Courtney Cambern on Facebook

Cool lady:

I am a former Democrat who has become more Conservative since the 9/11 attacks. I am a member of the Tea Party Movement. I believe in States Rights, limited Federal Government, fiscal Conservative Free-Market principles, and a strict adherence to the United States Constitution.

Electronic Narcotics

From conservative old schooler George Will:

The ubiquitous barrage of battery-powered stimuli delivered by phones, computers, and games makes “the chaos of constant connection” an addictive electronic narcotic. As continuous stimulation becomes the new normal, “gaps between moments of heightened stimulation” are disappearing; amusement “has squeezed the boredom out of life.” For the hyperstimulated, “the synaptic mindscape of daily life” becomes all peaks and no valleys.

Harvard Divests From Israel?

I'm going to bed and will sort this out later. Readers will see scheduled posts throughout the morning. Meanwhile, see Atlas Shrugs, "Harvard Whores for Jihad: Harvard University Fund Sells all Israel holdings." And Solomonia, "Is Harvard Divesting from Israel? Not So Fast!"

More at Memeorandum. Especially John at Power Line, "Et Tu, Harvard?":

There is a pretty clear pattern here -- again, assuming that the five nearly-simultaneous sales of shares in Israeli companies were not coincidental. Harvard is happy to do business with oppressors--real oppressors, that is -- as long as there is enough money in it. China and Saudi Arabia have, in sheer monetary terms, a lot to offer. But taking a "principled" stand against Israel, still the Middle East's only democracy (unless you count Iraq, on which the jury is still out) and the only country in the region with a Western human rights sensibility, is cost-free. Sort of like banning military recruiters.

'No Time'

From my Facebook greeting tonight:

My classes start tomorrow, for fall semester. It's been a great summer. Less walking around money on me than I'd like, but what can you do? Seasons change and so do I ...

'Centurion'

Just now hearing about this at today's LAT. I love this stuff. Here's a blurb:

A Roman soldier (Michael Fassbender) leads a small band of troops on a mission to rescue a key Roman general after becoming trapped in the territory of their sworn enemies in this period action-adventure film from director Neil Marshall (The Descent, Doomsday). The year is A.D. 117: despite the growing strength of the Roman Empire, a fierce tribe known as the Picts has prevented Hadrian's armies from conquering northern Britain. The Picts offer a devastating display of their guerilla power when they raid a Roman frontier fort, and Quintus just barely manages to escape with his life. Thirsting for revenge, Quintus joins General Virilus' Ninth Legion as the squadron begins traveling north on a mission to find and kill Gorlacon, the leader of the Picts. That mission is complicated when the Ninth Legion is ambushed and General Virilus is captured, leaving his men stranded behind enemy lines. Now, as the Quintus and the surviving members of the Ninth Legion are hunted from the shadows, they prepare to make one last, desperate bid to save General Virilus and reach the Roman frontier before being captured or killed by the Picts.

'This Whole Islamaphobia Line of Thought is Concocted to Distract Unsuspecting Americans From Discovering the Truth'

From Tim Brown, at Coalition to Save Ground Zero (via Memeorandum):

When I first met Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, I was taken by him. He was very soft-spoken and charming. I thought to myself, now this is a guy I can work with. It gives me no pleasure in admitting I was wrong.

As we took a closer look at Imam Rauf and the other leaders of the Ground Zero Mosque project, we discovered startling inconsistencies in their stories. They could not even keep their lies straight between each other. We learned they are working side-by-side with radical Islamic organizations that have been identified by our own government as co-conspirators in one of the largest terrorism cases in the last few years, the 2008 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) terrorism trial that funneled $12 million to Hamas. In fact, one of Rauf’s many organizations, the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA) maintains it’s offices at 475 Riverside Drive on the same floor (and next to) the NY office of the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR is one of the co-conspirators in the HLF trial.

Rauf also blames America for the violent attacks of Sept. 11th and will not condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. After initially being misled by Imam Rauf, I now have my eyes wide open and he is not the man he claims to be. I wish he were.

Here are some questions we have about the project:

SOHO Properties paid $4.85 million dollars in cash for the property at 45-47 Park Place in July 2009 (they lied to Community Board 1 about also owning 49-51 Park Place). In June 2009 one of Rauf’s many organizations; the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA) received $537,000 from Qatar, a known financier of worldwide terror. We suspect this money was used to purchase the property. The fact that the property was purchased with cash along with the suspiciously –timed “donation” from the government of Qatar raises troubling questions and justified skepticism. We want to know if any money has or will be coming from foreign states that sponsor terror.

