Saturday, August 14, 2010

Barack Obama: Chamberlain or Quisling?

This just in from Fox News (where else?):
After skirting the controversy for weeks, President Barack Obama is weighing in forcefully on the mosque near ground zero, saying a nation built on religious freedom must allow it.
"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," Obama told an intently listening crowd gathered at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
Is this guy politically tone deaf or what? For those who haven't been following the Ground Zero Mosque controversy (Ground Zero being the currently accepted name for the site of the Islamofascist attach that destroyed the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan), here's a brief explanation via "Atlas Shrugs":
Back on December 8th, I posted about the mosque being built at ground zero, and entitled  the post "Giving Thanks," because that's how I saw it. A giant mosque planted on the site of Islamic destruction is their way of thanks. Sort of a  giant victory lap. Any decent American, Muslim or otherwise, wouldn't dream of such an insult. It's a stab in eye of America. What's wrong with these people? Have they no heart? No soul?
And the New York Times (where I first discovered the story) grandstanding and showboating the monstrosity was particularly sad.
This is territorial. This is Islamic domination and expansionism. The location is no accident. Just as Al-Aqsa was built on top of the Temple in Jerusalem. And what about the Hagia Sophia, the ancient cathedral of the church of Constantinople, one of the great buildings of the world, thegrandest church in Christendom at that time and for 1000 years thereafter -- and now a mosque? The Aya Sofya mosque -- they didn't change the name, just Islamified it. 
That's about right, no matter how media and political hacks try to spin this.
Obama continues his kow-towing defense of the indefensible by pontificating on Constitutional matters, something he tends to treat cavalierly unless he can spin it far left. Regarding the building of the mosque:
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," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."
Unshakable? Sorta like Al Qaeda's hatred of the U.S.? Fox notes:
The White House had not previously taken a stand on the mosque, which would be part of a $100 million Islamic community center two blocks from where nearly 3,000 people perished when hijacked jetliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001. Press secretary Robert Gibbs had insisted it was a local matter.
Ah yes, Robert Gibbs, Obama's Minister of Propaganda and America's worst Press Secretary ever, so bad that even the entirely co-opted MSM can't stand him.
Far lefties like Barack Obama regard the Constitution as a "living document," not an immutable standard. And indeed, the Constitution itself has provisions--stiff ones--that allow it to be amended from time to time. But you don't "amend" the Constitution by twisting its original meaning which is what's happening here.
Technically, yeah, freedom of religion allows that the Ground Zero Mosque could be built. But, just like you could give a parade permit to Nazis to march in a Jewish neighborhood, or you could allow (zoning permitting) an XXX adult porn business to open next door to St. Pat's Cathedral on 5th Avenue--just because you could do this doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. The mosque could be built, say, half a mile away. But why is it so important to support building it here? Answer: it doesn't need to be built here. But Americans have elected an administration--and dozens of political leaders--who support this travesty as part of their continuing effort to tear down the American spirit. 
You might as well build the thing next to Arlington National Cemetery, next to the Pentagon. Why not? Well, that would be too obvious. Plus, it's in Virginia where even Democrats wouldn't stand for it. New York City, I would guess, is viewed as an easier mark.
A substantial majority of New Yorkers--even lefties--are appalled by this ongoing train wreck. I find the average Manhattanite disdainful of religion on the whole. I know this is a broad generality, but at its pulsing heart, NYC is a secular city. Its residents are generally secularists first, religious adherents second if at all. But as far as Ground Zero is concerned, this is the closest thing you're going to get to Sacred Ground in NYC, even for avowed atheists. The cowardly attack on the Twin Towers was tantamount to the worst kind of blasphemy in the eyes, hearts, and souls of the average New Yorker. Islamofascists reward blasphemy with death. Obama, and his lefty supporters, support rewarding this particular blasphemy with a building permit.
In voicing his support for this travesty, Obama is, at the very least, confirming that he is the most doggedly tone-deaf President who's ever served, at least in our post WWII lifetimes. At worst, he reminds me of one or two of the more reprehensible figures associated with that war: Neville Chamberlain and Vidkun Quisling.
The former, better known to students of history--if it's even being taught anymore--was the British Prime Minister who infamously appeased Hitler's territorial ambitions, figuring he'd settle down and get normal once he was shown the proper respect. We know how that worked out. The latter was a Norwegian politician and military figure who, in order to obtain political power (i.e., the Norwegian presidency), collaborated with the Nazis in their takeover of his country. 
So which one is Barack Obama? Chamberlain or Quisling? Or is he just plain stupid?

No comments: