Thursday, August 19, 2010

How to Know If Your Husband is Gay

Sometimes it seems like we've heard it all, every way the Christian right can insult and put down gay people, you'd think they'd run out of things, but Christwire has an article about how to tell if you're husband is gay, and I have to say it goes beyond expectations as far as negative stereotyping. Let me give you some of it:
Right now in America there are over 2 million couples secretly struggling with homosexuality in their marriages. Are you one of them? Are you having intimacy issues? Are you suspicious about your husband’s late night activities? Or are you oblivious to a problem that could be putting your health and the livelihood of your family at risk? Don’t tell yourself that you’re simply being paranoid without taking a closer look!

Homosexuality can pop up at any time during a long-term relationship. Your spouse may have been experimenting with the “gay” lifestyle even before you met. Maybe he’s just using you as unwitting cover as he seeks playmates in the heterosexual world. For these types, the shame of being “outed” is so great that they will go to extremes to hide their lustful activities, even tricking a woman to marry them to appear normal in society. Sometimes it’s the nervous family who has rushed a young man into marriage out of a fear that his secret will be exposed. For others, homosexuality can appear later in life when men crave some escape from the monotony of careers and home life. Same-sex experimentation is also connected to drug or alcohol abuse. Crystal meth and other narcotics are proven to lower inhibitions and to drive people to take incredible risks to feed their habits.

For the wife unsure about her husband’s proclivities, the most important thing is to first confirm your suspicions. Drawing on the expertise of spiritual and medical professionals, Christwire has put together a list of 15 commonly-accepted characteristics of men struggling with homosexuality within a marriage.. Is My Husband GAY?

Here's a question for The Nutty Ones: do you want men to marry women, or not? Isn't that what the whole "ex-gay" thing is about? You take a gay guy, talk him into ignoring his natural attraction to members of his own sex and persuade him to have sex only with a woman, even though he's not that interested, and if he goes along with it you have the great success of The Ex-Gay. By some tellings of the Christian right's agenda, this is ideal, this is what PFOX stands for, for instance, this is the great triumph, marrying a woman.

These people are taking the ideal PFOX scenario, a gay man marrying a woman, and turning it inside out, now he is tricking her!

This article is pretty long, and the text is so fascinating that I hope you will follow the link and go read it. Having frightened women into wondering if their guy is gay, they give you fifteen warning signs. It is incredibly tempting to paste in a lot of the explanatory text, but I'll just give you the bolded headings:
1) Secretive late night use of cellphones and computers
2) Looks at other men in a flirtatious way
3) Feigning attention in church and prayer groups
4) Overly fastidious about his appearance and the home
5) Gym membership but no interest in sports
6) Clothes that are too tight and too “trendy”
7) Strange sexual demands
8) More interested in the men than the women in pornographic films
9) Travels frequently to big cities or Asia
10) Too many friendly young male friends
11) Sassy, sarcastic and ironic around his friends
12) Love of pop culture
13) Extroverted about his bare chest in public
14) Sudden heavy drinking
15) Ladies, have you dated men in the past who turned out to be gay?

That last one is interesting. They're saying that some women just date a lot of gay guys, unintentionally. So if your other boyfriends turned out to be gay, this one probably is, too.

If your guy bathes, shaves, and gets dressed, even on weekends -- watch out! If he is imaginative in bed, even after he's married, watch out! If he doesn't turn into the most boringly normal couch potato you can imagine after a month or two of marriage, if he doesn't smell bad, if he cares about what other people think of him -- watch out!

Okay, seriously, the saddest thing is to think of the poor women who marry men who consider themselves ex-gays. You pity the guy who believes he can overcome his own nature, but think of the woman who loves him, who will never be loved in the same way. I'm not making fun of this article because it's funny to find you're married to a gay man, but because that is exactly the outcome that the Christian right has been pushing for all this time. They tell gay men to turn away from their feelings, they tell them they can become heterosexual, and now they are talking like it's a big trick, that gay guys are marrying straight women so they can ... uh, I don't know why they'd do that, except that somebody has made them think they were supposed to.

There's an extra bonus on this web site. I wish you could see the little crosses they use for bullets on this list of recent posts, but at least I can show you the titles... these are people who live in a different universe from me, that's all there is to it.
Recent Posts
* Barack Obama Supports Terror Mosque at World Trade Center
* 19th Amendment: Celebrating 90 Years of Feminism Destroying America, Vote by Vote
* Lightning Hits Boy, 13, at 13:13 on Friday the 13th
* ALERT: Gay Agenda Releases “Know Age of Consent” Law Video
* Lady Gaga Telephone Leads Another Child into Gay Temptation

No, really, I'm not making this up.

31 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Here's a question for The Nutty Ones: do you want men to marry women, or not?"

My question for you is: do you understand that we live in a world of billions of individuals or not?

Not everyone who is opposed to the gay agenda is obligated to synchronize their positions to simplify lunatic fringe gay advocacy.

Some people may think its OK for people who have had gay feelings to marry and some others may think they shouldn't marry.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that all those who reject the gay agenda have to have the same opinion on this matter.

