque near Ground Zero are inciting terrorists. Yes, if we have the audacity to be upset that Imam Rauf wants to build his cultural center and mosque at a site he picked SOLELY for its proximity to Ground Zero and as a site that was hit by part of the jet that disintegrated flying into the Twin Towers, we are empowering the terrorists.

Oh, how I wish I was making this up, but it was reported by no less than NPR in this piece by Dina Temple-Raston, “Rancor Over Mosque Could Fuel Islamic Extremists.” Oh, oh – someone didn’t get the memo that we don’t use that term anymore – “Islamic Extremists.” What, are they bigots or something? Ahem. Anyway, yes, by us utilizing our Constitutional Right Of Free Speech, we are giving ammunition to the Islamic Extremists who want to do us harm, according to this article:

Experts worry the controversy surrounding an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing right into the hands of radical extremists.

The supercharged debate over the proposed center has attracted the attention of a quiet, underground audience — young Muslims who drift in and out of jihadi chat rooms and frequent radical Islamic sites on the Web. It has become the No. 1 topic of discussion in recent days and proof positive, according to some of the posted messages, that America is indeed at war with Islam.

“This, unfortunately, is playing right into their hands,” said Evan F. Kohlmann, who tracks these kinds of websites and chat rooms for Flashpoint Global partners, a New York-based security firm. “Extremists are encouraging all this, with glee.

“It is their sense that by doing this that Americans are going to alienate American Muslims to the point where even relatively moderate Muslims are going to be pushed into joining extremist movements like al-Qaida. They couldn’t be happier.”

Ah, yes. It is all our fault that we want just a little sensitivity from this Muslim cleric. How dare we. (And if you want to read the rest of the NPR piece, click HERE.)

Hmmm – what does it say that there is a concern that even “moderate Muslims” in the US, because people are asking for sensitivity, not a pox on all things Islamic, could be coerced into acting against the country in which they live? I can’t decide if that is a backhanded slap against moderate Muslims that they could so easily be pushed, or an attempt to silence critics in general.

But here’s a little newsflash: We don’t have to do a damn thing but be Americans to incite these Islamic Extremists. I’m serious. All we have to do is be who we are, and that is sufficient. Remember the first WTC bombing in 1993? I don’t recall anyone going out of their way trash-talking Islam to incite that event. Remember 9/11? The WTC, the Pentagon, and whatever the target was of the plane that was wrested away from the terrorists and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania? Was anyone going out of their way to talk smack about Islam? No, I don’t think so. How about the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000?

If you want to get an idea of how much Islamic terrorists have wanted to attack us for a period less than a decade, click here to read a statement to the Joint Chiefs from 2002 listing the numerous terrorist attempts on the US or our territories. That is just from 2/93 – 9/01.

Unfortunately, I could go on and on and on. No amount of political correctness, or respect for Islam in general, can negate the reality that there are Islamic radicals who want to attack Americans here and abroad. And if we stop exercising our rights as American citizens to try and pacify them, to not raise their ire against us, then THEY HAVE WON.

If that is the case, then all of those who died in the attacks on the US Embassies, those 17 sailors who died on board the USS Cole, and the thousands who died on 9/11, did so in vain. And that cannot stand.

We cannot allow the threat of more violence to silence us, whatever the issue is. We cannot be coerced to give up our Constitutional rights on the possibility that our fulfillment of these same rights might feel antagonistic to those who wish us harm. We cannot stop being Americans lest we somehow, whether consciously or not, enrage a group by our sheer existence.

Can we?

*Update* Check out this interview of Andrea Mitchell and Ambassador Ahmed. Apparently, what we should be concerned about is how those of us who oppose the mosque in that location are going to impact President Obama’s desire to reach out to the Muslim World. Oh, wow…

There are some doozies in the news this morning. But first, in case you missed it, there was a big rally near Ground Zero on Sunday. Protesters and supporters of the mosque/cultural center plans to be built in that area showed up to make their voices heard. Clearly, this issue is not going away anytime soon:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

You know, when I saw the CNN report, I just knew that CNN was under-reporting the numbers of those opposed to the mosque being built near Ground Zero. And CNN made it seem as if there were a couple hundred protesters on BOTH sides. I knew they were full of crap:

[snip] Hundreds of critics and supporters of the proposed center in New York showed up despite an overcast and drizzly sky to express their views amid the national debate over the facility.

