Reportar MensajeWhoa! New Ground Zero mosque challenge in works
‘We’re poised to file legal action … and put a stop to this project’
August 03, 2010
By Bob Unruh
Hold on with those demolition crews and construction cranes near Ground Zero.
A new challenge to the Ground Zero mosque in New York City could be filed in court as early as tomorrow, according to an organization representing a survivor of the 9/11 attacks by radical Muslims that killed nearly 3,000 Americans.
“We’re poised to file legal action on behalf of our client to challenge this flawed decision and put a stop to this project,” Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, confirmed today.
The organization said it will file an Article 78 petition in state court to challenge the plan to build a 13-story Islamic mosque at the site of a building that was struck by wreckage from the jets used as bombs by Islamic radicals in the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The claim will allege there’s been an abuse of discretion in the city procedures that approved the program.
“The actions taken by the city of New York represent a blatant disregard for the city’s own procedures, while ignoring the fact that this is a historic and hallowed site that should not be destroyed to build an Islamic mosque,” said Sekulow.
“It has been clear from the beginning that the city has engaged in a rush to push this project through – ignoring proper procedure and ignoring a growing number of New Yorkers and Americans who don’t believe this site is the place to build a mosque,” he said.
The ACLJ represents first responder Tim Brown, a decorated firefighter who survived the collapse of New York’s Twin towers in the 9/11 attacks. He lost nearly 100 friends that day.
The legal team also represents thousands of Americans who have signed on to the Committee to Stop the Ground Zero Mosque – which opposes building an Islamic mosque on a site it says should be used to honor and preserve the memory of 9/11 and its victims.
The announcement of the planned legal action followed today’s vote by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to allow the demolition of the152-year-old building on the site.
The ACLJ had given New York officials oral and written testimony urging city officials to designate the site as a landmark.
“The building links two distinct periods in American history,” the ACLJ argued. “It reflects the growth and rise of American free enterprise and stands as a symbol of America’s strength and survival in the face of brutal, sadistic terrorism.”
In its written testimony, the organization said there are thousands of buildings in New York already given landmark status, including 18 West 11th, where the “terrorist organization Weather Underground detonated a bomb.”
“The World Trade Center Site has been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Six (6) federal and state agencies have recognized the historic significance of the area,” the group’s testimony said.
“In this matter, the building links America’s rise as an economically and free country to the current fight to maintain freedom and liberty in the face of terrorism,” the ACLJ said. “The building stands as a testament to an uninterrupted linkage of the rise of American capitalism with our current quest to preserve our freedom and democracy. The building, therefore, should stand as part of the commemorative and educational experience of our shared political, cultural and historic heritage.”
The ACLJ pointed out that the federal government’s Heritage Emergency National Task Force, designated to help libraries, museums and others archive important historical artifacts, still is “engaging in a complete inventory of historic artifacts buried or lost in the buildings surrounding the World Trade Center.”
A spokesman for the ACLJ said the legal filing was being developed today, but one of the concerns is that city officials failed to follow their own procedures and time lines in approving the mosque project.
In an earlier interview with Associated Press, New York Rep. Peter King also suggested there might need to be a further investigation of the funding of the $100 million mosque.
“It’s a house of worship, but we are at war with al-Qaida,” King said at the time. “I think the 9/11 families have a right to know where the funding comes from; I think there are significant questions.”
A spokesman for a Muslim activist organization today told Fox News there was to be no mosque, contradicting weeks of affirmations about the plans.
The project is headed by the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Institute. But the institute’s chief, Imam Faisel Abdul Rauf, has refused to reveal where the money for the building is coming from. And he once suggested in a television interview that U.S. policies were a contributing factor in the 9/11 attacks.
King said in the earlier report, “Right at this moment in history, it’s bad form to put it there. There are things you are allowed to do, but that aren’t appropriate to do.”
Obama bows to Saudi king
Greeting called ‘most unbecoming for president of the United States’
By Bob Unruh
President Obama greeted the king of Saudi Arabia with a full bow from the waist yesterday, a move one commentator described as a violation of protocol and not worthy of the office he holds.
“I am quite certain that this is not the protocol, and is most unbecoming a president of the United States,” writes Clarice Feldman in an American Thinker commentary.
