It was reported in the mainstream media that after several attempts to get a gay marriage bill passed in the New York legislature, the special interests have finally succeeded - again, diametrically opposed to the foundation of American government and the Constitution upon which it is based.
Marriage is a private contract, after all, and the government has no business "legalizing" or "sanctioning" any or all personal relationships, until of course they then dissolve for "breach of contract."
Appears there may be many lawyers and businesses representatives on the New York legislature, unaware of their Constitutional breach or aware but "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."
How many divorce lawyers also petitioned for this "new" law, since marriage is also, of course, an institution with its roots in not simply the "common law" upon which that Constitution is based, but also over 3,000 years of legal precedent.
Leave it to New York, that bastion of social unrest and their Wall Street and global corporate special interests to once again favor their economic welfare, over the foundational government created by those founders.
Along with those other six states which also have used our courts, and their special interests these past five or six years to forment their unlawful agendas.
Rather than address the unequal treatment under progressive laws which have been given to married couples, over those single individuals, heads of household and single parents, or long term cooperative living arrangements and regulatory agency "rules" such as Social Security which are not covered by powers of attorneys or state laws governing rights of inheritance.
This was a bold move, which I do feel will come back to haunt the gay community several years down the road.
They have now "invited" Big Brother into their domestic partnership, and custodial arrangements. And through those blood tests involved prior to issuing marriage licenses, even their own health records and personal information.
Be careful what you wish for.
Showing posts with label New York. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York. Show all posts
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
MYOB Mayor Bloomberg: Arizona Isn't New York, Thank Goodness
It appears the greenhorns and Eastern dandies are hell bent on using the tragedy which recently occurred in Arizona for their own nefarious ends once again.
Case in point: Mayor Michael Bloomberg's sting operation in Arizona at a Tucson gun show wherein he took his New York thugs to Arizona in order to expose the ease with which someone can buy a gun in the Grand Canyon State.
As one who believes there should be at least some laws governing the sales of assault or automatic weapons throughout the country, which did not exist at the time our Constitution was ratified, I found the Mayor's grandstanding rather revolting, as also a former long term Arizonan.
Arizona is, after all, the epitomy of the west, and just so happens to border a foreign country and government.
One in which there has been historically a great deal of cross borders crime and trafficking ever since Arizona entered into the union. And in which a great deal of the war refugees from these increasingly aggressive wars are also now being resettled, unlike greater Manhattan.
Mr. Bloomberg, your pure ignorance of the differences between Arizona and New York are telling. And so are your methods in order to gain political power at the cost of the recent occurrences in Arizona, and of course the rest of the nation also who have not at all stood behind Arizonans calling for a physical solution to our country's greatest threat: securing and fencing our open and exposed desert expanse and southern borders.
A great deal of the crime which occurs in Arizona is actually facilitated by foreigners, whether domestic or international. Or our youth who have been polluted by the political betrayals of many of our political leaders the past half century, clearly a scenario which is increasing.
Not native Arizonans or longer term residents. But by those from New York and Los Angeles who are primarily responsible for the road rage and gang violence, for example.
MYOB, Mayor Bloomberg.
Arizona isn't New York (and thank goodness).
And it is mainly true collectors that attend such venues as the one in which you staged your political propaganda.
The events which occurred in Tucson were not the result of an attack with a Colt .45.
Case in point: Mayor Michael Bloomberg's sting operation in Arizona at a Tucson gun show wherein he took his New York thugs to Arizona in order to expose the ease with which someone can buy a gun in the Grand Canyon State.
As one who believes there should be at least some laws governing the sales of assault or automatic weapons throughout the country, which did not exist at the time our Constitution was ratified, I found the Mayor's grandstanding rather revolting, as also a former long term Arizonan.
Arizona is, after all, the epitomy of the west, and just so happens to border a foreign country and government.
One in which there has been historically a great deal of cross borders crime and trafficking ever since Arizona entered into the union. And in which a great deal of the war refugees from these increasingly aggressive wars are also now being resettled, unlike greater Manhattan.