Imam Rauf claims to be an interfaith man who wants to build bridges. Why, then does he claim to want to “leverage 9/11” and the deaths of our friends, and ignores how insensitive it is to the families, many of whom still have not recovered one ounce of their loved one’s body?

Rauf is involved with several radical Muslim organizations (CAIR, ISNA, Muslim Brotherhood), all un-indicted co-conspirators in the HLF terrorism trial. He is also no. 2 in the Perdana Global Peace Organization (attached) that was the largest financier ($366,000) of the Free Gaza Movement that resulted in the suicide deaths of 9 Palestinian activists. Every time we question him about it he avoids and deflects any answer. Again, why is this self-proclaimed man-of-peace involved with these radical terrorist organizations?

The leaders of the GZ mosque project are adherents and proponents of shar’ia law. They claim the U.S. Constitution is shar’ia-compliant. The truth is that the American Constitution and shar’ia law are opposite of each other. Shar’ia does not recognize freedom of speech, freedom of conscience or equal rights of all people before the law. You cannot find two documents more diametrically opposed to each other. Which does Imam Rauf choose? You cannot have it both ways.

Muslims have worshiped in New York without incident both before and after the attacks of 9/11. This whole Islamaphobia line of thought is concocted to distract unsuspecting Americans from discovering the truth. I spent 20 years as a New York City fireman helping whoever needed help. We never stopped to ask anyones color or creed. I have not changed. How dare anyone call me an Islamaphobe or a fear-monger or a bigot.

President Hussein's Ramadan Gift Bag

O-Box Cutters. At American Digest:

At Barack Hussein Obama's taxpayer-funded Ramadan dinner last night, not only did the alleged president give the assembled Muslims the tremendous gift of support for building the Ground Zero mosque, but he also gifted them with the multi-purpose "Presidential Seal Boxcutter" which will soon be available in the Cordoba House gift shop.

RELATED: "Administration's Muddled Response on Mosque Creates New Election Year Debate" (via Memeorandum and Protein Wisdom).

America's Democrat-Socialist Party

I've long written about this — most recently at "Progressives Are Communists (If You Didn't Know"). It's a done deal now. Leftists can quit lying about it. The Democratic Party is a socialist party. (I call them commies, and while there's some additional steps in the Marxist dialectic before you get there, the ultimate destination is the same no matter how one self-identifies). The key posts are at Gateway Pundit and Nice Deb ("Can We Call Them Democrat Socialists, Now?").

Below is the screencap from the Democratic Socialists of America, "What is Democratic Socialism?" Notice how the manifesto states that "we are not a separate party" from the Democratic Party of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid:

Gateway Pundit links to the party's blog, American Socialist Voter. Then there's a link to the DSUSA homepage. And then clicking around the "about" page, we find the "Where We Stand" pamphlet, with the chapter, "Strategy for the Next Left." And as explained there:

Socialists have historically supported public ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society -- the large corporations -- in order to eliminate the injustice and inequality of a class-based society, and have depended on the the organization of a working class party to gain state power to achieve such ends. In the United States, socialists joined with others on the Left to build a broad-based, anti-corporate coalition, with the unions at the center, to address the needs of the majority by opposing the excesses of private enterprise. Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this coalition, because the Democratic Party held the allegiance of our natural allies. Through control of the government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs could be realized.

And additionally:

Social Redistribution. Social redistribution -- the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society -- will require:

1. massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs,income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation, and

2. a massive shift of public resources from the military (the main user of existing discretionary funds) to civilian uses.

Although such reforms will be very difficult to achieve on a national scale in the short term, their urgency increases as income inequality intensifies. Over time, income redistribution and social programs will be critical not only to the poor but to the great majority of working people. The defense and expansion of government programs that promote social justice, equal education for all children, universal health care, environmental protection and guaranteed minimum income and social well-being is critical for the next Left.

Okay, a "shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society," or to "spread the wealth around." We've heard that before:

And that makes sense, since "OBAMA SIGNED UP WITH DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PARTY IN '95!"