The situation developed as leaders of the world attending the G20 summit in London assembled for a photograph to mark the event.
In this first image, after the king extended his hand while Obama approached, Obama bends from the waist until his head is nearly at the monarch’s waist:
Obama speaks briefly with Saudi king after bowing
Video by a television crew was posted on YouTube. The bow comes at about 50 seconds into the video:
The action appeared especially awkward since among the dozens of world leaders and their spouses, handshakes abounded, but there appeared to be no other bowing in the room.
The U.S. State Department’s office of protocol, in a statement attributed to acting chief of protocol Gladys Blouda, confirmed the type of greeting between heads of state depends on the customs of the countries, but a handshake is the most common form of greeting.
The online Travel Etiquette website for Saudi Arabia said handshakes are common greetings between members of the same SX.
“You should expect to undertake a considerable amount of small talk, and learning a few Arabic greetings would be well received. Saudis will stand closer to each other than many westerners are used to, and members of the same pposion tiwill often touch arms when postulating or emphasizing a point. You should not draw away from this as it would be considered rude and rejecting. Be aware that due to the conservative nature of Saudi Arabian society, it is not considered proper etiquette for men and women to greet each other in public,” the site advises.
“It is proper etiquette to refer to a royal as Your Highness, and any members of the government ministries as Your Excellency,” it said.
Learn about the rest of Obama’s plans for the United States, in “The Audacity of Deceit”
Many of the proper procedures for meeting royalty are set by the British monarchy, since its members carry probably the highest royal profile around the world today.
The website for the British queen advises men who are from the United Kingdom to provide a neck bow (from the head only) “whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simply to shake hands in the usual way.”
“On presentation to The Queen, the correct formal address is ‘Your Majesty’ and subsequently ‘Ma’am’,” the site advises.
ABC reported Obama and his wife, Michelle, were less formal meeting Queen Elizabeth II earlier this week, when they exchanged handshakes. The queen briefly touched Michelle Obama on the back, and she returned the contact.
Pundits were surprised, since in 1992 Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating was criticized when he put his arm around the queen in violation of a general “no-touch” rule regarding royalty.
But the traditional Miss Manners book of etiquette advises: “One does not bow or curtsy to a foreign monarch because the gesture symbolizes recognition of her power over her subjects.”
Jamie Glazov, the author of “United in Hate,” said Obama’s act actually was to be expected.
“And people don’t know what’s going on here? Are we kidding?” he said. “This is simply the continuation of fellow traveling. It’s to be totally expected. Leftists have prostrated themselves before despots throughout history – during the whole Cold War and now vis-à-vis jihadists in the terror war. ‘United in Hate’ crystallizes with precision how and why this dark process occurs.”
He cited the Obamas’ less formal interaction with the queen earlier.
“Obviously, the queen does not wield totalitarian power and does not mete out sadistic punishment – with which a believer yearns to identify. The Saudi king, meanwhile, is a tyrannical entity to which Obama can subjugate his individuality – and through which he can vicariously experience a feeling of power and purpose. This is the process of negative identification that every leftist must practice and that ‘United in Hate’ documents is at the heart of every leftist’s main driving force,” he said.
MICHELLE OBAMA IS A MODERN-DAY MARIE ANTOINETTE ON A GLITZI SPANISH VACATION
Andrea Tantaros
August 5th 2010,
Torres/APFirst Lady Michelle Obama smiles while she
visits Marbella, southern Spain.
Sacrifice is something that many Americans are becoming all too familiar with during this economic downturn. It was a key theme in President Obama’s inaugural address to the nation, and he’s referenced it
numerous times when lecturing the country on how to get back on its feet.
But while most of the country is pinching pennies and downsizing summer sojourns - or forgoing them altogether - the Obamas don’t seem to be heeding their own advice. While many of us are struggling, the First Lady is spending the next few days in a five-star hotel on the chic Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her “closest friends.” According to CNN, the group is expected to occupy 60 to 70 rooms, more than a third of the lodgings at
the 160-room resort. Not exactly what one would call cutting back in troubled times.
Reports are calling the lodgings of Obama’s Spanish fiesta, the Hotel Villa Padierna in Marbella, “luxurious,” “posh” and “a millionaires’ playground.” Estimated room rate per night? Up to a staggering $6,000 to $3,000 a night. Method of transportation? Air Force Two.
To be clear, what the Obamas do with their money is one thing; what they do with ours is another. Transporting and housing the estimated 70 Secret Service agents who will flank the material girl will cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.
OBAMA ESTA DE FIESTA EN FIESTA, DE VACACION EN VACACION, Y DE JUEGO DE GOLF EN JUEGO DE GOLF MIENTRAS MUEREN NUESTROS SOLDADOS Y PIDE SACRIFICIOS AL PUEBLO. BUSH, TAN PRONTO EMPEZO LA GUERRA DE IRAK Y AFGANISTAN SUSPENDIO SUS JUEGOS DE GOLF POR RESPETO AL SACRIFICIO DE NUESTROS SOLDADOS, GRAN CONTRASTE CUANDO HAY CLASE, MORAL Y PATRIOTISMO.
LOS VIAJES, LA ARROGANCIA Y LOS GASTOS EXTRAVAGANTES DE LA REINA DE SHEBA QUE OCUPA LA CASA BLANCA SUPERAN A TODAS LAS PRIMERA DAMAS AMERICANAS JUNTAS, MIENTRAS TANTO, AUMENTA LA DEPRESION CREADA POR SU CONSORTE, EL REY BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
It’s Time For Obama To Switch To Big-Boy Pants
Posted By DrJohn On August 5, 2010 In Barack Obama, Economy, Liberal IdiHots, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, POWER GRAB!, Politics
[1]
For the last several years now, Barack Obama has been wearing the “Blame Bush” diaper and he shows no sign that he is willing to get weaned into the Big Boy pants of the Presidency. But Obama’s diaper is full and it needs changing.
Obama has repeatedly told America that looking ahead [2] and not back is his perspective:
I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.
Yet his current campaign strategy [3] is anything but that:
The White House’s mid-term election strategy is becoming clear – pit the Democrats of 2010 against the Republicans circa 2006, 2008 and 2009, including Bush.
The whining continues [4]:
“For the better part of 10 years, folks faced stagnant incomes, skyrocketing health care costs and tuition bills, and declining economic security,” Mr. Obama said in a speech at a Kansas City, Mo., electric vehicle plant. “It was in the middle of this crisis that my administration walked through the door.”
And now he has really personalized [5] it:
At an Atlanta fundraiser last night, President Obama said that the Republicans who want to take back Congress “don’t have a single idea that’s different from George W. Bush’s ideas. Not one. Instead, they’re betting on amnesia.”
I have repeatedly said here that Obama is full of crap, and he is full of crap. It is worth noticing that the “last eight years” has now become the “last ten years.” Obama has been President for the last 1 1/2 years, so Obama is unwittingly blaming his own term for the problems he has allegedly inherited.
Barack Obama would have you believe that he fell from outer space directly into the Presidency. You’d never know from the lies that spew from his mouth that he was ever in the US Senate. You’d never know that he did NOTHING to try to reign in costs of government. You’d never know he voted to make every Bush budget larger and never voted to cut spending ever. And this is where Republicans shoot themselves in the collective foot. They need to remind America that Obama was part of the “last eight years” or “last ten years.” They need to remind America that Obama and his Democrat moron colleagues controlled ALL of Congress for the last three of those eight or ten years. Republicans need to remind America that the problems we suffer now are in no small part a consequence of Democrat control of Congress for the last three years.
What specifically did Obama do to improve “stagnant incomes, skyrocketing health care costs and tuition bills, and declining economic security” while he was a US Senator? What did Democrats do when they got control?
Nothing.
Republicans may be betting on amnesia, but so are Democrats.
Being the “Party of No” may not be the greatest platform (I actually think it’s a good one) but blaming Bush is a lousy one. Obama’s been in office for 18 months. Democrats have controlled Congress for three years.
Obama needs to change his diaper. It’s as full of sh*t as he is.
ALL IN THE OBAMA'S CHICAGO FAMILY
Posted By Rich Trzupek On August 9, 2010 In FrontPage
Among the more appealing messages that Barack Obama campaigned on in 2008 was his promise to change the culture in Washington and usher in a new era of openness and honesty in government. It was the sort of message that still resonates with an increasingly cynical electorate that is, as Obama’s handlers recognized, fed up with the corruption, hidden agendas and back-room deals that characterize life within the beltway.
Voters hoped that this fresh face, so full of earnest enthusiasm and idealistic vision, could be the one to usher in a new era.
Almost two years after that historic election, more and more voters are realizing that not only didn’t get the change they had hoped for, they’re actually getting much more of business as usual than they could have ever imagined. As ethical questions continue to swirl around the people that the president has embraced one cannot help but wonder if the vaunted political acumen of the Obama administration has been vastly overrated, or if the president and his advisors simply feel that they can and should be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people at will.
The list of Obama associates and appointees who have serious ethical problems is long indeed, from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his unpaid taxes [1] through ex “Green Czar” Van Jones’ communist ties [2]. Now there is a new name on that dishonor roll: the Democratic candidate for the United States Senate seat that was once held by Barack Obama: Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias.
Giannoulias’ sordid history and that of his shady associates should be enough to concern any canny politician this side of Boss Tweed, but the president has embraced Giannoulias as if he were the second coming of Obama himself. Giannoulias’s political baggage has not stopped the president from endorsing a candidate who helped run a bank into the ground, who made millions while that bank bled red ink, and who has ties to the mob and disgraced political figures.
Giannoulias was the senior lender at Broadway Bank from 2002 through 2006. Among the people that he approved for loans were one Michael “Jaws” Giorango, a fellow Giannoulias would describe as a “colorful character.” Giorango is colorful indeed, with a long police blotter that includes multiple convictions for bookmaking and for running a prostitution ring. While he was at the bank, Giannoulias approved an $11.8 million loan that Jaws applied for, although he would later claim that he wasn’t aware of Giorango’s background at the time. Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass set the record straight earlier this year:
“With the Tribune’s editorial board, Giannoulias was asked how his relationship with Giorango developed, and at what point did he learn that Giorango, whom he described as a “colorful character,” had a criminal background. “I learned of it primarily when I was running for the office of state treasurer (in 2006),” Giannoulias said. “I mean, I don’t remember the exact date, whether it was during the primary or during the general. I think it was during the primary.”
He was promptly reminded that on April 27, 2006, during his campaign for treasurer, he told Tribune reporters that he had discussed Giorango’s criminal past with him. The discussion took place as Giannoulias worked on millions of dollars’ worth of bank loans for Giorango. It was years before Giannoulias’ entry into politics.”
No matter, the president has stuck with the man that he described in 2006 in these glowing terms: “He’s one of the most outstanding young men that I could ever hope to meet. He’s somebody who cares deeply about people.” Rather than retreating from that faulty assessment, in the light of all of the damning revelations that has surfaced over the last four years, Obama doubled down during a recent Giannoulias fundraiser [3], declaring: “Alexi is my friend. I know his character. I know how much he loves this country. I know how committed he is to public service for all the right reasons. You can trust him. You can count on him.”
Giannoulias’ record suggests that Illinois voters can indeed “count on him,” but not in the sense that the president intended. Certainly, one can count on Giannoulias to take care of himself: he personally reaped about $10 million in “profits” from Broadway Bank, while his family as a whole extracted $70 million in dividends [4]. Yet, the bank made so many questionable loans that the FDIC had to step in [5] with public funds to save depositors. Isn’t that the kind of behavior that the president has repeatedly denounced with regard to Wall Street, with much less justification?
The questionable behavior of the Democrats’ nominee for the U.S. Senate in Illinois doesn’t stop there. Giannoulias’ bank also approved a loan of $22.75 million [6] to Riverside District Development LLC, a company whose owners included Tony Rezko, a key advisor to and fund raiser for disgraced Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and a fellow who also has close ties to the president himself. Rezko has been convicted of six counts of wire fraud, six counts of mail fraud, two counts of corrupt solicitation, and two counts of money laundering. Giannoulias’ brother Demetris was twice appointed [7] to a pposition with the Illinois Finance Authority and their father donated $10,000 to the Blagojevich campaign.
