Mosque in New York , This is all I will Say about This Period.

[JimL]

"Continuing with the old schoolyard adage of “My God will beat up your God” by spouting on about how some building was used for a different purpose is nonsense."

Not exactly the thoughtful, indepth, intelligent research with supporting arguments I was hoping for, however I confess I'm not completely surprised.   This is a common pattern I see in some of the "debate" (a generous use of the word) I've read lately.

The fundamental piece of the article which I was looking  for some help researching was the historical significance of the "Cordoba House" which the article mentioned.  If Cordoba, Spain is in fact the site of a significant Muslim jihadist victory over Christian Spaniards; then this is very significant.

Once again no one questions the right to build the mosque as a place of worship (this point has been beat to death on this forum).  However, as we have seen in several Supreme Court decisions, freedom of speech and expression do have limitations...and the court will intervene when there is a threat of public safety or public order.  One example of this is the burning of a cross, display of hanging noose and various other displays which have historically shown to be violent or offensive to a group of people.  The cases are easy to find by Googling for them.

It is clear that the original intent was to name the mosque the "Cordoba House", this much I am fairly certain.  If in fact Gingrich is correct and Cordoba Spain was the site of a Muslin victory over the Christians, then I feel that there is legitimate debate as to whether this looks very much like a burning cross, or a hanging noose placed near the home of an African American.  

Ignoring the fact that this would simply be antagonistic and very insensitive, it very well may hold up in a court of law that the surviving family members of the 9-11 victims should be afforded the same protections as those in R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL and other cases.

I've been in meetings all morning and haven't had time to research the Cordoba, Spain claim...so if someone "capable" of adding something intelligent to this research, it would be greatly appreciated.  

Possibly Oss could weigh in on this from a legal perspective.....

[Bobbo]

Not exactly the thoughtful, indepth, intelligent research with supporting arguments I was hoping for, however I confess I'm not completely surprised.   This is a common pattern I see in some of the "debate" (a generous use of the word) I've read lately.

The fundamental piece of the article which I was looking  for some help researching was the historical significance of the "Cordoba House" which the article mentioned.  If Cordoba, Spain is in fact the site of a significant Muslim jihadist victory over Christian Spaniards; then this is very significant.

Once again no one questions the right to build the mosque as a place of worship (this point has been beat to death on this forum).  However, as we have seen in several Supreme Court decisions, freedom of speech and expression do have limitations...and the court will intervene when there is a threat of public safety or public order.  One example of this is the burning of a cross, display of hanging noose and various other displays which have historically shown to be violent or offensive to a group of people.  The cases are easy to find by Googling for them.

It is clear that the original intent was to name the mosque the "Cordoba House", this much I am fairly certain.  If in fact Gingrich is correct and Cordoba Spain was the site of a Muslin victory over the Christians, then I feel that there is legitimate debate as to whether this looks very much like a burning cross, or a hanging noose placed near the home of an African American.  

Ignoring the fact that this would simply be antagonistic and very insensitive, it very well may hold up in a court of law that the surviving family members of the 9-11 victims should be afforded the same protections as those in R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL and other cases.

I've been in meetings all morning and haven't had time to research the Cordoba, Spain claim...so if someone "capable" of adding something intelligent to this research, it would be greatly appreciated.  

Possibly Oss could weigh in on this from a legal perspective.....

Your attempted insults aside, my point was in line with what you asked…  Significance.  Let’s say that this “Cordoba House” was some sort of victory in that area and the Christian Church is now used as a Mosque.  This type of conquest/takeover is common throughout history.  The Israelis did the same in the Six-Day War of 1967.  The land they conquered was used for new Israeli settlements.

If the Imam and others want to call this building “Cordoba House” or a “Victory Mosque”, who cares?  It’s similar to someone using a Voodoo Doll.  They might believe it has great significance and importance, but that exists only in their mind.  In reality, it’s only a building.  The attributes people attach to it is of very little significance.

As to comparing it to deliberate acts of terror, which include cross burning, spraying NAZI Swastikas, and a hanging noose, those fall under special laws intended to discourage terrorism based on religion and race.  Those laws would be difficult to apply to this building even if you labeled it an affront to the victims, since the people murdered were of many races and religions.