Going back over to the American Socialist Voter homepage, the site is careful in attempting to distance itself from violent Marxist-Leninist revolutionary agitation. And of course this is always the case with socialists (who are all by definition Marxists) as they try to revive a world-historically discredited ideology. Hence, today's leftists embrace a subterranean neo-communist ideological program that works to destabilize and transform democratic-capitalist institutions from the inside. This is the "burrowing from within" associated with Alinsky's Marxists. More on this here: "Obama = Alinsky = Gramsci = Marx."

Conservatives know most of this already. See Melanie Phillips' essay from September 2008, "Revolution You Can Believe In." Save it. Put all of this at your sidebar. Never confuse "liberals" with "progressives." (As Maureen Dowd does today at New York Times.) These people are Marxists. They've adopted a go-slow approach to the revolutionary agenda. It's about burrowing, destabilizing, indoctrination, and infiltration. Unfortuntely, hubris kills the grandest ambitions, and the Democrat-socialist redistribution scam is being increasingly repudiated by the American public ("Even the Poor Are Abandoning Obama"). November will see an epic smackdown against the radical left members of the Democratic congressional party. Then in 2012 President Hussein will be repudiated. The country can then try to restore some of its founding principles, not to mention a little sanity.

RELATED: From DSA internal documents, "WHO ARE THE SOCIALIST IN ELECTED OFFICE TODAY — DSA-Members: American Socialist Voter - Democratic Socialists of America."

Obama's Ground Zero Backpedaling Fail

Byron York calls Obama's Ground Zero statements "Clintonian":

... there is simply no doubt that Obama's Friday evening speech, in the context in which it was delivered, was an endorsement of the Ground Zero project. It was certainly widely understood as such. The headlines of the three New York papers reporting the speech were: "Obama Backs Islam Center Near 9/11 Site" (New York Times); "Allah Right By Me" (New York Post); and "Prez: Build the Mosque" (New York Daily News). The lead of an Associated Press report on the speech was: "President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully endorsed building a mosque near ground zero, saying the country's founding principles demanded no less." But on Saturday, Obama said all those listeners were wrong, that they misunderstood him.

Several years ago, there was a word for Obama's rhetorical technique: Clintonian. Like the former president, Obama spoke words he knew would be understood as having a particular meaning in a particular context. He also knew that those same words, when examined closely outside that context, might also be interpreted as having a different meaning. In that sense, the mosque affair is a good lesson for both supporters and opponents of the president. From now on, with Obama, as it was with Clinton, the rule is: Don't listen to the speech. Read the words very carefully.

And Tom Maguire, "Obama On The Mosque - The Backpedaling Begins":

I have an idea our President will love - maybe we can open an Islamic Waffle House in a building damaged in the 9/11 attacks. Obama can be the first customer.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

RELATED: Nice Deb, "Obama “Forcefully Endorses” Ground Zero Mosque."

Pfc. Bradley Manning, Atheist Gay Loner, Hailed as Antiwar Hero in Criminal WikiLeaks Case

The antiwar left embraces misfits when it needs them, uses them up, spits them out, then moves on to the next target of destruction. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is the next Cindy Sheehan. He's an atheist gay loner who never fit in. He's being used now by the anti-American crowd, including Code Pink and International ANSWER, and they'll suck him dry and flatten him — he'll be dead to them like a honey bee after stinging. NYT posted a sorry essay previously, "Early Struggles of Soldier Charged in Leak Case." It notes there that classmates in Oklahoma "made fun of him for being gay." Poor guy. I guess that makes it okay then to criminally leak classified information that puts American and allied lives at risk. Radical leftists don't care, of course. He's the new big guy of the movement. See WaPo, "Army Analyst Linked to WikiLeaks Hailed as Antiwar Hero" (via Memeorandum):

For antiwar campaigners from Seattle to Iceland, a new name has become a byword for anti-establishment heroism: Army Pfc. Bradley E. Manning.

Manning, a 22-year-old intelligence analyst, is suspected of leaking thousands of classified documents about the Afghanistan war to the Web site WikiLeaks.

The breach has elicited a furious reaction from national security officials, who say it has compromised the safety of U.S.-led forces and their Afghan allies.

Yet, since his arrest in the spring, Manning has become an instant folk hero to thousands of grass-roots activists around the world, some of whom are likening the disclosure to the unauthorized release of the Pentagon Papers or the anonymous tips that helped uncover the Watergate scandal.

Neither Manning nor his attorney have commented on the WikiLeaks dump -- and WikiLeaks has not identified Manning as its source. But chat logs released by an online confidant suggest that the intelligence analyst was as disturbed by U.S. foreign policy as many of the strangers now supporting him.

In the logs, Manning said he had seen "incredible things, awful things" in classified government files. It's "important that it gets out . . . I feel, for some bizarre reason," he said.

The Pentagon has played down the significance of the files disclosed by WikiLeaks. But that has done little to dampen the enthusiasm of Manning's supporters.

And according to the article, one of his antiwar support groups, Courage to Resist ...

... developed a line of Manning memorabilia, replete with images of the boyish-looking private. There are "Save Bradley Manning!" badges, posters and T-shirts. The products' tagline: "Blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime."

Yep, using him up. That's sick.

Bloody WikiLeaks

I like Charli Carpenter. She's a serious political scientist. In relation to myself, her work's over on the other side of security studies (human rights, constructivist theories). She's published in top-notch journals and she takes positivist methodology as legitimate. (Her lead article in I.O. Fall 2003, "'Women and Children First': Gender, Norms, and Humanitarian Evacuation in the Balkans 1991–95," is cool.) Charli also blogs. I think I first saw her stuff at Duck of Minerva, where the content is mostly all-academic. Some time back, though, Charli joined the roster at Lawyers, Guns and Money. I thought it strange, and I've said so here previously. Dave and SEK are basically hate-bloggers, and while Robert Farley generally eschews that kind of demonology, he's an unserious academic who's not only dishonest but revels in it. And because of that, I don't think she's a good fit over there. In fact, in speaking to Charli recently I joked that I was going to convert her to neoconservatism, since we have overlapping interests on security issues, and especially on Julian Assange's WikiLeaks media whistle-blowing operation. I don't think Charli's going to become a feminist "Charli" Krauthammer any time soon, but I hope sometime she finds a prominent (high-traffic) blog that's a better fit.

Perhaps toward that end, Charli's got an essay up at Foreign Policy on WikiLeaks (maybe a good sign, considering the stable of solid bloggers over there). See, "How WikiLeaks Could Use Its Power for Good."

Charli argues that WikiLeaks' is not in fact a "criminal enterprise" (as Marc Thiessen has argued, and I've seconded). Yet, she notes that the massive, indiscriminate "document dump" by WikiLeaks wasn't smart, and that perhaps a more carefully designed leaking strategy might be good. In releasing its information, WikiLeaks ought to pick its targets carefully, not unlike how the military targets its enemies. And Charli adds:

WikiLeaks adds real value to the international regime governing the behavior of soldiers in wartime by promoting precisely the sort of accountability that the Geneva Conventions require but military culture tends to discourage. The laws of war compel soldiers to refuse illegal orders and report war crimes, but troops are typically expected do so through their own chain of command, an act that goes against the grain of everything else they're taught about obedience and loyalty. When service personnel do take the leap to speak out, they can only hope their confidentiality will be respected and that they will be rewarded rather than penalized for honesty.

WikiLeaks could provide a solution -- a reporting mechanism through which individual soldiers could report specific war crimes without fear of retribution. The organization has servers in many countries and sophisticated encryption techniques, all of which are intended to disseminate incriminating secrets while protecting the anonymity of sources. Consider what this could have meant in the case of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, for example. When Sgt. Joseph Darby saw former high school friends abusing prisoners in 2004, he fulfilled his duties under the Geneva Conventions by reporting the abuses to the U.S. Army's Criminal Investigation Command. Though he asked to remain anonymous, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed his identity, inviting hate mail and death threats from the public. It is no wonder that so many other participants at Abu Ghraib chose not to stick their necks out for fear of compromising their careers and personal safety. The Abu Ghraib case is hardly an isolated one.

More at the link.

Charli's argument is fine on its face, or, at least to the extent that it's good to have the release of information (and accountability) on criminal military liabilities. What I think she omits --- and this is a fatal omission with regards to the WikiLeaks project --- are the intentions of Julian Assange and those of the (nefarious) global network of anti-American whistle-blowers. Charli Carpenter wants to save lives, particularly civilians who are killed or injured in what is otherwise the lawful exercise of military power. The problem is that's not what Julian Assange wants, nor is it what his worldwide backers want. Frankly, I don't think these people care about "human rights" except as a vehicle to chain the United States to supranational norms and to limit America's international power. Thus, I don't think Assange and WikiLeaks should be the agents of the kind of military transparency that Charli proposes.