Police estimated that supporters of the center numbered up to 250, and critics numbered about 450 during the demonstration. [snip]

Uh huh. Nothing like inflating the numbers on one side, and deflating them on the other. Oh, you just gotta love the LMSM (Lame Mainstream Media). Or not.

By the way, if you think for one second Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf did not know that the landing gear from one of the planes flew into that building, and the relevance of it being so close to Ground Zero, you are sadly mistaken. That is why he picked that location, and why Muslims started coming to that building to pray. At least according to this December 8, 2009 NY Times article, “Muslim Prayers And Renewal Near Ground Zero“:

[snip]But for months now, out of the public eye, an iron gate rises every Friday afternoon, and with the outside rumblings of construction at ground zero as a backdrop, hundreds of Muslims crowd inside, facing Mecca in prayer and listening to their imam read in Arabic from the Koran.

The building has no sign that hints at its use as a Muslim prayer space, but these modest beginnings point to a far grander vision: an Islamic center near the city’s most hallowed piece of land that would stand as one of ground zero’s more unexpected and striking neighbors.

The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Nope, that site was no accident. It was chosen PRECISELY because it is close to Ground Zero, and because part of the landing gear fell.

Again, to those who keep acting like this is just some random site and those opposed to it are off our rockers, here’s the proof. From Imam Rauf’s own mouth. Satisfied yet? Yeah, that’s about what I expected – no amount of facts will matter. Whatever.

And then there is this story. It is no secret that California has been struggling mightily with its budget and deficits. That makes the following story even more disturbing than it would be otherwise:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Have these people lost their minds? Marble? In a public high school? While they are having to cut back on Education? That is just nuts.

Okay, one more, if you can stand it. This is the former head of the DNC, failed presidential candidate, and former governor, Howard Dean, giving advice to the Obama camp. Wait until you hear it. There is a bonus discussion about an organization funding Republicans:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Oh. My. Gosh. A bit of advice, Governor Dean – put down the Hopium pipe. You have had way too much…

And George Soros doesn’t hide behind an organization? Really? Huh. Is there an organization he funds that supports Democrats that has his name in it? If so, lemme know.

There ya go – a few stories of the day. Feel free to talk about these, or any other, stories.

What a riveting issue this has turned out to be. Voices on both sides continue to speak out on whether or not a mosque should be built less than 600 feet away from Ground Zero.

I have said all along that I think it should be built elsewhere. It is not an issue of religious freedom, as Barack Obama tried to paint it as being. Of course we have religious freedom in this country for all people. That has never been in question. It is about sensitivity to a catastrophic event in our history that occurred so close to the area in which Imam Rauf wants to build a mosque.

Many of us who share that sentiment have been called intolerant, “hicks,” ignorant, and more, by those conflating political correctness with amnesia. We have been depicted as anti-Muslim for acknowledging a fact – the 9/11 terrorists acted as Muslims, not as terrorists who happened to be Muslim. They attacked the Twin Towers, and the United States, as a direct result of their beliefs. That was the catalyst. This revisionist history serves no one.

To acknowledge that fact does not implicate ALL Muslims, as some contend. It is simply a fact. And so, many of us, as previously noted, more than 2/3 of the nation, and more than 2/3 of New Yorkers, think it is insensitive to build a mosque so close to what is considered hallowed ground. This does not make us bigots.

And if it does, how do those who label us as bigots, as intolerant, as ignorant Americans, consider Ambassador Akbar Ahmed, a professor of Islamic Studies at American University? He, too, feels that building a mosque so near Ground Zero is insensitive.