[fstsix]

If the Imam and others want to call this building “Cordoba House” or a “Victory Mosque”, who cares?  It’s similar to someone using a Voodoo Doll.  They might believe it has great significance and importance, but that exists only in their mind.  In reality, it’s only a building.  The attributes people attach to it is of very little significance.
911-01 I was at the Local Honda shop that morning, 5 miles from my house, i went home and was on my back deck in Narragansett RI the end of the NY sound, on the ocean, My wife was out on the deck and the TV was on in the kitchen we were just watching a Commercial Jet  flyover my house, after living in this property for over 10 years this was not a Flight path, as i went back in the kitchen off the deck breaking News was on the TV and a Jet had just crashed into the Trade center,,,,and then a second plane,,,That vision of that Jet over my house still haunts my wife and I, my neighbor 2 doors down lost here husband that morning, Maybe the next terror attack could be in your neck of the woods or your neighbor or family member, This Statement you made is OUTRAGES! Your dept in spiritual warfare is Typical for a NON Believer, it just shows your Ignorance of a Man's conviction to his Gods. But please keep talking and making more of a Fool out of yourself, it is entertaining at best to see how secular minds try to understand something they have never studied. Carry on.............................................

[JimL]

Your attempted insults aside, my point was in line with what you asked…  Significance.  Let’s say that this “Cordoba House” was some sort of victory in that area and the Christian Church is now used as a Mosque.  This type of conquest/takeover is common throughout history.  The Israelis did the same in the Six-Day War of 1967.  The land they conquered was used for new Israeli settlements.

If the Imam and others want to call this building “Cordoba House” or a “Victory Mosque”, who cares?  It’s similar to someone using a Voodoo Doll.  They might believe it has great significance and importance, but that exists only in their mind.  In reality, it’s only a building.  The attributes people attach to it is of very little significance.

As to comparing it to deliberate acts of terror, which include cross burning, spraying NAZI Swastikas, and a hanging noose, those fall under special laws intended to discourage terrorism based on religion and race.  Those laws would be difficult to apply to this building even if you labeled it an affront to the victims, since the people murdered were of many races and religions.

Bobbo as far as the attempted insult claim...I rarely fail to succeed in anything I set out to accomplish.  Had it been my intent to insult you, I assure it would have been well within my purview.  What I did attempt to do was politely (as it turns out maybe it wasn't as polite as it should have been) suggest that your brand of research/debate was not of any interest to me; and I really did not want to be writing yet another response which is a complete waste of mine and yours.  So if it helps you get through the day to feel that you have scored an ideological victory please...by all means be my guest.

For everyone else....back to the original topic regarding the significance of "Cordoba".  From the limited research I have manged to do, I am not completely convinced that Newt's claim is valid.  I have found a few articles (one from the BBC) which suggests that during this time Cordoba represented an era of tolerance and alliance between Christian and Islamic rulers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/spain_1.shtml#h4

Also a blog by Raymond Ibrahim (granted he a Muslim of Egyptian decent, but he seems to have good credentials, among other things he is a lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College).

http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7650/ground-zero-mosque

It appears that one can choose whichever perspective fits your argument, Islamic warriors did prevail over Christian warriors...however it appears that both religions were openly practiced in Cordoba and it was an unusually prosperous era in that region.

I would welcome any other historical information (from legitimate unbiased sources).

[3fan4life]

If the Imam and others want to call this building “Cordoba House” or a “Victory Mosque”, who cares?  

THE FAMILIES OF THE 9/11 VCTIMS and ANYONE WHO DOESN'T WISH TO SEE 9/11/2001 CELEBRATED AS A TERRORIST VICTORY IN NYC.

Think about your statement for a minute................

You have stated that you also don't approve of the idea of building the Mosque near Ground Zero.

Would the reason for that be that your GUT just tells you that it's wrong?

My GUT tells me that this is wrong on many levels and I do think that the real motivations and intent of the people who want to build the Mosque should come into play somewhere.

If their intent is to "CELEBRATE" the loss of AMERICAN lives on 9/11 then their Mosque is just as wrong as a mounument to the NAZI's beside a concentration camp.
 

[Bobbo]

Bobbo as far as the attempted insult claim...I rarely fail to succeed in anything I set out to accomplish.  Had it been my intent to insult you, I assure it would have been well within my purview.  What I did attempt to do was politely (as it turns out maybe it wasn't as polite as it should have been) suggest that your brand of research/debate was not of any interest to me; and I really did not want to be writing yet another response which is a complete waste of mine and yours.  So if it helps you get through the day to feel that you have scored an ideological victory please...by all means be my guest.

I guess I should bow to your omnipotent insulting abilities!    

If you wanted a serious discussion about the history of the “Cordoba House”, you should have used a more appropriate link.  You asked for discussion of the article you provided.  Since the article was mostly opinion, I replied with my opinion.

[JimL]

Bobbo as far as the attempted insult claim...I rarely fail to succeed in anything I set out to accomplish.  Had it been my intent to insult you, I assure it would have been well within my purview.  What I did attempt to do was politely (as it turns out maybe it wasn't as polite as it should have been) suggest that your brand of research/debate was not of any interest to me; and I really did not want to be writing yet another response which is a complete waste of mine and yours.  So if it helps you get through the day to feel that you have scored an ideological victory please...by all means be my guest.

I guess I should bow to your omnipotent insulting abilities!    

If you wanted a serious discussion about the history of the “Cordoba House”, you should have used a more appropriate link.  You asked for discussion of the article you provided.  Since the article was mostly opinion, I replied with my opinion.

LOL...if I'm omnipotent I guess I better start looking for some Viagra!

[Bobbo]

If the Imam and others want to call this building “Cordoba House” or a “Victory Mosque”, who cares?  

THE FAMILIES OF THE 9/11 VCTIMS and ANYONE WHO DOESN'T WISH TO SEE 9/11/2001 CELEBRATED AS A TERRORIST VICTORY IN NYC.

Think about your statement for a minute................

You have stated that you also don't approve of the idea of building the Mosque near Ground Zero.

Would the reason for that be that your GUT just tells you that it's wrong?

My GUT tells me that this is wrong on many levels and I do think that the real motivations and intent of the people who want to build the Mosque should come into play somewhere.

If their intent is to "CELEBRATE" the loss of AMERICAN lives on 9/11 then their Mosque is just as wrong as a mounument to the NAZI's beside a concentration camp.
 

Oh, I’m fully aware that this is an emotionally charged issue, but we should remain rational.

My point is that who cares what someone believes about an inanimate object?  If I believe my Valkyrie is possessed by the spirit of Thor himself, does that make it so?  Will people who don’t believe in Nordic gods tremble at my feet?  I doubt it.

We must keep in mind that we were attacked by Al Qaeda, not the Islamic religion.  Let’s view this in the proper perspective.

[fstsix]

Enjoy your nap Bo,

Islamic fundamentalists plan on putting together an Islamic empire composed of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Nigeria, the former Muslim Soviet states such as Uzbekistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and other Muslim nations in Asia.

Their plan is on schedule and they are taking over country after country while the West sleeps securely with its naive dreams of endless peace and prosperity of a new world order called the Pax Americana.

Listen to politicians and other leaders trying to wake up America.

    "The trial and subsequent conviction of the terrorists that bombed the World Trade Center and planned other terrorist acts should put to rest any doubt about the deadly threat to American citizens posed by radical extremists." - Henry Depippo, Federal Prosecutor of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman

    "Each day's headlines demonstrate the timeliness this important analysis of the emerging trans-national radical Islamic movement... and the growing danger that extremist Islamic elements may seek to exploit our present vulnerability to missile attack with devastating results." - Frank Gaffney, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security

    "The agenda of these people is to attack us for what we are... It's something very hard for Americans who live in a multi-cultured and secular society to understand." - L. Paul Bremer, former head of the counter terrorism office for the State Department

    "[Muslim fundamentalists] make no secret of their contempt for democratic political procedures." - Bernard Lewis, noted Middle East scholar

    "The public must always remain vigilant against acts of terrorism to ensure that terrorism does not become commonplace in this country as it has in many other countries."
    - William Sessions, former Director of the FBI

    "Today we have no protection from even a single ballistic missile." - Ambassador Henry F. Cooper

    "In short, the coming Islamic Empire will be a world power in every sense of the word, whose people will share a vibrant religion and a common Islamic culture. Like its Muslim predecessors, the Islamic Empire of the early 21st Century will also have an appetite for territorial expansion and military conquest. A modern, worldwide jihad against non-Muslim populations and societies complete with nuclear weapons promises to bring the highest casualty rates in the history of mankind. World War III, if it does come, will probably occur between the Islamic Bloc and the Western nations. It will be the deadliest war ever fought by humanity." - Anthony Dennis

    "Islamic fundamentalism, like communism... is bent on the expansion of its dominion to as many corners of the world as possible." Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel

    "It doesn't matter what they tell you - Islamic fundamentalism is a worldwide menace... Allah is rapidly equipping Khomeini's followers with a sword to carry out their master's wishes. He has offered Islam the fire in which the Koran says those who follow false faiths are destined to burn: nuclear weaponry. He has also provided the long-range missiles needed to use it. According to the late Imam's logic, there may be only one just and righteous thing to do: employ this technology to wipe out recalcitrant heathens like you and me." - Howard Bloom

With the break up of the Soviet military complex, the Muslims have been able to buy intercontinental ballistic missiles that are capable of striking anywhere on the planet. They have nuclear bombs that can fit into a steamer trunk and it is feared that such a device may already be in this country. There is a real danger that we will one day face nuclear blackmail just as we faced Arab oil blackmail in the 1970s. Well.....this is a waist of time on the wrong board, going to leave you and Jim L to talk to yourself....I mean to each other LOL!!

[1fastbob]

Not to change the subject.........but.......which "Big Al" is the Good Big AL and which one is the BAD Big Al??  I am confused! ??? ???

[Robert]

Across the sea video Thanks Look at England we are going down the same roads that are bad for the nation.

Pro 8:36  "But he who sins against me injures himself; All those who hate me love death."

I love all the posts for this some are really great but with all the posts do you see a pattern here? If we have a couple of people who cant see the wisdom behind whats being said here not to have the Mosque can you imagine what government is like? If those on this board cant hear what chance does government have to hear

[Jeff K]

My point is that who cares what someone believes about an inanimate object?  If I believe my Valkyrie is possessed by the spirit of Thor himself, does that make it so?  Will people who don’t believe in Nordic gods tremble at my feet?  I doubt it.

You keeps saying "who cares" If that is truly a question, the answer is... 70% of this nation.

I believe what you mean is "I don't care".

[Robert]

Colombo, Sri Lanka (CNN) -- A Sri Lankan maid whose Saudi employer allegedly hammered 23 nails into her arms, legs and forehead is set to undergo surgery Friday, while government officials meet with Saudi diplomats in Colombo over the incident.

L.P. Ariyawathie, a housemaid who worked in a household in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, was held down by her employer's wife while the employer hammered the heated nails, said L.K. Ruhunuge of the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment.

[JimL]

I really tried to look at the "ground zero" mosque from an unbiased view.  I was really intrigued about the original name chosen for the mosque.  

I did a little more reading last night on the significance of "Cordoba" during the Islamic rule of Spain during that era.  Christianity and Islam were observed and practiced freely during Islamic rule of Cordoba, however it is clear that Christians practiced subject to certain rules imposed by their Islamic conquerors, and were considered second class citizens.  It becomes clear to me that the original use of "Cordoba House" as the name for the Mosque near "ground zero" was not an accident, from further reading it is clear that radical Muslims associate this name as a symbol of Islamic conquest.  It is my opinion that this was meant to be a "poke in the eye".

The name now becomes moot, because once people realized the significance of the name...it was changed to "The Community Center At Park 51 or just Park 51".

For several reasons I have to back away from my analogy of the "burning cross" or "hanging noose", there is enough ambiguity that an argument can be made to support whichever point of view one wants to argue.  However, it is clear that me that the original intent of this mosque was not to bridge the divide between radical Islam and Christianity.  Radical Islam would interpret Cordoba as Islamic conquest, and in my personal opinion only serve to embolden radical jihadist ideology.

I understand there are those who will see this differently, and that's what make this such a great country.  Many men and women have died on the battlefield so that we can openly express our opinions without having to worry about the consequences.  An philosophy that Islamic jihadists do not subscribe to.

[Bobbo]

My point is that who cares what someone believes about an inanimate object?  If I believe my Valkyrie is possessed by the spirit of Thor himself, does that make it so?  Will people who don’t believe in Nordic gods tremble at my feet?  I doubt it.

You keeps saying "who cares" If that is truly a question, the answer is... 70% of this nation.

I believe what you mean is "I don't care".

I’m aware of the majority of Americans who don’t believe this building should be located here, as I am one of them.  My question is rhetorical.  I’m trying to express the idea that the name of this building is unimportant.  We need to stay away from the emotional distractions, and stay focused on the organizations that pose an actual threat.

[Jeff K]

  We need to stay away from the emotional distractions, and stay focused on the organizations that pose an actual threat.

Like the Obama administration. 

[Bobbo]

On a similar note, I read that Glenn Beck is having his “Restoring Honor” rally on the exact same anniversary date and the exact same location as Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech.  Where’s the outrage?  Where’s the angst?  Is this a “Victory Rally” where the conquering conservatives are building a rally on top of a sacred liberal rally site?  Who will stand up and say, “The government shouldn’t allow this”.  If President Obama endorses Beck’s right of freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom of speech, who will be the first to shout, “Obama is a conservative because he indorses Glenn Beck”?




Disclaimer:  The above is presented as parody, and not necessarily the views of the author.

[Robert]

My point is that who cares what someone believes about an inanimate object?  If I believe my Valkyrie is possessed by the spirit of Thor himself, does that make it so?  Will people who don’t believe in Nordic gods tremble at my feet?  I doubt it.

You keeps saying "who cares" If that is truly a question, the answer is... 70% of this nation.

I believe what you mean is "I don't care".

I’m aware of the majority of Americans who don’t believe this building should be located here, as I am one of them.  My question is rhetorical.  I’m trying to express the idea that the name of this building is unimportant.  We need to stay away from the emotional distractions, and stay focused on the organizations that pose an actual threat.

It was not important to most Americans until they learned what it truly meant to the Muslims. Again its not Americans that picked and established the name and it keeps with the idea of Muslim conquest. Sometimes its not as things appear to be and because they were the ones to pick the name it means quite a bit maybe not to you. Gangs pick colors it doesn't mean that much to me but I sure know what it represents to them. It also serves as notice that I am taking control of this area. Just like a dog leaves his scent some of the most basic representations of intent. How about the Great Seal of the US, the money we spend is steeped in symbolism, just another symbol but I guess it means nothing.  You cannot ignore the symbolism regardless if it has a spiritual meaning or just a earthly one unless you want to ignore all the signs of everything in life. Bobbo just as much as you personally dont believe something doesn't say it doesn't exist you like me dont know everything things unseen are not necessarily unreal. Just as science has theories and we live some of our lives and laws based on those theories, They are not proven nor substantiated but we still take them for fact. Creation or the evolution which is correct, neither of us was there to prove either but one is correct and one is trash neither proven. Yet we make decisions based on one of these and these do effect us all regardless how you believe. A idea however inspired acted upon by enough people will change things either for the good or bad small or big. This is the what has motivated and created all of our inventions from light bulbs to the biggest corporation. This is all on natural terms but you have no idea what happens when you put spiritual forces behind it. This is why suicide bombers have killed thousands and Iran is developing weapons. Its only a idea and only symbolism behind it that you may not believe but they do. When you walk into a restaurant and sit down and eat a meal and go to leave and skip the bill? In good faith the owner served the person a meal but that person had other intentions. Law will only trump intentions for awhile till the person with intent comes to change the law then they will have law on their side ruling with their intent rather than the founding fathers. The gay fight is one of the best examples of this.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply (e.g.: "Why me?")[1]  Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to think about what the (often obvious) answer to the question must be. When a speaker states, "How much longer must our people endure this injustice?", no formal answer is expected. Rather, it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something.

[Sludge]

Well said Robert.  While I agree with Bobbo in principal on many of his thoughts earlier in this thread.  Robert is right in that symbolism certainly is relevant.

[G-Man]

As the days pass, we are shown and hear the spoken anti-American words of this particular Imam and his wife as well.  There is an investigative organization that is now following the money.  I don't know what the name of the organization is as I tuned into the channel after it was given.  They have uncovered much under-the-table dealings by less than honorable people regarding the shifting and funding of money for this "building".  When they tried to interview and question those that they have identified as key players, they would not speak.  If everything is on the up-in-up, why would they avoid the questions?

There is alot we don't know yet, a lot that will come out, and a lot of people and politicians who are speaking in favor of building this particular mosque will be highly embarrassed that they ever spoke up.

[Skinhead]

On a similar note, I read that Glenn Beck is having his “Restoring Honor” rally on the exact same anniversary date and the exact same location as Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech.  Where’s the outrage?  Where’s the angst?  Is this a “Victory Rally” where the conquering conservatives are building a rally on top of a sacred liberal rally site?  Who will stand up and say, “The government shouldn’t allow this”.  If President Obama endorses Beck’s right of freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom of speech, who will be the first to shout, “Obama is a conservative because he indorses Glenn Beck”?




Disclaimer:  The above is presented as parody, and not necessarily the views of the author.

1 - Glenn beck didn't oppress balcks or deny them their civil rights.  If he had, I would agree the situation was designed to provoke a response.

2 - Beck doesn't belong to a religious group whose members murdered 3000+ innocent people prior to his rally.

3 - Other than the fact that he doesn't support the annoited one and is not a left wing whacko, what specifically has he done that would provoke a response to his rally?

4 - Beck's rally is a temporary event, not a permenant  monument.

I think your's is a weak analogy.

[Bobbo]

Robert:  I am hesitant to call your response rambling, but I’m sure it would be better if you could keep it more concise.

I’m fully aware that ideals and symbolism are influential forces in many people, but we cannot regulate thoughts, only illegal actions.

[KW]

BoBo – I had fun with our earlier ‘debates’ in this thread. I always enjoy a good laugh. I have to tell you though, I don’t know anyone personally, including my more liberal buddies, who are so closed minded and committed to their secular beliefs as you are. You have failed to concede or acknowledge even one single counter point and continue to spew out tired, antiquated, left wing dogma. In your case, obviously, it really is more of a doctrine you’re committed to rather than a political viewpoint.  I have to tell you my friend; no amount of ‘repeating something’ can change facts.

After reading all of your postings, including your most recent asinine statements concerning Glen Beck, which have absolutely no bearing or factual connection to this conversation, I realized that you have become totally and completely . . .  irrelevant.

[Bobbo]

1 - Glenn beck didn't oppress balcks or deny them their civil rights.  If he had, I would agree the situation was designed to provoke a response.

2 - Beck doesn't belong to a religious group whose members murdered 3000+ innocent people prior to his rally.

3 - Other than the fact that he doesn't support the annoited one and is not a left wing whacko, what specifically has he done that would provoke a response to his rally?

4 - Beck's rally is a temporary event, not a permenant  monument.

I think your's is a weak analogy.

The perception by some people is that Glenn Beck represents the white conservative establishment that oppressed and murdered blacks over the last 200 years.
Some believe this rally is disrespectful and a sort of an “in your face” statement that white conservatives want to dominate all people and revert back to the pre-civil rights era.  There is an effort to stop this rally or move it to a different date or place.

My analogy is that Mr. Beck has the right to assemble and speak at this location and time, regardless of what the perceptions of some are, which is similar to the Mosque debate.

[G-Man]

Glen Beck did an entire week on his show demonstrating how blacks have been ignored in the history that has been taught to American children in our country.  He demonstrated black person after black person that had positive effects and who have contributed vastly to our great nation. 

If anything, Beck has championed the black perspective in history and present day America.  I believe he has done more to right the wrongs that history has perpetuated against blacks than Al Sharpton, Rev. Wrong, Jesse Jackson, and Obama combined.  All these fools do is complain, but do nothing to push forward.  Absolutely amazing how truth can be ignored and lies vomited up as fact.  Insane.

I watched these episodes with my 16-year-old daughter, who is 100% black, and she was amazed at what she learned and what she hadn't been taught by our liberal educational establishment.

Aaaaaaand by the way, all of the great southern states who fought to continue slavery were all DEMOCRATIC states, with DEMOCRATIC governors, senators, and congressmen.  It was a REPUBLICAN President who finally said enough is enough.

[Sludge]

Those were good episodes G-Man.  Very good in fact. 

[G-Man]

Thanks, Sludge!

Beck also demonstrated that the first slave owner in this country, in 1640, was a BLACK man.  I wish I could recall this man's name.  He showed how originall, we had Ind______ servants (The exact term escapes me).  These servents would eventually earn the freedom after a certain amount of years, depending on what they were "serving" for.  Some borrowed money and worked it off, some immigrated and "served" until their fare was paid, etc.  A Black man had several "servants" and (I'm trying to recall the facts) and I think one tried to run away and the courts deemed that that he should now "serve" for life....the first slave.

Beck has a phone on his set.  Every Liberal/Left Winger has been given the number and has been begged to call the minute Beck says something that isn't factual.  The phone never rings.  We know they are watching because they pick apart everything he says. Everyone from Jon Stewart to Filth Oberman to Ugly Maddow twists his words until he is deemed a racist pig, but yet they never call into his show to say, "Hey Glenn, you're wrong on that one".  No, they preach hatred of him to the sheep who don't even bother to fact check before jumping on the hate bandwagon.  How liberal of them.

[Bobbo]

Glen Beck did an entire week on his show demonstrating how blacks have been ignored in the history that has been taught to American children in our country.  He demonstrated black person after black person that had positive effects and who have contributed vastly to our great nation. 

If anything, Beck has championed the black perspective in history and present day America.  I believe he has done more to right the wrongs that history has perpetuated against blacks than Al Sharpton, Rev. Wrong, Jesse Jackson, and Obama combined.  All these fools do is complain, but do nothing to push forward.  Absolutely amazing how truth can be ignored and lies vomited up as fact.  Insane.