Let's look a bit more at some related issues, which cast more light on the un-humanitarian motives of the WikiLeaks network. First, as I've pointed out here, WikiLeaks puts lives at risk, both needlessly and indiscriminately. See, "Julian Assange and Wikileaks Abbetting Murder in the Name of 'Openness'." At issue is the compromised information on the identity of hundreds of Afghan nationals working with the United States. Taliban operatives pledged to kill them when the news of the Afghan operatives came to light. As bad as that was, Assange's response assuaged nothing. He claimed that "Anything in theory has the potential to harm anything else." He also blamed the United States, saying he was "appalled that the U.S. military was so lackadaisical with its Afghan sources. Just appalled." Assange has come under fire from many on the left, for example, Reporters Without Borders. But for the most part, the world's antiwar, anti-American neo-communists have relished the release of the documents, Afghan civilian casualties be damned.

As we saw with the Apache attack video released previously, WikiLeaks' interest is in damaging the United States. The "Collateral Murder" episode clearly showed Assange's agenda (which wasn't objective journalism), and unfortunately few in the mainstream press investigated the now-debunked claims made at the tape (bloggers did, especially Jawa Report). There's litte more to be expected with the pending release of the remaining Afghanistan documents. All along, myself and others have portrayed WikiLeaks as not a "journalistic" outfit but an information warfare operation against the United States Military.

My friend Charli Carpenter means well in making the case for a benign incarnation of WikiLeaks. I'm not confident that's possible. And while Charli may still not be convinced, I'm pleased to see IBD's latest editorial echoing these themes, "WikiLeaks' Hands To Get Bloodier":

The Pentagon warns that WikiLeaks' vow to publish more stolen U.S. documents may be worse than the first leaks. Even the anti-war left opposes the theft. When will WikiLeaks be treated as an enemy?

WikiLeaks, which puts stolen, mostly classified U.S. documents on the Internet, justifies its publishing of secrets as throwing sunlight on the devious doings of governments.

In reality, its founder, Julian Assange, is an anti-American agitator whose main aim is to end the U.S. war in Afghanistan by any means necessary. If that means publishing the name of an Afghan tribesman who's so much as given a U.S. soldier a drink of water in Kandahar, he's indifferent to the impact.

So there's no doubt the 76,000 stolen documents he's already published are the work of an enemy who is maddeningly exempt from the U.S.' excessively legalistic approach to war.

He's already published more than 100 names of Afghans connected to U.S. troops in his first info dump. The name-filled battlefield reports shed no sunlight on anything readers of the news don't already know of the U.S. war strategy — which is based on relationships with informants. But for the Taliban, it's a gold mine.

Having been defeated in battle, they've turned to killing Afghans who oppose them. Already a Taliban spokesman has said the Taliban is scouring these documents to find U.S. allies "to punish."

Newsweek says that, four days after WikiLeaks released its first U.S. documents, 80 death threats rolled in at the homes of tribal elders in southern Afghanistan. In a Kandahar village called Monar, the Taliban took Khalifa Abdullah from his home and killed him.

It's blood on the hands of WikiLeaks, and even the anti-war left is taking cover. Last week, George Soros-funded leftist groups like the Open Society Institute, the International Crisis Group and Amnesty International warned WikiLeaks that "we have seen the negative, sometimes deadly ramifications for those Afghans identified as working for or sympathizing with international forces."

It was followed by a letter from another group, Reporters Without Borders, warning of the same thing. If they think this is a bad thing, what moral justification does WikiLeaks have left?

Response to Democrat 'F*ck Tea' Campaign

Via No Sheeples Here! ...

RELATED: At Proof Positive, "F*ck Tea? More like Poopy-Mouth Kool-Aid®."

Joseph Epstein Cancels His 'New York Times' Subscription

At Weekly Standard:

The New York Times used to be called the Gray Lady of American newspapers. The sobriquet implied a certain stateliness, a sense of responsibility, the possession of high virtue. But the Gray Lady is far from the grande dame she once was. For years now she has been going heavy on the rouge, lipstick, and eyeliner, using a push-up bra, and gadding about in stiletto heels. She’s become a bit—perhaps more than a bit—of a slut, whoring after youth through pretending to be with-it. I’ve had it with the old broad; after nearly 50 years together, I’ve determined to cut her loose.

I have decided, that is, to cancel my subscription to the New York Times. For so many decades the paper has been part of my morning mental hygiene. Yet in recent years I’ve been reading less and less of each day’s paper. Most days now I do no more than scan the headlines on the front page, check the sports pages for the pitchers in that day’s White Sox and Cubs games, then flip over to the Irish sports pages, as the obits have been called, to see if anyone I know has pegged out.