Think about it.

August 19, 2010 3:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

never fear, Super-Barack will save the day:

The U.S. economy faces difficult times ahead with chronic unemployment and slow manufacturing hurting the pace of recovery, the head of Congress' budget agency said on Thursday.

The warning from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office came on top of more bad U.S. economic data that heightened concerns about a return to recession, roiling markets.

The CBO forecast the U.S. budget deficit will hit $1.342 trillion this year.

The figures show that without significant changes in Federal spending, the government will struggle to dig its way out of a deep fiscal deficit hole.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said the economy faces a tough recovery from recession.

"The considerable number of vacant houses and underused factories and offices will be a continuing drag on residential construction and business investment, and slow income growth as well as lost wealth will restrain consumer spending," he said.

The unemployment rate, currently at 9.5 percent, will not fall to around 5 percent until 2014, Elmendorf said. The last time the jobless rate was 5 percent was April 2008, late in the Bush presidency. The Obama administration has overseen a tremendous rise in unemployment. Economists generally view a 4 percent target jobless rate as a benchmark of full employment.

Anxiety over the economy is likely to punish President Barack Obama's Democrats in November's midterm elections because of big deficits caused by government spending and high unemployment.

Republican Senator Judd Gregg warned of fiscal calamity.

"The current pace of U.S. spending is unaffordable and unsustainable and without a change in direction this country is headed for fiscal calamity," said Gregg, the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.

The CBO forecast was released as reports showed new claims for unemployment benefits rising, raising fresh fears of a return to recession, and manufacturing activity in the U.S. mid-Atlantic region unexpectedly contracting. The data unnerved investors, driving stocks down and prices on U.S. government debt higher while yields fell.

U.S. stocks tumbled to their lowest close in nearly a month and the benchmark 10-year Treasury note yield fell to a 17-month low of 2.56 percent this week. In light of recent data, Wall Street economists are revising their outlooks.

"We think bond yields are going lower, mostly on revised growth expectations -- all the shops are revising down their forecasts for inflation and growth," said Sergey Bondarchuk, U.S. interest rate strategist with BNP Paribas in New York.

The Standard & Poor's 500 stock index fell 1.69 percent.

CBO also forecast a $1.066 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2011, which begins on October 1, up from the March estimate of $996 billion.

The U.S. budget deficit last year was a record $1.413 trillion, 9.9 percent of gross domestic product

August 19, 2010 9:53 PM  
Anonymous super smart said...

how can anyone even consider voting for Democrats in November?

August 19, 2010 11:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 20, 2010 5:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's a trip down memory lane:


YES, WE CAN!

August 20, 2010 7:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can? So tell us, is your husband gay?

August 20, 2010 8:03 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Reality trip down memory lane: GOP House Minority leader John Boehner says "Hell no you can't!"

Reality trip down memory lane #2: Signing Stimulus, Obama Doesn’t Rule Out More
February 17, 2009

DENVER — President Obama has not ruled out a second stimulus package, his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said on Tuesday, just before Mr. Obama signed his $787 billion recovery package into law with a statement that it would “set our economy on a firmer foundation.”

The president said he would not pretend “that today marks the end of our economic problems.”

“Nor does it constitute all of what we have to do to turn our economy around,” Mr. Obama said at the signing ceremony in the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. “But today does mark the beginning of the end, the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans scrambling in the way of layoffs.”

Mr. Gibbs, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on the way to Denver, said, “I think the president is going to do what’s necessary to grow this economy.” While “there are no particular plans at this point for a second stimulus package,” he added, “I wouldn’t foreclose it.”

Mr. Obama began the first leg of a two-day trip, using the museum ceremony to spotlight the bill’s clean-energy provisions. The president will also visit Phoenix, where he will unveil his new housing plan on Wednesday.

After a bruising legislative battle on the stimulus bill, which drew only three supporting votes from Republicans in the Senate and none in the House, the White House is trying to recapture the debate over the economy. Mr. Obama’s message is that the bill will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years.

While the bill has been criticized by conservatives as bloated with pork-barrel spending, it has also been criticized by the left as too tepid and not bold enough to jumpstart the economy. Mr. Gibbs’s remarks on the plane seemed to echo that concern.

In describing the package, the press secretary called it “a strong start towards economic viability” and “the beginning of getting our economy back on track.”

While he was still president-elect, Mr. Obama originally envisioned spending somewhere between $675 billion and $775 billion on the recovery package, and the final number comes close to that. But the bill approved by Congress included $70 billion in tax cuts, which some economists believe will not create as many new jobs as $70 billion in spending would.

The Denver-Phoenix swing is meant to put the spotlight on the difficulties faced by ordinary Americans around the country. In Denver, the unemployment rate jumped to 6.3 percent at the end of last year from 5.8 percent in November. The city has been hard-hit by foreclosures — in December, metropolitan Denver had more foreclosures than regular home sales — and so has Phoenix.