Mr. Bloomberg, your pure ignorance of the differences between Arizona and New York are telling. And so are your methods in order to gain political power at the cost of the recent occurrences in Arizona, and of course the rest of the nation also who have not at all stood behind Arizonans calling for a physical solution to our country's greatest threat: securing and fencing our open and exposed desert expanse and southern borders.
A great deal of the crime which occurs in Arizona is actually facilitated by foreigners, whether domestic or international. Or our youth who have been polluted by the political betrayals of many of our political leaders the past half century, clearly a scenario which is increasing.
Not native Arizonans or longer term residents. But by those from New York and Los Angeles who are primarily responsible for the road rage and gang violence, for example.
MYOB, Mayor Bloomberg.
Arizona isn't New York (and thank goodness).
And it is mainly true collectors that attend such venues as the one in which you staged your political propaganda.
The events which occurred in Tucson were not the result of an attack with a Colt .45.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Saturday Night Live Needs An Extreme Makeover
As a boomer who remembers the New York based "Saturday Night Live" from the beginning and watched the very first show, it has amazed me on the very, very few times I have tuned in since those first few seasons the "changes" which have occurred.
Known for its outrageous skits and occasional timely political commentary, it has taken a rather dark turn it appears as of late, and not in a good way.
Always, always liberal in its political focuses, that liberalism also has become simply irrelevance at this point in America's history, and its formerly "gross" humor not even very funny to a large segement of the population, it seems.
And some of the musical entertainment clearly even more far out and just as wacky and politically off the wall for any residing apparently outside New York (or L.A., its sister city).
Cases in point in just the few that I have watched for partial programs the last year (and this IS a show that starts at 10:30 or 11:30 in most of the country, but appears directed more so at a "youth" and younger audience with each decade who mostly are at home up late during the weekend - since as those young comics age also they routinely disappear into either spin offs of their characters in movies or eventual oblivion):
1. A skit in which Tina Fey as a teacher fantasizes over a pre-teenish "student" Justin Bieber(?), a Canadian pop star being marketed in the U.S. to pre-teen girls as "wholesome entertainment."
2. A skit in which a "loving family" mouth kissed mere strangers and extended family members (and their pets) to demonstrate their love for one another at the funeral of a relative, in which one of the family members licked and mouth kissed eventually the deceased laying in a coffin.
3. An entire segment on the Weekend Update segment this past week with Amy Poehler and Seth Myers addressing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies of gay men and women in the military in the name of "equality." I wouldn't hesitate to guess that the comics and writers on the program support unlimited abortion rights for women under the guise of "privacy," but believe that the "privacy" of gay individuals now serving in the military doesn't also come under those same Constitutional provisions of such a personal and private issue as an individual's sexual preferences?
I mean, just how many in the military who are gay truly want "big brother" to have such intimate and personal information documented in their enlistment papers on government databases?
The rest of the segment was dominated by the blind Governor of New York, inside jokes on the New Yorker-Jerseyite relationship, and the Governor's past term of office and irrelevance at this point in time during the upcoming elections, and his disability with the Governor, of course, then making an appearance alongside the "imposter." None of which I'm sure the other 49 (48 outside Jersey) states would have any interest in as "inside jokes."
4. And also on this particular program, a pop tart star ala another Madonna dressed to Bob Mackie rhinestone excess in glittery teenage cheerleader style mini-dress with backup football players singing a song devoted to having a back seat teenage sex session and while singing the chorus then rubbing her legs suggestively promoting her "skin tight jeans?"
I mean the Bees and Blues Brothers have a place in the history and television archives for this 70's ground breaking comedy, but I just wonder what new drug they are smoking during those writing sessions?
The only segment that appeared even remotely funny was the impersonator of Will Smith ala Eddie Murphy.
Maybe "Home Improvement" needs to do an extreme makeover," from the ground up with new writers. Or better still...
"Live from (take your pick outside New York) it's Saturday Night!" just might clue them in as to what is politically relevant and comic, and just what is just so, so New York, and not "out there" but "in there" in truly messed up New York Gomorrah-land.
Definitely not for that ever-growing Tea Party crowd, or former Republicans and Democrats who are now independent of any political party affiliation.
Those Indians clearly came out with the better deal on this one.
Known for its outrageous skits and occasional timely political commentary, it has taken a rather dark turn it appears as of late, and not in a good way.
Always, always liberal in its political focuses, that liberalism also has become simply irrelevance at this point in America's history, and its formerly "gross" humor not even very funny to a large segement of the population, it seems.
And some of the musical entertainment clearly even more far out and just as wacky and politically off the wall for any residing apparently outside New York (or L.A., its sister city).
Cases in point in just the few that I have watched for partial programs the last year (and this IS a show that starts at 10:30 or 11:30 in most of the country, but appears directed more so at a "youth" and younger audience with each decade who mostly are at home up late during the weekend - since as those young comics age also they routinely disappear into either spin offs of their characters in movies or eventual oblivion):
1. A skit in which Tina Fey as a teacher fantasizes over a pre-teenish "student" Justin Bieber(?), a Canadian pop star being marketed in the U.S. to pre-teen girls as "wholesome entertainment."
2. A skit in which a "loving family" mouth kissed mere strangers and extended family members (and their pets) to demonstrate their love for one another at the funeral of a relative, in which one of the family members licked and mouth kissed eventually the deceased laying in a coffin.
3. An entire segment on the Weekend Update segment this past week with Amy Poehler and Seth Myers addressing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies of gay men and women in the military in the name of "equality." I wouldn't hesitate to guess that the comics and writers on the program support unlimited abortion rights for women under the guise of "privacy," but believe that the "privacy" of gay individuals now serving in the military doesn't also come under those same Constitutional provisions of such a personal and private issue as an individual's sexual preferences?
I mean, just how many in the military who are gay truly want "big brother" to have such intimate and personal information documented in their enlistment papers on government databases?
The rest of the segment was dominated by the blind Governor of New York, inside jokes on the New Yorker-Jerseyite relationship, and the Governor's past term of office and irrelevance at this point in time during the upcoming elections, and his disability with the Governor, of course, then making an appearance alongside the "imposter." None of which I'm sure the other 49 (48 outside Jersey) states would have any interest in as "inside jokes."
4. And also on this particular program, a pop tart star ala another Madonna dressed to Bob Mackie rhinestone excess in glittery teenage cheerleader style mini-dress with backup football players singing a song devoted to having a back seat teenage sex session and while singing the chorus then rubbing her legs suggestively promoting her "skin tight jeans?"
I mean the Bees and Blues Brothers have a place in the history and television archives for this 70's ground breaking comedy, but I just wonder what new drug they are smoking during those writing sessions?
The only segment that appeared even remotely funny was the impersonator of Will Smith ala Eddie Murphy.
Maybe "Home Improvement" needs to do an extreme makeover," from the ground up with new writers. Or better still...
"Live from (take your pick outside New York) it's Saturday Night!" just might clue them in as to what is politically relevant and comic, and just what is just so, so New York, and not "out there" but "in there" in truly messed up New York Gomorrah-land.
Definitely not for that ever-growing Tea Party crowd, or former Republicans and Democrats who are now independent of any political party affiliation.
Those Indians clearly came out with the better deal on this one.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Nine Years Later: Whitewashing 9-11
This past week our mainstream print and television media dedicated much of their programming once again to 9-11 and its aftermath, and using it in order to garner ratings and place their subjective spins on this black mark in American history.
One major news magazine has an article devoted to how America "over-reacted" to 9-11, and the threat of al-Qaeda (although originally it was the Taliban and Osama bin Laden which was the focus of those first weeks and months post 9-11, not al Qaeda at all). Another article in the same magazine written by a former President's daughter lambasts how the liberals are disappointed with the reaction of Mr. Obama to the Deepwater Horizon disaster and the weeks and months this Administration stood by while tens of thousands of barrels of oil were spewing into the Gulf, without a mention of the continuing war also whose candidate had pledged to end the war, one of their major concerns at election time.