Professor Ahmed is a Muslim. I think he has a pretty firm grasp on the issue, and makes a compelling point:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

What excellent suggestions Ambassador Ahmed makes! Wouldn’t it be a true act of humanity, of compassion, if the Imam and his wife took him up on them? I suppose time will tell, though to be honest, I am not holding my breath.

I might add, to those who keep trying to paint those of us who support moving the mosque in a derogatory manner, who keep claiming we don’t know anything about Islam, that this isn’t about sensitivity, and on and on and on, I am going to hazard a guess that Ambassador Ahmed has a better idea than YOU about Islam and about cultural sensitivity. On the former, as a professor of Islamic Studies, he is most definitely an expert. On the latter, I imagine that unless you have been an Ambassador to Pakistan, and are a Muslim yourselves, he knows a tad bit more about cultural sensitivity when it comes to this particular issue.

And if Ambassador Ahmed’s point of view isn’t enough for you, maybe Miss USA’s support for the mosque to be moved elsewhere will do it. Rima Fahik is Muslim, after all. And she is clear on the distinction between religious freedom, and why this is a sensitive issue:

“I totally agree with President Obama with the statement on Constitutional rights of freedom of religion,” Fakih told “Inside Edition” in an interview that will air tonight.

“I also agree that it shouldn’t be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion.” (Click here to read the rest.)

There ya have it.

So, enough with the ad homiems already, against those who do not view everything through Kool Aide infused lenses, and who do not engage in “political correctness” to the point of denying reality. Try opening your eyes, and your hearts. A little compassion goes a long way.

Whether you supported the Iraq War or not (and as I have said numerous times, I did not), there was very good news coming out of Iraq on Thursday. The troops are coming home (at least most of them):

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

While there may be debate on what constitutes success in Iraq, there is one area in which strides are being made:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

That is good news indeed, though, clearly, women have a long, long way to go in countries where Sharia Law is dominant, like Afghanistan. Certainly it is my hope that women’s rights will be written into the Constitution in Iraq, and that women will obtain equality.

As for this most auspicious occasion, surely President Obama weighed in. Wait, what? He didn’t? Well, um, you know, he was busy. Yeah, right, that’s the ticket. Yep, he was on his way to vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. Hey, being president is “hard work,” so he needs another vacation after a few days of working. Leave Barry aloooonnnneeeee!

Well, Stephen Colbert has a few suggestions for Obama about what he SHOULD have done to mark this day as only Colbert can:

So glad you are on your way back, troops. Welcome home!

You might not want to be drinking coffee or anything right this moment. Why? Well, when I tell you just who the mosque supporters want to come out in support of building the mosque 60 feet from Ground Zero, whatever beverage you’re consuming may end up on your computer screen. Okay. Ready?

George W. Bush. No, really – I’m serious. They want George W. Bush to weigh in on the building of this particular mosque near Ground Zero. Would I lie to you? No. And wait until you see who a couple of the writers are requesting Bush’s input in this Byron York article in the Washington Examiner, “Mosque supporters beg George W. Bush to come to Obama’s rescue“:

It’s time for W. to weigh in,” writes the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. Bush, Dowd explains, understands that “you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.” Dowd finds it “odd” that Obama seems less sure on that matter. But to set things back on the right course, she says, “W. needs to get his bullhorn back out” — a reference to Bush’s famous “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” speech at Ground Zero on September 14, 2001.

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson is also looking for an assist from Bush. “I…would love to hear from former President Bush on this issue,” Robinson wrote Tuesday in a Post chat session. “He held Ramadan iftar dinners in the White House as part of a much broader effort to show that our fight against the al-Qaeda murderers who attacked us on 9/11 was not a crusade against Islam. He was absolutely right on this point, and it would be helpful to hear his views.”