Before the signing ceremony, Mr. Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. toured a solar-panel installation and visited with officials of Namaste Solar, a Boulder-based company that the White House has singled out in an effort to spotlight the legislation’s clean energy provisions.

The company, owned by its staff, has grown quickly, expanding to 60 from three employees over the past three years. The White House says that without the stimulus bill, Namaste expected to lay off as many as half its workers in 2009. The bill will enable the company to hire 20 additional workers, the administration said.

August 20, 2010 8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The unemployment rate, currently at 9.5 percent, will not fall to around 5 percent until 2014, Elmendorf said. The last time the jobless rate was 5 percent was April 2008, late in the Bush presidency. The Obama administration has overseen a tremendous rise in unemployment. Economists generally view a 4 percent target jobless rate as a benchmark of full employment.

August 20, 2010 8:54 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

The biggest problem President Obama has politically is that the economic collapse began shortly before he became president. People want results, and it takes a certain wisdom and patience to understand just how bad things were and how much worse they would have become had Obama not taken the steps he took. Will enough people have that wisdom and patience? We will see.

FDR was fortunate politically. The economic collapse began and worsened three years before he became president. Because the Hoover Administration did essentially nothing to try to stop the descent, the economy got so bad that the electorate's short-term memory was not a problem for FDR. So he had the time he needed to set us in the right direction -- a direction that served us well until Reagan began dismantling it (Reagan could not complete the job, since the Democrats controlled the House throughout is terms of office) and Bush II and the six years of Republican control of the Senate and House rendered the regulations FDR had put in place to prevent Capitalism from self-destructing a virtual nullity.

While the media of the time was dead-set against FDR (I seem to recall that most newspapers in the country endorsed his opponent in 1936), the media did not have the all-pervasive impact that it has today. It certainly would have been more difficult for FDR if, for example, Father Coughlin was able to reach millions on television evergy night.

We need a redirection similar to that done by FDR and the New Deal. That is what Obama has tried to do, but the decision by Senate Republicans (and, at times, a couple of Democrats) to use the filibuster to stop ANY legislation has seriously interfered with that effort -- to the country's disavantage.

Their strategy of obstructionism and then using their media allies (who are also their funders, it seems) to magnify discontent and create a sense in the country that government cannot work, may succeed politically. They are banking on an energized Republican base and Democrats and Independents who simply give up and don't vote. That is what happened in 1994, when 20% of the electorate created the Gingrich Revolution (there was only about 38% turnout that year, and a little more than half voted Republican). Might be effective partisan strategy -- but, if successful, it will be very bad for the country.

August 20, 2010 10:34 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

The biggest problem President Obama has politically is that the economic collapse began shortly before he became president. People want results, and it takes a certain wisdom and patience to understand just how bad things were and how much worse they would have become had Obama not taken the steps he took. Will enough people have that wisdom and patience? We will see.

FDR was fortunate politically. The economic collapse began and worsened three years before he became president. Because the Hoover Administration did essentially nothing to try to stop the descent, the economy got so bad that the electorate's short-term memory was not a problem for FDR. So he had the time he needed to set us in the right direction -- a direction that served us well until Reagan began dismantling it (Reagan could not complete the job, since the Democrats controlled the House throughout is terms of office) and Bush II and the six years of Republican control of the Senate and House rendered the regulations FDR had put in place to prevent Capitalism from self-destructing a virtual nullity.

While the media of the time was dead-set against FDR (I seem to recall that most newspapers in the country endorsed his opponent in 1936), the media did not have the all-pervasive impact that it has today. It certainly would have been more difficult for FDR if, for example, Father Coughlin was able to reach millions on television evergy night.

We need a redirection similar to that done by FDR and the New Deal. That is what Obama has tried to do, but the decision by Senate Republicans (and, at times, a couple of Democrats) to use the filibuster to stop ANY legislation has seriously interfered with that effort -- to the country's disavantage.

Their strategy of obstructionism and then using their media allies (who are also their funders, it seems) to magnify discontent and create a sense in the country that government cannot work, may succeed politically. They are banking on an energized Republican base and Democrats and Independents who simply give up and don't vote. That is what happened in 1994, when 20% of the electorate created the Gingrich Revolution (there was only about 38% turnout that year, and a little more than half voted Republican). Might be effective partisan strategy -- but, if successful, it will be very bad for the country.

August 20, 2010 10:35 AM  
Anonymous David S. Fishback said...

The biggest problem President Obama has politically is that the economic collapse began shortly before he became president. People want results, and it takes a certain wisdom and patience to understand just how bad things were and how much worse they would have become had Obama not taken the steps he took. Will enough people have that wisdom and patience? We will see.

FDR was fortunate politically. The economic collapse began and worsened three years before he became president. Because the Hoover Administration did essentially nothing to try to stop the descent, the economy got so bad that the electorate's short-term memory was not a problem for FDR. So he had the time he needed to set us in the right direction -- a direction that served us well until Reagan began dismantling it (Reagan could not complete the job, since the Democrats controlled the House throughout is terms of office) and Bush II and the six years of Republican control of the Senate and House rendered the regulations FDR had put in place to prevent Capitalism from self-destructing a virtual nullity.

