Saturday, August 07, 2010

It's An American Thinker Morning...

With a bit of Pam Geller's Atlas Shrugs mixed in. Atlas Shrugs
SIOA Lawsuit against NYC: Bloomberg's MTA Refuses to Allow 911 Images: Bans Ground Zero Bus Campaign - Today we filed a lawsuit against the city of New York. Here is the complaint: Download Complaint--FDIvMTA--Filed_Stamped The city has refused to run my SIOA ...


Pam Geller and the excellent writers over at American Thinker are truly some of the best bloggers who cover the worst of what is going on in our current Obamaland dictatorship.

Benign Dictatorship and the Progressive Mind
posted by null at American Thinker - 5 hours ago
The pieces of the "benign dictatorship" of Obama have been set into place.


Over a year ago, I wrote about my theory that liberals "crave a master" who will instill stern discipline and mete out harsh punishments to a deserving citizenry. This was based on my belief that progressives have a predilection for "moral masochism." While I still maintain the validity of this argument, I am beginning to understand that much of their apparently illogical craving for domination is actually agenda-driven.

To the committed progressive, the leftist priority agenda issues are so pure and righteous that the frustration of not having them immediately implemented is unbearable. For instance, "climate change" legislation is a progressive, neo-religious, life-or-death cause for whose achievement many would gladly give up all of their (and our) democratic freedoms and liberties.

The U.S. Constitution is a preventer rather than an enabler of the progressive agenda and therefore must be removed as an obstacle. Obama once called it a "charter of negative liberties." And so the dream of a benevolent dictator who will powerfully push aside all opposition and enact just and virtuous laws throughout the land dwells in the psyche of the left.


The Hiroshima Question
posted by null at American Thinker - 5 hours ago
Representatives of the American government yesterday attended, for the first time, the Hiroshima Ceremony, which this year marked the 65th anniversary of the use of fission weapons on Japanese cities.


Waging aggressive wars of conquest with incredible brutality is fundamentally different from resisting conquerors with every weapon available. Japan, Germany, and Russia were ruthless totalitarian nations who murdered many millions of innocent people in wars which were not necessary for self-defense or any reason beyond conquest and domination. America fought back with every weapon and every strategy which would bring the war to a quick and victorious end, which was the only proper moral course.

If America had developed a fission bomb in 1943 rather than 1945, should we have used that weapon on Berlin? Half of those murdered in the Holocaust died in the last year. Those victims, along with all the soldiers on all the bloody fronts -- and all the Germans who died in our strategic bombing campaign -- would have been spared more death and misery.

Can anyone seriously argue that fighting the Nazis with conventional weapons would have been somehow morally superior to using an atomic bomb to quickly end the war? Was that better than allowing more victims of Nazism to suffer, more soldiers on all sides to be killed or injured, and more German cities to be bombed into rubble?

Would winning the war with conventional weapons have been more compassionate for the people of Japan than dropping two atomic bombs? Before Hiroshima, America had been firebombing Japanese cities. American submarines were starving the Japanese people to death with an iron blockade. Invasion of Japan, the next step in the war, would have cost millions of Japanese lives. Because the Soviet Union was now in the war against Japan, an invasion could easily have led to the occupation of part of Japan by rapacious Red Army soldiers. Japan by August 1945 had lost the war. It needed, desperately, to end the war, too.

Does Hiroshima represent the ghastliness of atomic, and then nuclear, weapons? Yes, but that very ghastliness has prevented another world war for sixty-five years. The real lesson of the Second World War, the real lesson of Hiroshima, is this: The good guys, those who hate war and who love liberty, cannot afford to wait before building the awful engines of war. Time and space are too compressed in our world to allow conquering aggressors a season of triumph.

Was it better for America to build and use fission bombs before Japan or Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia could? Yes. There is a very real, very present, and very pointed example of the lessons of Hiroshima in our world today: the Iranian bomb, which will be built unless we act. Those who hate, those who lust for the murder of others, cannot have the upper hand in war. When that happens -- when Tehran feels that it can safely threaten or incinerate its chosen victims -- then all the sad and painful lessons of Hiroshima will be lost.