To this American, it has been nine long years of betrayal and using 9-11 also for their agendas by both political parties which has resulted in the increased discontent of the American people with their leadership.
I would not state that the reactions of the general citizenry were "over-reactions," but that the actions of the Bush/Obama Administration have been "under-reactions."
Our borders, for the most part, and ports of entry are even less secure than they were pre-9-11. Our infrastructure and many of our vital industries and public utility companies are traded on the global exchange, and for all intents and purposes even our nuclear reactors could be "owned" through stock purchases, by foreigners.
There has also been two other attempts under even stranger circumstances, originating from Great Britain since that time used to justify then increasing security measures domestically, although the Bush Administration during his last 90 days in office expanded the Visa waiver program for foreign citizens wishing entry, requiring simply 48 hour security checks, to citizens from over 45 nations.
Our southern and northern borders still remain relatively unsecured, and there are once again even since 2006 attempts being made to "legalize" individuals who are in this country who had absolutely no security checks at all as having entered illegally, and also who have overstayed their work, student or visitor visas.
While instead, Americans are being asked to submit themselves to full body scanners, and other invasive security measures at domestic airports.
In this same magazine, an article also appeared that harkened back to how "united" the American people were post 9-11, pulling together for a "common good," due to all the donations and volunteers that did what they could in the aftermath of the tragedy. As a nation, however, I would not say that this country was "united" except for the fact that it was united in its outrage that such an event, in this modern day and era and with all the monies spent for national defense in technology during the Reagan era, especially, could occur.
We were united in our wish to have the perpetrators of this heinous act brought to justice, which has alluded this nation still even nine long years later.
We wanted our leaders to abide by our Constitution, and close our borders and our country to "foreigners" until those individuals responsible for the act were brought to justice, and order any and all here illegally out until such time.
We wanted our president not to direct us to "go shop," or this president to expand the war without having any real hard intelligence indicating that the perpetrators were within our grasp, and not send any more of our young men and women to die on foreign sand to add to the losses.
We simply wanted our leadership to abide by their oaths of office, and their duties to Americans and protect this nation and its borders and legal and lawful citizenry, rather than their commercial interests and those domestic and foreign privateers.
Attempts are now also being made in order to "whitewash" 9-11 and its impact in declaring this day a "National Day of Service," rather than a memorial day as with Pearl Harbor. And the profiteers who wish to now see a Muslim mosque built in close proximity over the objections of most of the American people, promoting such an act as a demonstration of "tolerance," rather than the real agenda - a multi-million dollar redevelopment project for the city and state coffers of New York.
There is much in this puzzle still missing as those that viewed that attack for over seven full days replayed and replayed can attest.
And attempts to marginalize the Americans who still are not satisfied with the official explanations will not change that, nor cloaking 9-11 in patriotism and the flag, or minimizing the impact this massive attack and its scars have left on this nation and a new generation of Americans who didn't live through Pearl Harbor.
Interesting this mosque and its ramifications has reared its head just a short year before the 10th anniversary, and push toward this "National Day of Service" spin focusing on those that responded (although their acts of bravery are not to be discounted by any means), rather than the victims and tragedy itself? I wonder what incentives the City of New York, since it has the support of its Mayor, is extending for this massive, expansive project in order to feed the "jobs and the economy" on the memories of that day, and of the 9-11 victims?
I'm no "conspiracy" nut or theorist, but I still wonder how the mainstream media was able to get full camera crews to the site of the Trade Center within 20 minutes of the first crash since the financial district of New York is quite a distance away from where most of those media centers are located, and this was rush hour at that....even the date selected, an emergency code used throughout the U.S. and not the Middle East, bears scrutiny. If this was a religious attack as has been claimed of jihadists, just why wasn't a Muslim holy day selected, which would certainly make more sense if extremism within the Muslim faith was the origins of this heinous attack on our civilian population primarily and nation's economy and military headquarters.
And I have seen enough controlled demolitions during my years in Phoenix, Arizona when tearing down old buildings in order to redevelop and put in new was an ongoing annual process, since Phoenix and its metro area has exploded in the last two decades, to its detriment also, as a former longer term "almost native" Arizonan. I've been to New York, and it's population and traffic are well-known. Although after the events which occurred, such a decision could be understandable given the extent of the damage and "collateral" damage which also was an eminent threat, but this entire scenario cannot be dismissed by the mere "scientific" theories and explanations which were then subsequently published in an auto mechanics magazine.
To even use such a source by many in our leadershp and print and television media goes to show the utter contempt it does appear that some of those that survived have for their fellow countrymen and victims, in one manner or another all Americans have been progressively impacted, since that horrendous day.
And the ramifications and impact on the American people post 9-11 has been far greater in having their continued rights violated and victimized nine years later, while instead our leadership in the name of "commerce" above true national security, continues to open our doors and shores to all comers.
One major news magazine has an article devoted to how America "over-reacted" to 9-11, and the threat of al-Qaeda (although originally it was the Taliban and Osama bin Laden which was the focus of those first weeks and months post 9-11, not al Qaeda at all). Another article in the same magazine written by a former President's daughter lambasts how the liberals are disappointed with the reaction of Mr. Obama to the Deepwater Horizon disaster and the weeks and months this Administration stood by while tens of thousands of barrels of oil were spewing into the Gulf, without a mention of the continuing war also whose candidate had pledged to end the war, one of their major concerns at election time.
To this American, it has been nine long years of betrayal and using 9-11 also for their agendas by both political parties which has resulted in the increased discontent of the American people with their leadership.
I would not state that the reactions of the general citizenry were "over-reactions," but that the actions of the Bush/Obama Administration have been "under-reactions."
Our borders, for the most part, and ports of entry are even less secure than they were pre-9-11. Our infrastructure and many of our vital industries and public utility companies are traded on the global exchange, and for all intents and purposes even our nuclear reactors could be "owned" through stock purchases, by foreigners.
There has also been two other attempts under even stranger circumstances, originating from Great Britain since that time used to justify then increasing security measures domestically, although the Bush Administration during his last 90 days in office expanded the Visa waiver program for foreign citizens wishing entry, requiring simply 48 hour security checks, to citizens from over 45 nations.
Our southern and northern borders still remain relatively unsecured, and there are once again even since 2006 attempts being made to "legalize" individuals who are in this country who had absolutely no security checks at all as having entered illegally, and also who have overstayed their work, student or visitor visas.
While instead, Americans are being asked to submit themselves to full body scanners, and other invasive security measures at domestic airports.
In this same magazine, an article also appeared that harkened back to how "united" the American people were post 9-11, pulling together for a "common good," due to all the donations and volunteers that did what they could in the aftermath of the tragedy. As a nation, however, I would not say that this country was "united" except for the fact that it was united in its outrage that such an event, in this modern day and era and with all the monies spent for national defense in technology during the Reagan era, especially, could occur.
We were united in our wish to have the perpetrators of this heinous act brought to justice, which has alluded this nation still even nine long years later.
We wanted our leaders to abide by our Constitution, and close our borders and our country to "foreigners" until those individuals responsible for the act were brought to justice, and order any and all here illegally out until such time.
We wanted our president not to direct us to "go shop," or this president to expand the war without having any real hard intelligence indicating that the perpetrators were within our grasp, and not send any more of our young men and women to die on foreign sand to add to the losses.
We simply wanted our leadership to abide by their oaths of office, and their duties to Americans and protect this nation and its borders and legal and lawful citizenry, rather than their commercial interests and those domestic and foreign privateers.
Attempts are now also being made in order to "whitewash" 9-11 and its impact in declaring this day a "National Day of Service," rather than a memorial day as with Pearl Harbor. And the profiteers who wish to now see a Muslim mosque built in close proximity over the objections of most of the American people, promoting such an act as a demonstration of "tolerance," rather than the real agenda - a multi-million dollar redevelopment project for the city and state coffers of New York.
There is much in this puzzle still missing as those that viewed that attack for over seven full days replayed and replayed can attest.
And attempts to marginalize the Americans who still are not satisfied with the official explanations will not change that, nor cloaking 9-11 in patriotism and the flag, or minimizing the impact this massive attack and its scars have left on this nation and a new generation of Americans who didn't live through Pearl Harbor.
Interesting this mosque and its ramifications has reared its head just a short year before the 10th anniversary, and push toward this "National Day of Service" spin focusing on those that responded (although their acts of bravery are not to be discounted by any means), rather than the victims and tragedy itself? I wonder what incentives the City of New York, since it has the support of its Mayor, is extending for this massive, expansive project in order to feed the "jobs and the economy" on the memories of that day, and of the 9-11 victims?
I'm no "conspiracy" nut or theorist, but I still wonder how the mainstream media was able to get full camera crews to the site of the Trade Center within 20 minutes of the first crash since the financial district of New York is quite a distance away from where most of those media centers are located, and this was rush hour at that....even the date selected, an emergency code used throughout the U.S. and not the Middle East, bears scrutiny. If this was a religious attack as has been claimed of jihadists, just why wasn't a Muslim holy day selected, which would certainly make more sense if extremism within the Muslim faith was the origins of this heinous attack on our civilian population primarily and nation's economy and military headquarters.
And I have seen enough controlled demolitions during my years in Phoenix, Arizona when tearing down old buildings in order to redevelop and put in new was an ongoing annual process, since Phoenix and its metro area has exploded in the last two decades, to its detriment also, as a former longer term "almost native" Arizonan. I've been to New York, and it's population and traffic are well-known. Although after the events which occurred, such a decision could be understandable given the extent of the damage and "collateral" damage which also was an eminent threat, but this entire scenario cannot be dismissed by the mere "scientific" theories and explanations which were then subsequently published in an auto mechanics magazine.
To even use such a source by many in our leadershp and print and television media goes to show the utter contempt it does appear that some of those that survived have for their fellow countrymen and victims, in one manner or another all Americans have been progressively impacted, since that horrendous day.
And the ramifications and impact on the American people post 9-11 has been far greater in having their continued rights violated and victimized nine years later, while instead our leadership in the name of "commerce" above true national security, continues to open our doors and shores to all comers.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Obama Defends Ground Zero Mosque on Religious Grounds?
It was reported in the mainstream media that Barack Obama has come out of the closet with respect to the ongoing controversy over the building of a Muslim mosque near the Ground Zero site of the 9-11 attacks on this nation nine years ago.
While we are still in an expanded war under Mr. Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq purported still seeking those directly responsible for those planned attacks, with no end really in sight after pledging to end this war as "responsibly" and quickly as possible.
It does appear that if any true movement in this direction will occur, it will occur next year during the uptick for the presidential run for the roses once again either toward the end of this year or beginning of 2011.
What has been lost in this debate is the fact that we ARE still in this war, and in using the "freedom of religion" provisions of our Constitution, it appears that Mr. Obama is tone deaf to the objections of the general citizenry who just might feel that such an enterprise so near the site of the death of over 2,000 American civilians whose religious beliefs might also be violated by such a venture are being ignored for what can only be characterized as a "political" move not a "religious" one.
This is a prime piece of real estate, and in the financial district in New York, so just why would this site be chosen by those in the Muslim community to begin with rather than a site nearer to their flock in a residential or less commercial area?
To those who lost relatives or close family members with religious beliefs, that site has created controversy ever since the debris from Ground Zero was eventually cleared away. Most would like a memorial to the victims constructed there permanently, and it would not appear that any Muslims were killed in that disaster other than the perpetrators, although still rather unclear to the general public just who was ultimately involved, and just who was truly behind that vicious attack on primarily the civilian population, after all.
The bulk of those lost lives were those working within the financial industry, and not government or public sector employees.
Mr. Obama's stance is quite incredible given the fact that this site does have religious meaning to many across the nation and the actual "zoning" that was in effect for this particular site as a commercial district, without asking the fundamental question.
Of all the sites in New York that might be available for such a venture, in areas in which there are far more Muslims residing in residential communities rather than the business district, just what is the ultimate aim here?
Creating a house of worship for the Muslim community, or making a "political" statement?
And just who in the New York state government is also so totally wacked to entertain such an idea while this war is continuing?
To me and most other Americans, a Muslim mosque would be blasphemy on all those lives lost at the hands of Middle Easterners, Muslim or not, since it is quite possible that unnaturalized Middle Easterner's without any fealty or loyalty to this country just might be worshipping there.
Mayor Bloomberg, Mr. Obama, just what ARE you thinking?
A memorial, or another commercial building in a commercial area is what is called for here.
No Christian, Jewish or Muslim church if freedom of religion is the basic precept behind our First Amendment, since this was an attack that involved the loss of life of believers and non-believers alike, and also was directed at our economy most of all.
No Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue were the targets, so it wasn't religion based fundamentally as has continued to be portrayed by the mainstream media.
It was the financial industry and our economy and apparently those working within the global banking industries who were targeted, and our military secondarily.
Maybe reviewing just how and why those particular buildings were targeted for those attacks is what is called for here and what the ultimate agenda actually was an just who would benefit from such an attack since it does appear even with the 9-11 report much has been kept from the general public surrounding what led to those attacks, and it is not simply "conspiracy theorists" that are speaking up in light of this ongoing war - and the detrimental effects of merging our economies with the rest of the world that has placed the lives of the general citizenry and civilians in peril PROGRESSIVELY, while giving away through "free trade" agreements our own oil reserves to the British also PROGRESSIVELY.
And this support in this name of "freedom of religion" is not PROGRESSIVE, nor is it an act that would facilitate greater healing of the wounds of this nation post 9-11.
This is rather "in your face," not a healing gesture at all - nor in any manner with any basis in "freedom of religion" in a country that already has many, many Mosques built in far more suitable residential communities in New York and elsewhere.
Not in a lower Manhattan financial and business district, which makes the true intent of such a proposal abundantly clear.
Politicos and their financial "global" backers love war, whether civil, commercial or foreign. It makes no difference ultimately.
Maybe what is truly called for here is a monument and memorial to Wall Street, the true profiteers post 9-11 that are still cleaning up post 9-11 over the bodies of those innocent victims who it appears clear now nine long years after 9-11 were sacrificed ultimately for the "greater global good," of the "global economy" since our presence in that region and focus has fundamentally changed since that tragic day those many years ago.
While the foreign bankers more so than even the domestic ones continue to profit PROGRESSIVELY.
Correction: Of the over 3,000 lives lost in the 9-11 attacks not counting those which have been publicly announced as the perpetrators and members of the Taliban (since bin Laden as the "mastermind" was portrayed as a Taliban leader, not al Qaida), according to published but unconfirmed sources, approximately 60 people were identified as followers of the Muslim faith which were killed - most of which were either on the planes, or working as police cadets or in the hospitality fields, so less than 2% of the total victims.
http://islam.about.com/blvictims.htm
While we are still in an expanded war under Mr. Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq purported still seeking those directly responsible for those planned attacks, with no end really in sight after pledging to end this war as "responsibly" and quickly as possible.
It does appear that if any true movement in this direction will occur, it will occur next year during the uptick for the presidential run for the roses once again either toward the end of this year or beginning of 2011.
What has been lost in this debate is the fact that we ARE still in this war, and in using the "freedom of religion" provisions of our Constitution, it appears that Mr. Obama is tone deaf to the objections of the general citizenry who just might feel that such an enterprise so near the site of the death of over 2,000 American civilians whose religious beliefs might also be violated by such a venture are being ignored for what can only be characterized as a "political" move not a "religious" one.