While the media of the time was dead-set against FDR (most newspapers in the country endorsed his opponent in 1936), the media did not have the all-pervasive impact that it has today. It certainly would have been more difficult for FDR if, for example, Father Coughlin was able to reach millions on television evergy night.

We need a redirection similar to that done by FDR and the New Deal. That is what Obama has tried to do, but the decision by Senate Republicans (and, at times, a couple of Democrats) to use the filibuster to stop ANY legislation has seriously interfered with that effort -- to the country's disavantage.

Their strategy of obstructionism and then using their media allies (who are also their funders, it seems) to magnify discontent and create a sense in the country that government cannot work, may succeed politically. They are banking on an energized Republican base and Democrats and Independents who simply give up and don't vote. That is what happened in 1994, when 20% of the electorate created the Gingrich Revolution (there was only about 38% turnout that year, and a little more than half voted Republican). Might be effective partisan strategy -- but, if successful, it will be very bad for the country.

August 20, 2010 10:36 AM  
Anonymous that hopey-changey thing said...

"The biggest problem President Obama has politically is that the economic collapse began shortly before he became president."

David, that timing was the only thing that allowed Obama to be elected.

Otherwise, Americans would have sobered up and not elected an inexperienced individual with a ineffective record in his extremely short time in the Senate.

Democrats exaggerated the recession for political purposes, making Americans think a new Depression had begun and then engaged in self-fulfilling prophesy by employing long-discredited Keynesian tactics that exacerbated our economic distress.

Meanwhile, places like China use harness market forces to propel their economic surge- and laugh at us.

"People want results, and it takes a certain wisdom and patience to understand just how bad things were and how much worse they would have become had Obama not taken the steps he took."

What we really don't know is how much better off we'd be now if McCain had been elected. Judging from the last 28 years, they'd probably have us back on our feet by now.

"the decision by Senate Republicans (and, at times, a couple of Democrats) to use the filibuster to stop ANY legislation has seriously interfered with that effort"

The Democrats have passed so much legislation that it will take months to undo the mess in 2011. The filibuster wasn't really a problem until Scott Brown was elected. Since, he and the Maine duo have often helped out the Dems.

Cut the whining.

If Obama had fulfilled his promise to governed in a non-partisan way, there would have been no problems.

One of the many revelations about him is that he is one of the most divisive individuals to ever sit in the Oval Office.

August 20, 2010 11:07 AM  
Anonymous woody said...

Woody Allen got it wrong. Ninety percent of success in life isn't just showing up; it's showing up at the right time and knowing what to do once you get there.

Barack Obama has gotten it half right then. Like most of our consequential presidents, he arrived at the right time; unlike them, he may have badly misread his moment, and America's.

This intuitive capacity (or lack of it) to read the nation's mood and circumstances accurately is a crucial component of effective leadership. In Obama's case, it may well be that who he is and what he has wanted have prevented him from seeing clearly what most Americans want and need.

Because we focus on the content of character and personal qualities of our presidents, we often ignore the importance of circumstances and just plain dumb luck in elevating or constraining presidential performance.

Like other consequential presidents, Obama was a man on a mission in 2008. But he has allowed his agenda to obscure his capacity to see where most Americans were and what they wanted.

First, he was convinced that the country was so badly served by his Republican predecessor that most Americans understood the need for sweeping change and were prepared to support it. Second, he misread his crisis: the recession. That crisis, though severe to be sure, was not so nation-encumbering that it forced the political system out of fear or desperation to become more pliable. When combined with a Republican Party unity, transformative change has proved difficult indeed.

Besides, Obama isn't FDR. He wasn't as skilled, as grounded in the American experience or, frankly, as likable as Roosevelt, and so he hasn't come to serve as a repository of the nation's trust and confidence. FDR, like Obama, was hated by many, but he was also beloved by millions.

Finally, unlike some of his predecessors who grounded change in values that many Americans found familiar and functional, Obama hasn't found a unifying message situated in an American experience that is universally shared. Part of Obama's problem is his uniqueness: His professorial, detached and cool-to-cold nature and his outlier background make him a different kind of president than most Americans have known.

Obama may have had no choice but to introduce a large stimulus bill to stop the economic bleeding, but healthcare reform (and the way it was done) represented an overreach and stressed a political system that was already dysfunctional. It also convinced many, however unfairly, that he was a man of the left and a big-spending liberal to boot. It isn't for nothing that Gallup ranked him as the most polarizing first-year president since its polling began. Liberals are unhappy, independents are running away, Republicans are rejoicing in his travail, and movements like the "tea party" are gaining ground — all of which makes the case for Obama as polarizer in chief. Only 13% of Americans believe they have benefited from his economic policies, the most depressing statistic of all.

If Obama is reelected in 2012, for only the second time in our history we will have had three different two-term presidents in a row. The last time this happened was in the early 19th century (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe). And what does this tell you? Americans aren't so much looking for great presidents, big ideas or historic transformations. They want satisfaction on mundane matters such as prosperity, keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks and an end to the roller-coaster ride of partisanship, name-calling and celebrity politics that is Washington today.

Maybe Obama is below average

August 20, 2010 12:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, look what Sheik Barack Obama is using stimulus funds for now:

"(Aug. 20) -- The Muslim cleric behind the planned "ground zero" Islamic center is in the Middle East, sent by the State Department on a trip intended to smooth relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

Rauf plans stops in Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Details about the imam's plans in each country have not been released by the State Department, although spokesman P.J. Crowley said Rauf would be giving a series of lectures on religious co-existence and life as a Muslim in America. He added that the imam might also discuss the Islamic cultural center that the cleric's organization, the Cordoba Initiative, plans to build in lower Manhattan, two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center.

"I wouldn't be surprised if he talks about the ongoing debate within the United States come up," Crowley said.

Rauf's government-funded trip has come in for intense criticism from opponents of the so-called ground zero mosque. Earlier this week, Republican Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Peter King of New York expressed outrage that the State Department was funding a figure they consider to be a radical. (Rauf has been criticized for refusing to openly condemn the Palestinian extremist movement Hamas).

"It is unacceptable that U.S. taxpayers are being forced to fund Feisal Abdul Rauf's trip to the Middle East," their statement read. "The U.S. should be using public diplomacy programs to combat extremism, not endorse it."

The trip is expected to cost the State Department about $16,000."

August 20, 2010 4:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sir B.O.

is he crazy?

August 20, 2010 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In recent days, right-wing media have attacked Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's upcoming State Department trip to the Middle East to "discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance." However, Rauf began participating in the outreach program during the Bush administration, which considered this kind of outreach as useful "[i]n the struggle against violent extremists."

How soon right wing media outlets forget the words of George W. Bush.

George W. Bush addresses the Islamic Center of Washington on September 8, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nan2PC_-rxk

"According to Muslim teachings, God first revealed His word in the Holy Qur'an to the prophet, Muhammad, during the month of Ramadan. That word has guided billions of believers across the centuries, and those believers built a culture of learning and literature and science. All the world continues to benefit from this faith and its achievements."
Remarks by the President George W. Bush At Iftaar Dinner
The State Dining Room, Washington, D.C.
November 19, 2001

"The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur'an. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace."
President George W. Bush's Message for Ramadan
November 15, 2001

"This new enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and impose its views. We value life; the terrorists ruthlessly destroy it. We value education; the terrorists do not believe women should be educated or should have health care, or should leave their homes. We value the right to speak our minds; for the terrorists, free expression can be grounds for execution. We respect people of all faiths and welcome the free practice of religion; our enemy wants to dictate how to think and how to worship even to their fellow Muslims."
President George W. Bush Addresses the Nation
World Congress Center, Atlanta, Georgia
November 8, 2001

"All of us here today understand this: We do not fight Islam, we fight against evil."
Remarks by President George W. Bush to the Warsaw Conference on Combating Terrorism
November 6, 2001

"I have assured His Majesty that our war is against evil, not against Islam. There are thousands of Muslims who proudly call themselves Americans, and they know what I know -- that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion. The exact opposite of the teachings of the al Qaeda organization, which is based upon evil and hate and destruction."
Remarks by President George W. Bush and His Majesty King Abdullah of Jordan
The Oval Office, Washington, D.C.
September 28, 2001

"Americans understand we fight not a religion; ours is not a campaign against the Muslim faith. Ours is a campaign against evil."
President George W. Bush Remarks by the President to Airline Employees
O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois
September 27, 2001

"The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them."

President George W. Bush's Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People
United States Capitol, Washington, D.C.
September 20, 2001

"I've made it clear, Madam President, that the war against terrorism is not a war against Muslims, nor is it a war against Arabs. It's a war against evil people who conduct crimes against innocent people."
Remarks by President George W. Bush and President Megawati of Indonesia
The Oval Office, Washington, D.C.
September 19, 2001

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war."
Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
September 17, 2001

August 20, 2010 6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that was all fine before this latest controversy and the related revelations

Sir B.O. is nuts

August 20, 2010 9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following commentary came **after** the latest controversy that is being promoted by the right wing propaganda machine.

"How precisely is our cause served by treating the construction of a non-radical mosque in Lower Manhattan as the functional equivalent of defiling a grave? It assumes a civilizational conflict instead of defusing it. Symbolism is indeed important in the war against terrorism. But a mosque that rejects radicalism is not a symbol of the enemy's victory; it is a prerequisite for our own.

The federal government has a response to American mosques taken over by advocates of violence. It investigates them, freezes their assets and charges their leaders. It does not urge zoning decisions that express a general discomfort with Islam itself."
--Michael Gerson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081502151.html
Gerson is senior research fellow at the Institute for Global Engagement's Center on Faith & International Affairs. He served as a policy adviser and chief speechwriter to President George W. Bush from 2000 to 2006. Before that, he was a senior editor covering politics at U.S. News & World Report. His book "Heroic Conservatism" was published by HarperOne in 2007.

Here's a local NY news story about the mosque.:

http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/lost-1277413-tatum-met.html

Every local NY family that lost a loved one on 9/11 that was contacted by this CBS affiliate in Albany agreed the mosque should be built as planned and as unanimously approved by the local community board.

August 21, 2010 10:58 AM  
Anonymous little pink houses with little green trees said...

glad you guys have recognized Gerson

you usually act like he's a venal propagandist

interesting that everyone keeps referring to a "mosque"

there's already a mosque in that neighborhood to meet the needs of Muslims there

what being built is a cultural center for promoting Islam which will have a mosque within it

so Islamic radicals destroy buildings in effort to promote Islam and, in the ashes, a center to do that is being planned

anyone see the problematic symbolism?

from every perspective, another location would be more appropriate

the neighborhood near the U.N. would be ideal:

"NEW YORK (Aug. 20) -- The proposed Islamic center near ground zero is facing stiff opposition from a group that will be vital if the plan is to be realized: the New York City building industry.

Construction worker Andy Sullivan has set up a "Hard Hat Pledge" on his website, calling on construction workers to vow not to do work on the Park51 community center and mosque.

Sullivan is not alone. Many New York construction workers have declared their opposition to the project.

"It doesn't make any sense to be there," said Eduard Nika, a marble worker. "The mentality these people have, it's not anything to do with religion."

The planned mosque and community center near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 people has spiraled from a local zoning issue into a national political debate.

Public figures such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have blasted the plan, saying it is an insult to the families of the victims. The Anti-Defamation League has said the center should be built at another location.

President Barack Obama has said any effort to oppose the Islamic center would infringe on American values of freedom.

Handyman Frank Rivera, who said three of his relatives were in the World Trade Center at the time of the attack but survived, believes the project would be bad for New York City and an insult to the families of victims.

"It shouldn't be there. It's a slap in the face," Rivera said.

Like Nika, he said he would sooner quit his job than work on the project.

Louis Coletti, president of the Building Trades Employers Association, said that labor unions had not taken a "formal position" on the plan. Still, he said it was " a very difficult dilemma for the contractors and organized labor force."

The New York City Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO, is not responding to calls."

August 21, 2010 12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All this talk about the mosque reminds me of two things I heard growing up in Nebraska.

I had a 6th grade teacher who referred to American Indians as “sneaky redskins” and our enemies in the Pacific as “dirty Japs.” This abated somewhat after I asked one day in class, “Mrs. G., do you think our parents would like to know that you teach race prejudice?” She faded three shades.

The rest of that year was difficult.

As a war kid, I also heard an uncle of mine endorse a sentiment attributed to our Admiral “Bull” Halsey: “If I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I’d kick her in the belly.”

These are not proud moments in my heritage. But now, I’m genuinely ashamed of us. How sad this whole mosque business is. It doesn’t take much, it seems, to lift the lid and let our home-grown racism and bigotry overflow. We have collectively taken a pratfall on a moral whoopee cushion.

Surely, few of the opponents of the Islamic cultural center would feel comfortable at the “International Burn a Koran Day” planned by a southern church-supported group (on a newscast, I think I might have even glimpsed a banner reading, “Bring the Whole Family,” but maybe I was hallucinating). This all must have gone over big on Al Jazeera news.

I like to think I’m not easily shocked, but here I am, seeing the emotions of the masses running like a freight train over the right to freedom of religion — never mind the right of eminent domain and private property.

A heyday is being had by a posse of the cheesiest Republican politicos (Lazio, Palin, quick-change artist John McCain and, of course, the self-anointed St. Joan of 9/11, R. Giuliani). Balanced, of course by plenty of cheesy Democrats. And of course Rush L. dependably pollutes the atmosphere with his particular brand of airborne sludge.

Sad to see Mr. Reid’s venerable knees buckle upon seeing the vilification heaped on Obama, and the resulting polls. (Not to suggest that this alone would cause the sudden 180-degree turn of a man of integrity facing re-election fears.)

I got invigorating jolts from the president’s splendid speech — almost as good as Mayor Bloomberg’s
— but I was dismayed, after the worst had poured out their passionate intensity, to see him shed a few vertebrae the next day and step back.

What other churches might be objectionable because of the horrific acts of some of its members? Maybe we shouldn’t have Christian churches in the South wherever the Ku Klux Klan operated because years ago proclaimed white Christians lynched blacks. How close to Hickam Field, at Pearl Harbor, should a Shinto shrine be allowed? I wonder how many of our young people — notorious, we are told, for their ignorance of American history — would be surprised that Japanese-Americans had lives and livelihoods destroyed when they were rounded up during World War II? Should all World War II service memorials, therefore, be moved away from the sites of these internment camps? Where does one draw the line?

August 21, 2010 2:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just can’t believe that so many are willing to ignore the simple fact that nearly all Muslims were adamantly opposed to the actions and events that took place on 9/11, and denounced them strongly, saying that the Islamic religion in no way condones it.