I watched these episodes with my 16-year-old daughter, who is 100% black, and she was amazed at what she learned and what she hadn't been taught by our liberal educational establishment.

Aaaaaaand by the way, all of the great southern states who fought to continue slavery were all DEMOCRATIC states, with DEMOCRATIC governors, senators, and congressmen.  It was a REPUBLICAN President who finally said enough is enough.

I’m not sure if you knowingly or unwittingly reinforced my point that perceptions can be wrong and shouldn’t be used as a guideline to condemn people or groups.

[Sludge]

Beck also demonstrated that the first slave owner in this country, in 1640, was a BLACK man.  I wish I could recall this man's name.  He showed how originall, we had Ind______ servants (The exact term escapes me).  These servents would eventually earn the freedom after a certain amount of years, depending on what they were "serving" for.  Some borrowed money and worked it off, some immigrated and "served" until their fare was paid, etc.  A Black man had several "servants" and (I'm trying to recall the facts) and I think one tried to run away and the courts deemed that that he should now "serve" for life....the first slave.

His name was Anthony Johnson.  He had an  Indentured Servant who did indeed run away and he ended up having him as a slave for life. 

My memory didnt serve me that well, so I went and looked it up and copied part of an article ..

One of the few recorded histories of an African in America that we can glean from early court records is that of "Antonio the negro," as he was named in the 1625 Virginia census. He was brought to the colony in 1621. At this time, English and Colonial law did not define racial slavery; the census calls him not a slave but a "servant." Later, Antonio changed his name to Anthony Johnson, married an African American servant named Mary, and they had four children. Mary and Anthony also became free, and he soon owned land and cattle and even indentured servants of his own. By 1650, Anthony was still one of only 400 Africans in the colony among nearly 19,000 settlers. In Johnson's own county, at least 20 African men and women were free, and 13 owned their own homes.

In 1640, the year Johnson purchased his first property, three servants fled a Virginia plantation. Caught and returned to their owner, two had their servitude extended four years. However, the third, a black man named John Punch, was sentenced to "serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life." He was made a slave.

[Skinhead]

1 - Glenn beck didn't oppress balcks or deny them their civil rights.  If he had, I would agree the situation was designed to provoke a response.

2 - Beck doesn't belong to a religious group whose members murdered 3000+ innocent people prior to his rally.

3 - Other than the fact that he doesn't support the annoited one and is not a left wing whacko, what specifically has he done that would provoke a response to his rally?

4 - Beck's rally is a temporary event, not a permenant  monument.

I think your's is a weak analogy.

The perception by some people is that Glenn Beck represents the white conservative establishment that oppressed and murdered blacks over the last 200 years.
Some believe this rally is disrespectful and a sort of an “in your face” statement that white conservatives want to dominate all people and revert back to the pre-civil rights era.  There is an effort to stop this rally or move it to a different date or place.

My analogy is that Mr. Beck has the right to assemble and speak at this location and time, regardless of what the perceptions of some are, which is similar to the Mosque debate.

And we all agree that the eman(sp?) has the RIGHT to build his mosque, if our perception that he is part of a radical organization/religion that wants to kill Infidels, Americans in particular, is wrong, let him convince us otherwise.  We are all anxious to learn more about his motives, intentions, and financial backing.  To me and other highly intelligent, patriotic, hard working Americans, we tend to question/suspect all three of the above. 

As far as Beck goes, I tend to think there is a group of, for lack of a better word, let's call them morons, that just because they don't agree with his views, have invented a perceived affront to blacks and Dr. MLK because he wants to hold a PATRIOTIC rally on a site of one of MLK's speeches.  I see the point you were trying to make, I just think the two situations and openness of the parties involved are vastly different.  IF Beck had violated the civil rights of just one black person, owned a slave(s), belong to the KKK or accepted funding from them, I could agree that it would be insensitive of him to hold his rally, but he would still have the right to, I just don't think he would be issued a permit for the rally IF that were the case.  Obama was supposed to take race out of American politics, it's just another of the checks his mouth wrote that his administration can't or doesn't know how to, or never intended to cash. 

You'd think a former community organizer would be down with a patriotic event to bring the community together.

That's all I have to say about!

[fstsix]

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by  Frances Rice
08/16/2006


It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.


Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that black person preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

[MP]

On a similar note, I read that Glenn Beck is having his “Restoring Honor” rally on the exact same anniversary date and the exact same location as Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech.  Where’s the outrage?  Where’s the angst?  Is this a “Victory Rally” where the conquering conservatives are building a rally on top of a sacred liberal rally site?  Who will stand up and say, “The government shouldn’t allow this”.  If President Obama endorses Beck’s right of freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom of speech, who will be the first to shout, “Obama is a conservative because he indorses Glenn Beck”?




Disclaimer:  The above is presented as parody, and not necessarily the views of the author.

Bobbo:

You have just proved you speak, when you know NONE of the facts.  The rally is to get together with blacks.  It is to overcome exactly what you expressed.

PLEASE, have some idea what is happening, before you speak about that which you know NOTHING.

A keynote speaker there is the niece of Dr. King.  Beck has had her on his show several times.  He honors her and MLK.

Get off the liberal talk sites, and learn the truth.

MP

[Bobbo]

Bobbo:

You have just proved you speak, when you know NONE of the facts.  The rally is to get together with blacks.  It is to overcome exactly what you expressed.

PLEASE, have some idea what is happening, before you speak about that which you know NOTHING.

A keynote speaker there is the niece of Dr. King.  Beck has had her on his show several times.  He honors her and MLK.

Get off the liberal talk sites, and learn the truth.

MP

If you had read my disclaimer, and the following posts, you would have no reason for claiming I’m ignorant of this rally.  I was using this to demonstrate how perceptions of a person or group can be wrong when they are categorized.  You seem to have also fallen into this labeling trap, by assuming I listen and adhere to liberal talk show propaganda, which is incorrect.

[G-Man]

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by  Frances Rice
08/16/2006

A truly amazing post!  Thank you.  I have copied and printed it for my daughter to read.  She has been very interested in race politics lately.  

[fstsix]

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by  Frances Rice
08/16/2006

A truly amazing post!  Thank you.  I have copied and printed it for my daughter to read.  She has been very interested in race politics lately.  

Your welcome..and you have a beautiful family, and you are obviously a outstanding father helping this next generation define the Lies of the left.    http://www.nbra.info/

[fstsix]

Washington Times - Inside the Beltway - ACLJ "Quietly Taking Care of Business"     [Printer Friendly]   [Forward to a Friend] 

The following excerpt was published in the Washington Times on August 19th in Jennifer Harper's column Inside the Beltway.

THE MOSQUE MATTER

The caterwaul over the "ground zero mosque" has escalated into a shrill but convenient vehicle for partisan interests, political punishment and grandstanding. So be it. Bound to happen. But some are quietly taking care of business. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), is amending its recent lawsuit charging the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission with procedural violations stemming from their recent decision to essentially greenlight the $100 million Islamic cultural and prayer center.

The ACLJ will request an injunction on development of the site based on revelations that organizers "do not own the entire proposed site and do not possess the legal right to proceed with demolition or construction." The legal group is also demanding an environmental review, citing the project's impact on neighborhood character and historical resources.

"With every new question that surfaces, it is increasingly clear this mosque must not be built at this site," says chief counsel Jay Sekulow. "We'll continue to gather the facts."

 

[Bobbo]

Washington Times - Inside the Beltway - ACLJ "Quietly Taking Care of Business"

Imagine that…  The ACLJ, founded by Pat Robertson, is trying to throw up roadblocks any way it can to stop this Mosque.  It’s becoming clearer that this issue has become a battle of the last two Abrahamic religions.  While I still disagree that this Mosque should be built at this location, what we don’t need is a kooky religious scuffle.

[Bobbo]

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by  Frances Rice
08/16/2006

A truly amazing post!  Thank you.  I have copied and printed it for my daughter to read.  She has been very interested in race politics lately.  

It might serve you well to research more on MLK, Jr. rather than depend on a partisan opinion piece.  MLK, Jr. advocated unity, which is sorely missing in today’s political parties.

[G-Man]

MLK Jr. did NOT believe in entitlements and what affirmative action has morphed into.  Judge a man by character.  This is so far what one of the parties is all about.

[Bobbo]

MLK Jr. did NOT believe in entitlements and what affirmative action has morphed into.  Judge a man by character.  This is so far what one of the parties is all about.

While I agree that Dr. King wouldn’t approve of the many government programs that foster dependency, that doesn’t necessarily prove that he was a card-carrying member of an opposing political party.  I didn’t see a lot of politics in Dr. King’s speeches and actions.  I saw mostly a non-violent demand for respect, dignity, and unity of all Americans.  Something that is still not common today, especially with all of the divisive and politically charged talk shows and opinion pieces.