This is a prime piece of real estate, and in the financial district in New York, so just why would this site be chosen by those in the Muslim community to begin with rather than a site nearer to their flock in a residential or less commercial area?
To those who lost relatives or close family members with religious beliefs, that site has created controversy ever since the debris from Ground Zero was eventually cleared away. Most would like a memorial to the victims constructed there permanently, and it would not appear that any Muslims were killed in that disaster other than the perpetrators, although still rather unclear to the general public just who was ultimately involved, and just who was truly behind that vicious attack on primarily the civilian population, after all.
The bulk of those lost lives were those working within the financial industry, and not government or public sector employees.
Mr. Obama's stance is quite incredible given the fact that this site does have religious meaning to many across the nation and the actual "zoning" that was in effect for this particular site as a commercial district, without asking the fundamental question.
Of all the sites in New York that might be available for such a venture, in areas in which there are far more Muslims residing in residential communities rather than the business district, just what is the ultimate aim here?
Creating a house of worship for the Muslim community, or making a "political" statement?
And just who in the New York state government is also so totally wacked to entertain such an idea while this war is continuing?
To me and most other Americans, a Muslim mosque would be blasphemy on all those lives lost at the hands of Middle Easterners, Muslim or not, since it is quite possible that unnaturalized Middle Easterner's without any fealty or loyalty to this country just might be worshipping there.
Mayor Bloomberg, Mr. Obama, just what ARE you thinking?
A memorial, or another commercial building in a commercial area is what is called for here.
No Christian, Jewish or Muslim church if freedom of religion is the basic precept behind our First Amendment, since this was an attack that involved the loss of life of believers and non-believers alike, and also was directed at our economy most of all.
No Christian Church or Jewish Synagogue were the targets, so it wasn't religion based fundamentally as has continued to be portrayed by the mainstream media.
It was the financial industry and our economy and apparently those working within the global banking industries who were targeted, and our military secondarily.
Maybe reviewing just how and why those particular buildings were targeted for those attacks is what is called for here and what the ultimate agenda actually was an just who would benefit from such an attack since it does appear even with the 9-11 report much has been kept from the general public surrounding what led to those attacks, and it is not simply "conspiracy theorists" that are speaking up in light of this ongoing war - and the detrimental effects of merging our economies with the rest of the world that has placed the lives of the general citizenry and civilians in peril PROGRESSIVELY, while giving away through "free trade" agreements our own oil reserves to the British also PROGRESSIVELY.
And this support in this name of "freedom of religion" is not PROGRESSIVE, nor is it an act that would facilitate greater healing of the wounds of this nation post 9-11.
This is rather "in your face," not a healing gesture at all - nor in any manner with any basis in "freedom of religion" in a country that already has many, many Mosques built in far more suitable residential communities in New York and elsewhere.
Not in a lower Manhattan financial and business district, which makes the true intent of such a proposal abundantly clear.
Politicos and their financial "global" backers love war, whether civil, commercial or foreign. It makes no difference ultimately.
Maybe what is truly called for here is a monument and memorial to Wall Street, the true profiteers post 9-11 that are still cleaning up post 9-11 over the bodies of those innocent victims who it appears clear now nine long years after 9-11 were sacrificed ultimately for the "greater global good," of the "global economy" since our presence in that region and focus has fundamentally changed since that tragic day those many years ago.
While the foreign bankers more so than even the domestic ones continue to profit PROGRESSIVELY.
Correction: Of the over 3,000 lives lost in the 9-11 attacks not counting those which have been publicly announced as the perpetrators and members of the Taliban (since bin Laden as the "mastermind" was portrayed as a Taliban leader, not al Qaida), according to published but unconfirmed sources, approximately 60 people were identified as followers of the Muslim faith which were killed - most of which were either on the planes, or working as police cadets or in the hospitality fields, so less than 2% of the total victims.
http://islam.about.com/blvictims.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