Our goal in at least one of our Middle East wars is to rebuild a government in our own image — with democracy for all. Instead, we are rebuilding ourselves in the image of those who detest us. I hate to see my country — and it’s a hell of a good one — endorse what we purport to hate, besmirching what distinguishes us from countries where persecution rules.

I’ve tried real hard to understand the objectors’ position. No one is untouched by what happened on 9/11. I don’t claim to be capable of imagining the anguish, grief and anger of the people who lost their friends and loved ones that day. It really does the heart good to see that so many of them have denounced the outcry against the project. A fact too little reported.

And it seems to have escaped wide notice that a goodly number of Muslims died at the towers that day. (I don’t mean the crazies in the planes.) What are their families to think of being told to beat it?

“Insulting to the dead” is a favorite phrase thrown about by opponents of the center. How about the insult to the dead American soldiers who fought at Iwo Jima and Normandy, defending American citizens abiding by the law on their own private property and exercising their freedom of religion?

Too bad that legions oppose this. A woman tells the news guy on the street, “I have absolutely no prejudice against the Muslim people. My cousin is married to one. I just don’t see why they have to be here.” A man complains that his opposition to the mosque is “painting me like I hate the whole Arab world.” (Perhaps he dislikes them all as individuals?)

I remain amazed and really, sincerely, want to understand this. What can it be that is faulty in so many people’s thought processes, their ethics, their education, their experience of life, their understanding of their country, their what-have-you that blinds them to the fact that you can’t simultaneously maintain that you have nothing against members of any religion but are willing to penalize members of this one? Can you help me with this?

Set aside for the moment that we are handing such a lethal propaganda grenade to our detractors around the world.

You can’t eat this particular cake and have it, too. The true calamity, of course, is that behavior of this kind allows the enemy to win.

August 21, 2010 2:21 PM  
Anonymous larry of arabia said...

this guy who's building this Islamic Center is being paid by the Federal U.S. government to promote American-Islamic relations so, since we are paying for the cake, we can have it and eat it too

he also says he personally wants to promote American-Islamic relations so he should recognize he made a bad decision here and move the center to another part of town

tolerance is a two-way street

he should recognize that many Americans are uneasy about this presence at Ground Zero

August 23, 2010 2:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"at Ground Zero"? Get real...you should consult a map of New York City before you embarrass yourself any further.

August 23, 2010 4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ground zero IQ = Obama's brain

August 23, 2010 4:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amid the howls of outrage over the proposed Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero, some political pundits on Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate News Corp. (NWS), have been particularly vocal in their opposition to the project.

Fox News host Sean Hannity said the proposed center's leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a U.S. citizen who has spent 25 years working to improve relations between the Muslim world and the U.S., wants to "shred our Constitution" and install "Sharia law as the law of the land in America." Sharia is a body of law derived from the Koran and Islamic teachings.

In fact, in his book What's Right With Islam, Rauf writes that "many Muslims regard the form of government that the American founders established a little over two centuries ago as the form of governance that best expresses Islam's original values and principles." (Page 81.) He has never publicly advocated "shredding" the U.S. Constitution or replacing it with Sharia law.

A Major Backer From the Muslim World

The stridency with which Fox News personalities attack the downtown Islamic center -- red meat for the millions who tune in each night -- is an example of the often uneasy relationship and occasionally diverging interests between many of News Corp.'s properties, in this case Fox News and its parent corporation.

For example, News Corp.'s second-largest shareholder, after the Murdoch family, is Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the nephew of Saudi Arabian King Abdullah, and one of the world's richest men.

Through his Kingdom Holding Co., Alwaleed owns about 7% of News Corp., or about $3 billion of the media giant. He also owns 6% of Citigroup-- to which he was introduced by the Carlyle Group -- or about $10 billion of the giant bank. He's a part-owner of the famed Plaza Hotel in New York and has invested in many other prominent companies.

Earlier this year, News Corp.invested $70 million for a 9% stake in Alwaleed's Middle Eastern media and entertainment company, Rotana, which "owns the Arab world's largest record label and about 40% of the region's movies -- most of which are Egyptian -- and operates 11 free-to-air television channels, two of which are through a partnership with News Corp.," according to Reuters. (Rotana broadcasts Fox movies and TV shows throughout the Middle East.) News Corp. has an option to double its stake in Rotana for another $70 million within 18 months.

"We Look Forward to Working Together"

Alwaleed has announced his intention totake Rotana public within the next two years, a move that could earn News Corp. a handsome return. In News Corp.'s2010 annual report recently filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Alwaleed is referred to only as, "A significant stockholder of the Company, who owns approximately 7% of the Company's Class B Common Stock." (Page 44.)

A News Corp. spokesman in New York declined to discuss the company's investment into Rotana and referred inquires to a colleague in London, who declined to comment. Attempts to reach Prince Alwaleed or a representative of his conglomerate, Riyadh-based Kingdom Holding Co., for comment, were not immediately returned.