I've never subscribed. I still get LAT, though, mostly so I'll have something to read --- anything --- while I'm away from online news. As for NYT, some readers might note that I'll normally include FWIW ("for what it's worth") when linking. Sometimes there's good information, and I need to discuss it. But you mostly just can't trust the reporting, so take it with some salt, as they say. It's a "feather in my hat," of course, to have forced a correction at the Times. So, I'll keep reading it to see if I can score another!

Anyway, Steven Givler quit the Times in 2006, and he's got his cancellation letter here: "Saying Goodbye to the New York Times."

Super Cool: Hubble Telescope Ultra Deep

Via Theo Spark's:

Brain Rage Chunky Vomit

I guess I hurt JBW's feelings with my last post repudiating the Brain Rage embrace of death-wish drug abuse:

...my favorite part of this post is Don's continued insistence, albeit indirectly this time, that I should somehow embrace him as some type of mentor based on his 13-14 years seniority of me. I hate to disappoint the guy but I've tried this particular song and dance in the patriarchal sense twice in my life and the results were less than stellar both times: my father ignored me until he was on his death bed and my step-father was a serial dick throughout my childhood, so I'm sure I can be excused for not embracing the intellectual arguments of someone who consistently calls me a loser or worse.

Been there. Done that.

It sucks JBW when no father-figures have been there for you. That's called father-hunger. My heart bleeds for you buddy. And of course your pain helps explain why you'd take cocaine over camaraderie. So I'll be blunt: Drugs suck. They're for losers. If you don't want to be a loser. Don't do drugs.

P.S. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but your post truly reminds me of "chunky vomit." And like the flummoxed muscle-bound macho teacher at the clip, you're hightailing it outta there when it comes to sophisticated engagements. Get some help dude.

No One Should Be Surprised at President Obama's Defense of the Planned Mosque at Ground Zero

Nope, no surprise.

See Neo-Neocon:

It’s another in a long series of stands Obama has taken that runs counter not only to the opinions of the majority of Americans, but of the vast majority of Americans—and what’s more, they’re the ones who’ve got the principle right while he’s the one who’s got it wrong.

Polls show that 64% of Americans disapprove of the building of the mosque there and only 30% approve. But in the same poll, 61% noted that the mosque-builders have the right to construct it there, while only 34% say the group doesn’t have that right.

All in all, a pretty good demonstration of the fact that Americans get the concept of freedom of religion, and they also get the concept of what is appropriate and what isn’t. Our supposed con law expert president appears to not understand these things—or not to care about making such fine distinctions, when it happens to suit his purposes to ignore them.

RELATED: Frank Gaffney, "Obama's Ground Zero Mosque." (Via Memeorandum.) And Gates of Vienna, "Obama vs. The Survivors of 9/11."

PREVIOUSLY: "How Close Is Close Enough?"

IMAGE CREDIT: Ghost of a Flea.

Billy Idol — GOODBYE EUROPE, HELLO AMERICA

Billy Idol talks about wrapping up the European leg of his world tour:

How Close Is Close Enough?

I'm still astounded that idiots like Charles Johnson make the unbeatably peurile argument that the mosque is "two blocks away from Ground Zero." It's really not a matter if distance. It's the symbolism. Still, how close is close enough? A landing gear away?

Above photo: A piece of the landing gear that crashed into the building of the proposed Ground Zero mega mosque. The only reason that building was sold for only 4.87 millions dollars (to an NYC waiter, Sharif El-Gamal) for such a distressed price was because of the damage from the 911 attack. That building is a war memorial, a piece of American history. The 911 attack on America continues unabated.

*****

Interesting that the anti-Semitic demonizers at Firedoglake make the same argument repeatedly, and here's the latest:

The Cordoba House, actively fearmongered by the right wing, has become a lightning rod for criticism across the country. In a recent poll, nearly 70% of all Americans oppose the construction of the Islamic Center, which has been falsely called a “Ground Zero mosque” (there’s a place of worship inside the Islamic Center, but it’s mainly a kind of YMCA for the Muslim community. And, it’s not on Ground Zero, but near it).

