I don't think Eric Margolis would want to test the tolerance of those he feels compelled to be an apologist for. [Read]
I haven't weighed in on the mosque issue because it's pretty far afield of what I focus on, and that's not my focus here--it's on a supposed libertarian praising control freak fascists like Obama and Bloomberg, and claiming pride in being a subject.
That said, I do fear a government that could prevent the erection of a religious structure. And that said, I have a right to protest any private entities helping to actualize this--assuming I give a damn about what happens in New York City any more.
[Via Paul W. Davis]
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Islam is not a religion, it is a political view masquerading as a religion. Everywhere it is equal to even 30% of the populace, every other religion dissappears, as well as all human and civil rights. They are already practicing sharia law in the Dearborn and Detroit areas among themselves, and they will begin demanding it city-wide there soon. They are using the freedom of religion as a foil to dominate or at least cripple the US, and they will not stop unless somebody stops them. Islam delenda est.
Control freaks, aye, even to banning trans fat and salt in NYC restaurants. Where will Blunderbutt NOT stick his nose in?
Margolis's suggestion to substitute the word "Jews" for "Muslims" and then see how the warnings make us feel falls flat. I don't remember ANY example of modern-era Jews committing mass murder of civilians or producing propaganda videos of proud beheadings of helpless "infidels."
The founder of the proposed Cordoba House mosque said in an Arabic-language interview that it will be a monument and a foothold for Islamic influence on U.S. government and the introduction of Muslim sharia law here. Mr. Margolis will be awarded no brownie points for his support, at that time.
See, David, that's the problem with Islam. They soon will insist that everyone convert or die, or at least live as second-class subjects under Sharia law. Such a religion I will not tolerate, and if it comes to killing them with pig-tainted ammo, so be it.
I just lost a lot of respect for Margolis.
When someone finds one single instance when a politician allegedly supports a single tenant of the Bill of Rights - and writes about it as if said politician is some sort of constitutional savior - the author is, a the very least, a fool.
So - Eric Margolis - a commentator at LewRockwell,com, has decided that he's proud of "courageous" Obama and Bloomberg (his "Mayor, he's proud to say") due to their spoken position supporting construction of the proposed Mosque near "ground zero."
When someone takes the time to write about a single instance regarding two career politicians alleged support of a select provision of the Bill of Rights and holds it up as a reminder "to their misled countrymen of our basic right of religious freedom and tolerance", it appears that the author is missing the forest for one single branch of the tree. Had Mr. Margolis noted in his article that the Bill of Rights has been repeatedly trashed by these courageous Role Models for Constitutional Purity, the article could have been taken in some reasonable context. It's well known that Obama reinstated the most grotesque parts of the Patriot Act, and that Bloomberg and Obama haven't ever seen a gun control law with which they disagree. And Obama continues to kill Moslems with Predator Drones, and has expanded the War in Afghanistan. Notwithstanding those little issues, they're both courageous supporters of the First Amendment.
If Eric is so doggone "proud" of his benighted mayor, I suggest he boldly exercise several other provisions of the Bill of Rights in NYC and see how Mayor Bloomberg stacks up on that level. For instance, I suggest that he openly carry a pistol or revolver in the city and see how long he lives. If he does survive the tazing, beating or being shot and/or sodomized with a broomstick by New York's finest "only ones," he can ask Mayor Bloomberg of to straighten things out.
Of course, his First Amendment role model - Bloomberg - doesn't "need" a gun, since he's surrounded by umpteen gun carrying NYPD bodyguards - paid for in part by folks like Margolis. But that's ok, I suppose. No need to pick at the little things.
I distrust government telling people where and what to build - as long as the neighbors aren't negatively affected. There are enough hoops to jump through with local planning and zoning commissions. But people also have a right to protest whatever building is being proposed. That's also a right, and doesn't necessarily make one "Islamophobic" or otherwise phobic if they vocally disagree with a proposed structure.
I also have no dog in fight regarding the Mosque at "Ground Zero." I too distrust a government that can forbid a building to be constructed if the construction doesn't adversely affect local property owners. It should be noted that Arizona just passed a law that removes many of the obstacles for building churches, mosques and synagogues. Where's Bloomberg's proposal along those lines?
When some political hack(s) is/are vocal and active in quashing the right to self defense, and make vocal platitudes about "the Constitution," I'm gonna take their words with a pound of salt and call it what it is: Transparent political grandstanding. And the hack in question will never become my hero or a role model. After all, actions speak louder than words.
Interestingly, Margolis points out "(t)he dragon teeth of religious hatred planted by the Bush administration, and nurtured by the neocons and religious far right, are blooming" despite the fact that Bush stated on a number of occasions that we are not at war with Islam. So Margolis has the ability to judge words vs. actions. Except, that is, when it comes to his mayor, and the current president. I've lost a lot of respect for Margolis. And I now understand why politicians like Bloomberg, Obama, et al get elected. Most of the voters - even allegedly anti-war libertarians, are idiots.
Associated Press has issued style mandates to not call it the ground zero mosque -- was it Bloomberg who said "ground zero" should not be capitalized? -- or the World Trade Center mosque but instead "the New York City mosque."
Meanwhile, Arab-language media have probably NOT issued style guidelines to no longer refer to the 9/11 hijackers as "The Magnificent 19."
There's no 1st Amendment problem with stopping the G-0 mosque. The Islamic extremists behind it are exploiting our tolerance to advance their INtolerance. They're building a 911 victory monument under color & protection of the 1st Amendment. It's like building a monument to Japan over the Arizona. That's not what the 1A is for, and it doesn't guarantee the right to build ANY size church ANYWHERE you want. New Yorkers should use eminent domain or zoning power to stop it.
This also points out the suicidal stupidity of the open border crowd. We need to bring back sane, sustainable limits on immigration. The main threat of fundamentalist Islam is not overseas, but through immigration. Fighting a "war on terror" while our "commander in chief" subverts our own borders & immigration laws, is pure insanity. Bush was just as bad on this as Hussein.
No one who can't prove they oppose Sharia law should be allowed to come here. No one should be allowed to come here who can't prove they support the right of all religions to practice - and not just here but in all countries. There should be special limits (zero) from any country that has sponsored terror, sponsored Medrassas, allows Sharia law, or has an official religion that promotes intolerance and oppresses other religions (i.e., Any Islamic Republic, Iraq, Afghan, Turkey, Saudi, Iran, etc.).
That said, most New Yorkers learned nothing from 911, so they deserve to have this mosque crammed down their throats for voting for PC scumbags like Hussein, Clinton, and Bloomberg.
Russ H.
Post a Comment