The Monument at Ground Zero
posted by null at American Thinker - 5 hours ago
Subject to reinterpretation.


So, here it is: To the American Left, this mosque represents a gooey dose of feel-good inclusiveness. It provides a platform for them to lecture and talk down to the public on the subject of America's perceived moral shortcomings while at the same time allowing them to act as enablers for a religion including many members who wish for the destruction of America. It's a win/win.

Well, here's what that mosque will truly represent: To Islamist fanatics, it will represent a victory over what they perceive as a corrupt and complacent America. To them, America is a "weak horse"; we can be had, and official approval of this mosque just nine years after the slaughter at this particular location serves as living proof.

But to us regular citizens, living in the boroughs, across the Hudson, or out here in flyover country, driving our seven-year-old cars and happy to have our families together, that mosque represents the dangerous fecklessness of the Left. It is another symptom of timidity when common sense is called for. It is the disease of the Arizona border issue spread to New York City. That mosque will stand as a testament for every modern liberal who never missed a chance to call Ronald Reagan a "warmonger" but finds Islam a "religion of peace." Additionally, if actually built, it will be a testament to shortsighted Islamic overreach. Erected as a chip-on-the-shoulder challenge to the United States, it will sooner or later be knocked flat.

No one contemplating this building as they pass on their way to pay respects at Ground Zero will have to have lost loved ones that day to understand the meaning of that building. We all know that not just New York was attacked, but all of America. And we all will see this building as an insult to the three thousand people who were crushed or burned alive that September 11. This mosque, at fifteen stories tall, will memorialize two hundred souls per floor. And every brick, every stone will represent Progressive Liberalism's astonishing preference to defend everyone else's position, but not ours.


The Manhattan Mosque and Women
posted by null at American Thinker - 5 hours ago
NOW and its feminist allies need to explain their deafening silence.

This article must be read in its entirety in order to experience the full brunt of absolute lunacy behind the progressive/liberal craziness that would even think that supporting such an evil monstrosity of radical Islam near Ground Zero could possibly be anything else but insane.


Is their support of a thirteen-story, $100-million mosque about two hundred feet from where the World Trade Center collapsed and nearly three thousand innocents died at the hands of Islamic terrorists based on the inane appeasement theory that if we build it, they won't come back?

While we're at it, NOW and its feminist allies need to explain their deafening silence. Are they placated by the assumption that gals might join men in the pool at an Islamic center "guided by Islamic values"? Is the National Council of Women's Organizations still too busy trying to crack the membership glass ceiling at Augusta National Golf Club to get teed off about industrial-strength inequality of women?

Imam Faisal Abdur Rauf is the man behind the mosque project. The imam says that Shariah law is compatible with American law. According to his blog on Huffington Post, "What Shariah law is all about," it's not the stuff that makes us "cringe":

We hear a lot about "firebrand" Muslim clerics calling for the installation of Shariah law. It conjures images of women being stoned and forced into hiding behind burkas and denied educations. We think of beheadings and amputations as a form of justice. And we cringe.
We cringe, too, and then some. Andrew McCarthy's exposé of Rauf reveals his connections to terrorist organizations and Shariah law. And we cringe some more.

Are Bloomberg et al so enamored of Rauf and the smiling female face of Shariah Law on Rauf's website that they refuse to investigate his "mission" and his financial backers? Bloomberg says it would be "un-American" to do so, according to the Huffington Post.

Have they missed the noseless female face of Shariah law on Time Magazine?

We also cringe and weep about the escalation of "honor killings" (which don't honor anyone except maybe Satan) happening around the world and even here in the United States. A Fox News Channel special last night gave excruciating details about the so-called "moderate" muslim man who killed his two teenaged daughters in cold blood because they were both dating non-muslim Hispanic young men.

Hat Tips:

American Thinker

Atlas Shrugs

Fox News Channel

Photo credit: Pam Geller at Atlas Shrugs


Place your vote in the Poll at Fox News Channel website:

Do you think a mosque should be built near Ground Zero?

Thank you for voting!
Yes 2% (38 votes)
No 98% (1,886 votes)
Total Votes: 1,924

No comments: