Patterico's Pontifications

11/22/2010

Guess Who Might be Paying for the Ground Zero Mosque?

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 1:10 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

The answer: you! At least in part.  The Daily Beast informs us that the organizers of the GZM are seeking a grant from the federal government to help them build the mosque.

Oh, and it gets even better.  Where would the grant be coming from?  From “a fund designed to rebuild lower Manhattan after 9/11[.]”

So bear that in mind the next time they assert that they intend no disrespect on the people who died on 9-11.  Indeed the chutzpah on display is breathtaking.

And notice how the contradictions keep piling up.  They picked this site because debris from the WTC fell there—that is their explanation as to why they are picking this place.  And now they are seeking money based on a fund designed to rebuild from the damage caused by 9-11.  But of course the left will continue to maintain it is wrong, wrong, wrong to call this the Ground Zero Mosque.  They will also argue that…  squirrel!

Of course, I suggested months ago that the Federal Government could step in and seize about half of the land, which probably would have made this project impossible (there is a real factual question whether my approach is legal now, if certain deals pending at the time I wrote that post were completed).  And I showed you months ago that the Ground Zero Imam was a creep, not deserving of the Gandhi-like praise heaped upon him.

Anyway, as they say, read the whole thing.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

43 Responses to “Guess Who Might be Paying for the Ground Zero Mosque?”

  1. as tacky as these victory mosque losers are, Bloomberg and the other cheesedicks what are ostentatiously helping these assholes are way tackier

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  2. agreed, happy. bloomberg’s role as national scold is insufferable.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  3. As one might expect, I have no problem with this. Although, if the Daily Beast report is accurate, it looks like the chances of them getting the grant is next to nil.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  4. Thou protest too early.

    The Emperor (2eeddb)

  5. Kman’s position is, by default, opposite of AW’s. In this case it leads him to support using federal tax dollars designated to rebuild the area effected by 9/11 to build a not mosque. The number of ways that position is insane is nearly endless.

    JD (6e25b4)

  6. the emperor

    I am mad that they would even ask.

    and yes, i will be furious if the stupid F.G. says “yes.”

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  7. This just in: Bloomberg’s an arse. If he goes to temple, I wonder what his fellow worshipers really think of him as of late.

    Dmac (498ece)

  8. The buildings being built on the 9/11 site will probably have muslims working and praying in it too. And there’s nothing that can be done about this.

    I must say, though, that I have opened my mind as to opposition to this. Previously i thought it could really only come from anti-muslim bigotry which sought to place some group blame on muslims for 9/11. I have come to realize this was narrow minded. I’ve realized it can come from not just being bigoted, but also from being accepting of and sensitive to bigotry.

    imdw (e8c2a6)

  9. This is a really tasteless move on the part of the Victory Mosque developers. I thought they wanted to build bridges and open a conversation about moderate Muslims. I think their actions speak louder than these words.

    Wondering (d9ad9c)

  10. imdw, I imagine you are amused by your attempts at cleverness, which in turn amuses me.

    If public sentiment against GZ Mosque as of August, 2010 ran 70% against, one can only imagine the significant increase of anti-sentiment when the public discovers public funds may be involved.

    That Faisel thinks this will help his cause only further speaks to his stunning arrogance and complete disregard for the will of the American public, as well as his dishonest rhetoric about bridge building. At least the cards are on the table.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  11. Imdw is a coward that hides behind multiple names and proxy servers.

    Screaming racist/bigot/sexist/hohophobe/etc … Is what the Leftists of its ilk have been reduced to.

    JD (0d2ffc)

  12. Dana, you know the saying: some people think they are witty, and are half right.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  13. Guys, it is not like they are going to call it “Victory Mosque” for crying out-loud. Peace, think peace. Very peaceful people.

    ******

    I just don’t understand why the American Public has been so brain washed to accept this, the TSA standards, the Cairo speeches, the Bowing and the like.

    It is as if we have lost our collective senses and allow UN-PATRIOTIC, COMPROMI$ED douchebags the pulpit from which they brow beat us. We are to be guilty for our success as a Nation and guilty for their failures as primates freshly down from the trees.

    I can see why the French simply decided beheadings were easier. We need a few here of our political class.

    It gets to such a point that these elitist hate you so much and consider you such scum of the earth that they expect you to sign your own death warrant, give them the fruits of your labor and then compel you to thank them for putting up with you while on earth making their lives easier.

    If this action is so, I can absolutely see violence and frankly I am not so sure how I would feel about it given the days we live in.

    Everyday decent, proud Americans are being asked to bend over harder and longer to satisfy the whims of minority groups (foreign and domestic) who simply have bad intentions.

    Torquemada (a8a9b2)

  14. I think I was just called a bigot by imdw. I’m not totally sure because the clever wordplay dazzled me.

    Birdbath (8501d4)

  15. Birdbath, he is just so much smarter than everyone else.

    On the other hand, maybe that wasn’t him posting under his name. After all, he claims that from time to time.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  16. imdw would be the local SME on bigotry, since its what s/he/it practices on a daily basis.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  17. imdw is just confused. It is just waking up to the fact that the far Christian right controls this country, including the Obama Administration. Previously imdw thought it was the Jooos, but that was just a smokescreen. Can you say WORST NIGHTMARE? Sure you can.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  18. Oh please stop getting sucked into that swirling vortex of zaniness, otherwise referred to as imdw.

    I am curious as to whether the GZ mosque grant gets approved, if that would mean the Greek Orthodox church that was destroyed would also be granted the monies they requested?

    (I can’t quite remember if it was a similar situation and/or the Port Authority was somehow involved in that one…?)

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  19. Dana – If I recall correctly, the Port Authority was holding up the Greek Church’s rebuilding plans. I don’t think there was government aid involved that I recall.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  20. daley, yes, it was Port Authority,

    The Port Authority and the church announced a deal in July 2008 under which the Port Authority would grant land and up to $20 million to help rebuild the church — in addition, the authority was willing to pay up to $40 million to construct a bomb-proof platform underneath.

    Within a year, the deal fell through and talks ended — apparently for good, according to the Port Authority.

    According to the rest of the article, after the deal feel through both the PA and the church had entirely different takes on what really occurred.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  21. Birdbath, so far imdw has called 95% of the American public “racist”. Welcome to the club.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. It’s a flagrant violation of the 1A to give a church federal money.

    Not that the Feds have ever had any problem ignoring the 1A.

    Dave Surls (0da3f7)

  23. “Dana – If I recall correctly, the Port Authority was holding up the Greek Church’s rebuilding plans.”

    Why do you think that is?

    imdw (a544ba)

  24. It’s time to start thinning the Leviathan, with extreme prejudice!

    AD-RtR/OS! (22efd4)

  25. Can Greg Gutfield’s gay bar idea (Halal Sausage Party is my suggested name) get matching funds? Also, a bbq joint, a strip joint and a kosher deli should he built across the street with amtching funds as well.

    Bugg (996c34)

  26. bugg

    i thought gutfeld’s bar was going to be called “suspicious packages.”

    Aaron Worthing (b8e056)

  27. That seems eerily apt, in light of recent events.

    narciso (82637e)

  28. I honestly believe that the 51 park developers have no intention of actually building the project. I believe that they are running a scam on their offshore contributors and living off the proceeds. Eventually, they hope that someone will buy them off and they can then tell their contributors: “It would have been a wonderful project, but those infidels blocked it”. As they cry all the way to the bank. Therefore, this move fits neatly into my scenario. Like California’s high speed rail, the project will never get built, but a lot of folks will make a good living off it in the meantime.

    erc rodson (7fc2db)

  29. CAIR is going to have a harder time credibly claiming bigotry after the release at their request of sealed court documents naming them as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism funding trial. The government shows direct links to Hamas, as it does for the Islamic Society of North America, one of Obama’s favorite organizations. Epic fail.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  30. Isn’t it a clear violation of the Establishment Clause, to use federal money to construct a house of worship — for any faith? Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

    Guy Jones (f3f75b)

  31. Of course, I suggested months ago that the Federal Government could step in and seize about half of the land

    Why, the government can’t seize the land! That would be wrong!