Since the 2008 election, every endorsement issued by the president has turned into the political kiss of death. The fact that Obama would stick with as troubled a candidate as Alexi Giannoulias isn’t all that troubling when we consider the now-limited effect of the president’s support, but it is disturbing when we evaluate what such blind loyalty says about this administration. If they aren’t able to comprehend that a slimy candidate like Alexi Giannoulias is political poison, are they capable of understanding that corruption matters at all?
Obama’s Happy Depression
Posted By Benjamin Shapiro On August 9, 2010 @ 12:06 am In FrontPage |
Last Tuesday morning, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner “welcomed” us to the recovery. Seriously. “[A] review of recent data on the American economy shows that we are on a path back to growth,” he assured us. “The recession that began in late 2007 was extraordinarily severe, but the action we took at its height to stimulate the economy helped arrest the freefall, preventing an even deeper collapse and putting the economy on the road to recovery.”
This is what we call whistling through the graveyard. It’s Geithner channeling Groucho Marx circa “Duck Soup”: “Who’re you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?”
The Obama administration wants us to believe them. What evidence do they provide to the effect that they “saved” the economy? Vagaries heaped upon vagaries; meaningless phrases piled atop meaningless phrases. No hard numbers of any value.
In fact, the Second Great Depression is just beginning. And just as during the First Great Depression, economic liberals are declaring that it doesn’t exist. “The depression is over,” President Herbert Hoover told a group of clergymen in 1930. “I am convinced,” he said in 1931, “we have passed the worst and with continued effort we shall rapidly recover.” In 1930, the national unemployment rate — which was a true unemployment rate, not today’s watered down version, which doesn’t count people who have totally dropped out of the job market — was 8.7 percent. In 1931, it was 15.8 percent. Today, our real unemployment rate is somewhere near 20 percent.
Hoover was wrong and so are Obama and his lackeys. And just like Hoover, Obama will take measures that are economically feasible in a strong economy but absolutely disastrous in a weak one.
After declaring the economy on the rebound, Hoover pursued three economic measures: raising tariffs, raising spending and raising taxes. Despite his personal opposition to the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, Hoover signed it into law, stating, “With returning normal conditions, our foreign trade will continue to expand.”
He raised government spending as well; between 1929 and 1933, Hoover raised real per capita federal spending by 88 percent. He forced through the construction of the Reconstruction Finance Corp., an agency designed to lend money to banks and building and loan associations, among other businesses.
“I have been called a socialist, a Bolshevik, a communist and a lot of other terms of similar nature,” fumed Rep. Fiorello La Guardia (R-N.Y.), “but in the wildest flights of my imagination, I never thought of such a thing as putting the government into business as far as this bill would put it in.”
Even as he raised spending, Hoover hypocritically called for tamping down the deficit. His solution: raising taxes. “Nothing will contribute more to the return of prosperity than to maintain the sound fiscal pposition of the federal government,” he declared in 1931.
Sound familiar?
President Obama’s supposedly rosy view of the economy is designed to justify further intrusion into the economy. And the measures he seeks are eerily reminiscent of Hoover’s favored policies. Cap and trade, Obama’s environmentalist plan, nearly started a trade war when it was merely introduced in Congress. Like Hoover, Obama opposes a carbon tariff that would level the playing field for American businesses disadvantaged by cap and trade — and like Hoover, he has made no suggestion that he would veto cap and trade were it to include such a provision.
Obama clearly favors more spending — in all of his talk about bringing down the deficit, he has never embraced wide-ranging cuts in federal expenditures. Rather, he attempts to blame President Bush for spending that created deficits, despite the fact that in Obama’s first two years, he will have raised the national debt more than President Bush did in all eight years of his presidency.
Obama has focused, as Hoover did, on raising taxes. This week, Obama warned Republicans that he would “call them on their bluff” with regard to deficits. By that, he meant that he would push Republicans to raise taxes in order to prove their dedication to a balanced budget.
Obama justifies all of this, as Hoover did, with empty bravado about the strength of the U.S. economy. The difference between Obama and Hoover is that Obama knows that the economy remains weak. Hoover wasn’t an ideologue; he was ignorant. Obama has Hoover’s example to examine — and he’s willfully imitating it for redistributionist ideological reasons.
We’re entering the Second Great Depression. Unlike the first one, our current administration is pushing America knowingly into the pit, all the while singing, “Happy Days Are Here Again.”