RELATED: Actually, looks like this is all too close for comfort for President Hussein. He stupidly threw fuel on the fire this morning. See, "Obama Says Mosque Remarks Were Not Endorsement":

President Obama said Saturday that in defending the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque near ground zero in Lower Manhattan, he was “not commenting on the wisdom” of that project, but rather trying to uphold the broader principle that government should treat “everyone equal, regardless” of religion.

Mr. Obama, who was visiting the Gulf Coast with his wife and youngest daughter for an overnight stay, made his comments at the Coast Guard district station here.

On Friday night, he used the White House iftar, a sunset dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan, to weigh in on the mosque controversy.

In clarifying his remarks, Mr. Obama was apparently seeking to address criticism that he was using his presidential platform to promote a project that has aroused the ire of many New Yorkers. White House officials said earlier Saturday that Mr. Obama was not trying to promote that particular project, but rather sought to make a broader statement about freedom of religion and American values.

Later in the day, the White House press office elaborated further, issuing yet another statement.

“Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night,” it said.

Right. "Not backing off." Got it.

More at Memeorandum. See especially John Hinderaker on the left's unhinged terror apologists, "Obama's Finest Moment?":

Greg Sargent is a left-winger who worked for Editor & Publisher magazine. When that publication went broke, he caught on as a blogger at the Washington Post. Today he hailed President Obama's endorsement of Cordoba House as "One of the finest moments of Obama's presidency." That's damning with faint praise, some would say, but it is interesting to follow Sargent's logic. He agrees with us that Obama intended his remarks to be taken as a strong endorsement of the Ground Center mosque:

Obama didn't just stand up for the legal right of the group to build the Islamic center. He voiced powerful support for their moral right to do so as well, casting it as central to American identity. ... Obama went much further than [to acknowledge the legal rights of the project's backers]. He asserted that we must "welcome" and "respect" those of other faiths, suggesting that the group behind the center deserves the same, and said flat out that anything less is un-American.

I think that fairly sums up Obama's remarks. Sargent contrasts Obama's enthusiasm with the Cordoba House's reception on the right:

Many opponents of the project have been employing a clever little dodge. They say they don't question the group's legal right to build it under the Constitution. Rather, they say, they're merely criticizing the group's decision to do so, on the grounds that it's insensitive to 9/11 families and will undercut the project's goal of reconciliation. The group has the right to build the center, runs this argument, but they are wrong to exercise it.

That, too, fairly sums up our position and that of many conservatives. But why is this a "clever little dodge"? Does Sargent believe that everything a person has a legal right to do is a good thing? He never addresses any of the facts that cause critics of the Cordoba House project to believe that it is a bad idea: the cultural center's proposed location adjacent to Ground Zero; the fact that it is named after the capital of the Muslim caliphate in Spain; the fact that the person most closely identified with the project, Abdul Rauf, blamed the U.S. for the September 11 attacks; the curious reticence of the project's front men to explain where the $100 million needed for the cultural center will come from; and the plethora of mosques already available in New York at locations other than Ground Zero.

I've added the bold highlighting at the quote. Idiot leftists rarely discuss why the public has problems with this, and notice that part about "the cultural center's proposed location adjacent to Ground Zero..."

I noted previously how the Mega Mosque controversy was becoming a central political issue at the time of the 9th anniversary of 9/11. President Hussein has guaranteed that it'll be one of the top election issues in November as well.

In Solidarity: Lunch-Bucket Americans Against Ground Zero Mosque

Via Tammy Bruce:

Ronald Brownstein referred to "lunch-bucket" Americans in a recent piece on Democratic Party weaknesses: "Dems Face Losses In Blue-Collar Districts: The House districts of the late John Murtha and retiring David Obey are lunch-bucket Democratic seats that may turn Republican in the fall."

I'm still trying to figure out the upside for the Democrats and the Ground Zero Mega Mosque. It's not popular. Obama would have been better just staying away from that debate, especially in an election year: "CNN (!) Poll: Close to 70% of Americans Oppose the Ground Zero Mosque."

RELATED: Check William Kristol's post, "No, Mr. President" (via Memeorandum), and the link to Power Line. Also, "9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America":

Barack Obama has abandoned America at the place where America’s heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see. Since that dark day, Americans have been asked to bear the burden of defending those values, again and again and again. Now this president declares that the victims of 9/11 and their families must bear another burden. We must stand silent at the last place in America where 9/11 is still remembered with reverence or risk being called religious bigots.

Never-Before Seen 9/11 Pictures

Via Twitter:

911 Pictures

See more presentations by drscherrey | Upload your own PowerPoint presentations