August 23, 2010 6:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But presumed News Corp. heir James Murdoch has publicly touted the company's investment in Rotana. James Murdoch, who's the chairman and CEO of News Corp.'s European and Asian operation, has said: "A stake in Rotana expands our presence in a region with a young and growing population, where [economic] growth is set to outstrip that of more developed economies in the years ahead. Rotana is a leading player in the Middle East, and we look forward to working together."

As usual with Murdoch, money trumps ideology. "News Corp. is a big company, and Murdoch makes decisions based on money and business," says Robert Thompson, a professor of TV and popular culture at Syracuse University. "This isn't a conspiracy of the right or the left. It's a conspiracy of money."

The Warren Buffett of Saudi Arabia

Routinely listed as one of the top 10 or 20 richest men in the world, Alwaleed has long cultivated deep personal and financial ties with the U.S., especially among powerful business and government officials. Just consider that in 2002, he donated $500,000 to help fund the George Herbert Walker Bush Scholarship at Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass. Above all, Alwaleed is a businessman and a philanthropist, not an ideologue. He has been very generous to Islamic charities and other humanitarian efforts. Alwaleed is such an influential figure that he's been referred to as the Warren Buffett of Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia, which is ruled by Alwaleed's uncle King Abdullah, is, of course, an authoritarian petro-monarchy that actually is governed by Sharia law and is known as one of the top global sponsors of terrorism. A spokesperson for the Saudi embassy in Washington says that while Alwaleed is part of the royal family, he isn't a member of the government, but rather a private citizen.

Alwaleed, like Iman Rauf, professes a desire to build bridges of peace and understanding between the Islamic world and the West. One man is a multibillionaire, with far-flung investments around the world, and the other is a religious cleric, whose congregation happens to be in downtown Manhattan.

Many Fox News pundits seem to have a big problem with the idea that a foreign government or entity with ties to terrorism could help sponsor a mosque in lower Manhattan -- a legitimate concern. But as viewers listen to Fox News pundits rail against Rauf -- and question his center's funding -- they should keep in mind that Fox News is part of a company, News Corp., that has extensive business ties with the Muslim world.

It's just part of running a multinational media giant in today's global, interconnected economy, where alliances and business relationships are more nuanced than the black and white -- good and evil -- viewpoint that many Fox News pundits espouse.

August 23, 2010 6:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this guy who's building this Islamic Center is being paid by the Federal U.S. government to promote American-Islamic relations so we have a legitimate interest in his activities

he also says he personally wants to promote American-Islamic relations so he should recognize he made a bad decision to open an Islamic Center at Ground Zero and move the center to another part of town

tolerance is a two-way street

he should recognize that many Americans are uneasy about this presence at Ground Zero

August 23, 2010 8:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First the GOP jettisoned black voters, then Hispanics, and now Arab voters too. Good luck with that "we don't want you here" appeal.

"He is a staunch Republican, a conservative, a small-business owner. He was a Republican delegate to the state convention, is vice chair of a district, was appointed to a state board by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. He has participated in demonstrations against gay marriage and he's running for mayor of Apple Valley.

But he also thinks the debate over a mosque near the site of the former Twin Towers is dumb, and downright un-American.

Maybe that's because Ikram ul-Huq has a unique perspective. He is also an imam at a Bloomington mosque, reads the Qur'an every day and likes to say "I came to the United States because of the freedom."

Ul-Huq was born in India, lived in Pakistan and worked for United Nations Children's Fund in West Africa before coming to the United States in 1985. He has worked for Ceridian and Wells Fargo. Ul-Huq was a founding member of the Muslim Community Center in Bloomington. The center provides family and children's services and health care to Muslims and non-Muslims, and its members frequently reach out to teach others about Islam. The center is hosting a dinner this Thursday that will include people of every denomination. Every year, they host students from St. Thomas for a seminar on Islam.

Ul-Huq owns a meat market and will be opening a restaurant that soon will serve American and ethnic food -- "things we've never seen in Minnesota."

When the issue of the mosque first came up, "It put people like me in hot water," said ul-Huq. "I am a little concerned that by opposing the mosque we are talking against the Constitution. This is what America is all about. I'm not happy with some Republicans because it's not what our party is about, either, and I think in the long run we will ultimately fall on our face."

Ul-Huq has been active in Republican politics for years. In 2006, Pawlenty appointed ul-Huq to the state Board of Pharmacy. Yet he disagrees with the governor on the mosque issue and wishes it would not be politicized."

August 24, 2010 8:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"he should recognize that many Americans are uneasy about this presence at Ground Zero"

Many Americans like Rand Paul are still uneasy about the some of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act. That doesn't mean we should not have passed it.

August 24, 2010 2:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again, "Anonymous", the Islamic Center will NOT be built at Ground Zero. That space has already been claimed to construct a monument to American greed, corruption, and the oligarchy that perpetuate that. What a wonderful way to commemorate the lives of those who were lost. What better monument that a gigantic dollar sign to be placed on the spot of their deaths?

August 24, 2010 3:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prince Alwaleed heads a board of directors meeting attended by News Corporation executives.

August 24, 2010 3:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home