And Peter Beinart, a former editor of the New Republic, is also feeling some nostalgia for the former president. “Words I never thought I’d write: I pine for George W. Bush,” Beinart wrote Tuesday in The Daily Beast. “Whatever his flaws, the man respected religion, all religion.” Beinart longs for the days when Bush “used to say that the ‘war on terror’ was a struggle on behalf of Muslims, decent folks who wanted nothing more than to live free like you and me…”

Come on, isn’t that hilarious? These are the same people who vilified Bush routinely, routinely!!! And now, now that the man they supported after consuming massive amounts of Kool Aide, and smoking tons of Hopium, and shoved down our throats, refusing to do any vetting whatsoever, has made such a mess of this issue, they want BUSH to weigh in? This is one of the funniest things I have heard in a while. Maureen Dowd?? Eugene ROBINSON?? Oh, wow.

Well, someone else who has weighed in is Debra Burlingame, from the 9/11 Families. Did she ever have something to say, especially about Madam Speaker Pelosi’s remarks about funding:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Well, Ms. Burlingame certainly didn’t mince words. Agree with her or not, there is no misunderstanding from where she is coming on this issue.

There is one group from whom we have not heard on this whole mosque business. And that would be moderate Muslims. What is their take on Imam Rauf’s building the mosque near Ground Zero? They, too, are quite clear: don’t build it. That is the upshot of this Daily Caller article by Caroline May, “Moderate Muslims Oppose Location of Cordoba Mosque – On Religious Grounds.” This article is well worth the read, but a few salient quotes:

[snip] Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, told TheDC that moderate Muslims have been silent on the matter, despite possible disagreements, due to religious concerns. According to Fatah, however, the need to avoid causing another person pain should trump such conflicts.

“There is a widespread belief among Muslim teaching that anyone who opposes the construction of a mosque, which is the house of God, is committing a sin,” he said. “So a lot of people who want to voice their opinion do not want to become a part of the controversy. But especially during the month of Ramadan it is important that our actions not cause pain to anyone. Any action by a Muslim that causes any pain to anyone else should be halted!” [snip]

That explains a lot – the widespread belief, that is. It helps to know why moderate Muslims have been quiet throughout this discussion. There is more:

Fatah believes the mosque plans are moving forward because they have the support of the American government. “I think they have an official green light either from the State Department or the White House telling them to, ‘Go ahead, you have our full backing,’ and they want to use this Islamic center as a place for diplomacy to the Middle East to demonstrate that the United States is a place where Muslims thrive. But that has backfired because this could have been done in many other ways.”

Jasser said that the building of this mosque is ‘fitna,’ a religious term meaning mischief-making, which is severely frowned upon in Islam. “‘Fitna’ is anything that causes chaos in society,” he said. “This mosque is causing chaos, it is causing ‘fitna’ and that is not the Islamic thing to do … This is ‘fitna’ and ‘fitna’ is wrong.”

Fatah agreed saying that ‘fitna’ is an ethical and moral issue that ought not be taken lightly. “If a step taken by an individual causes disharmony then it is ‘fitna.’ [The mosque] has caused so much pain. There are many mosques already in New York, nobody has ever opposed a mosque, if there is opposition to a mosque on grounds of hatred I would be the first to confront it. But over here it is a matter of sensitivity and there is no residential community even near the community center.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

“Mischief-making.” Yes, that seems to be a good term for what Imam Rauk is doing, along with Obama, I might add. And yes, the State Department sending Imam Rauf on a tour of the Middle East on our dime, at a cost of $16,000, certainly appears to condone the building the mosque by essentially endorsing Rauf.

But Fatah said it all. This is not about hatred. It is about sensitivity (about which I wrote recently, too). This decision is causing pain, to a number of people. Two thirds of New Yorkers oppose building the mosque there. Two thirds of Americans oppose building the mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero. Not because they/we/I oppose building mosques in general, but because we oppose it being built THERE, overlooking where Ground Zero stands, a hallowed ground to New Yorkers, to our nation.

George W. Bush can say something or not, doesn’t really matter to me. As far as I am concerned, the opposition is about sensitivity to those who lost loved ones, and to a nation that suffered a devastating attack there. It is not a matter of “freedom of religion,” or “freedom to practice religion.” It is about ceasing the mischief making, an “ethical and moral issue” of some weight.

I think that pretty much says it all, don’t you?