    Patricia (9b018a)

  32. #30, no, it isn’t.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  33. @MIlhouse

    Respectfully, I disagree with your assessment. The Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo in 1995 that stated that the Constitution permits federal grants to houses of worship when they are among a broad array of beneficiaries, not defined by reference to religion, in a program with broad, secular goals. One example that passes muster is the preservation of historically important churches of other houses of worship. Another is federal grants for the construction of facilities at religious-affiliated higher learning institutions which will be used for secular purposes. Do you really think that the “Cordoba House” mosque meets that criteria as a building that will have a broad array of beneficiaries beyond Muslim worshippers?

    From an interesting web page:
    http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/legal/legal_update_display.cfm?id=16

    “In a pair of cases decided two years after Tilton v. Richardson, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the Establishment Clause prohibits government construction or repair of buildings used for religious worship or instruction. In Hunt v. McNair,[9] the Court upheld state issuance of revenue bonds for use at a religiously affiliated college, but only on the condition that bond-financed structures never be used for religious worship or instruction. And in Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist,[10] the Court held unconstitutional New York State’s program of “maintenance and repair” grants for the upkeep of religious schools. Such grants, the Court reasoned, would inevitably subsidize the religious activities of the aided schools.”

    The use of federal monies to support the construction of a mosque will not pass constitutional muster.

    Guy Jones (f3f75b)

  34. “Do you really think that the “Cordoba House” mosque meets that criteria as a building that will have a broad array of beneficiaries beyond Muslim worshippers?”

    Certainly. It’s a community center. Do you think the JCC is just for jewish worshippers?

    What I think this is indicative of is a new tension that is arising. For a while the christian groups have been carving out benefits for religious groups. Like RLUIPA, office of faith based initiatives, etc… and now they are faced with the horror that a religion they do not like is availing itself of these benefits with the rather simple claim that they are religions too.

    imdw (cb16cc)

  35. imdw

    its my understanding that the Y and most similar jewish centers do not contain worship areas.

    They also aren’t designed to plant a victory flag within sight of one the most horrific war crime ever committed on american soil. so there is that, too.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  36. imdw

    btw, alot of your comments are getting caught in the filters recently, but none of them seem to violate any rules. so let me know when you comment and i will make sure it doesn’t get stuck.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  37. It is not a mosque it is a community bridge building center!!!!!!

    JD (109425)

  38. @imdw

    I cast a far more cynical eye than you do on the claim that “Cordoba House” intends to function as a “community center.” The claim that the building will function as such, along with all the hand-holding rhetoric regarding interfaith initiatives that will supposedly take place at the site is merely window dressing to smooth over the controversy that the building caused. It is a mosque first and foremost. Even the innocuous name “Cordoba House” is, in my opinion, intended as a disingenuous bit of sleight of hand to deflect the greater scrutiny that using the appellation “mosque” would have engendered. There is no Muslim community in the area where the building is proposed. In fact, there is no residential community of any kind residing there. To believe that this building is intended to function as a community center is simply naive.

    Guy Jones (f3f75b)

  39. “There is no Muslim community in the area where the building is proposed.”

    Actually there are muslim people who use that building currently.

    imdw (7b0243)

  40. AW #36 – are you sure there isn’t a rule which requires commonsense to be involved in a comment ?

    Or is imdw the unwittying victim of PWi ?

    (Posting While imdw)

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  41. @Imdw

    Do you understand the definition of the word “community?” APparently not. It implies a group of persons living in close proximity to one another. There is no such thing present at the proposed site of the mosque. The use of a building by certain persons is entirely distinct from the concept of a residential neighborhood exhibiting certain ethnic or religious flavors, which is what a “community” implies. My point stands — this is not a residential neighborhood boasting a “community” of Muslims or persons of any other denomination.

    Guy Jones (f3f75b)

  42. You’re telling me you don’t think people live in lower manhattan? There’s a church around the corner. Who goes there if there’s no community?

    imdw (017d51)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3567 secs.