Red Barry's Mosque Trap

Maybe it's me, but if you're the titular leader of a party that's already headed for the mother of all electoral beatings in just two and a half months, the last thing you would want to do is wade into a local culturally sensitive issue on which a supermajority of the public feels one way and nationalize that issue by taking the opposite side.  Kind of like when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law three months before his 1996 re-election; everybody knew he didn't believe in a word of the bill he was signing, but he didn't need to hand the GOP a godsend gold-plated red meat issue for that campaign's home stretch.

Sick Willie may not have been a True Believer, but he did know how to win elections.

Well, his OWN elections, anyway.  On the other hand, you can also say that Red Barry's regard for the electoral fortunes of his fellow Dems is a match for Mr. Bill's.

Which is to say, exceedingly secondary:

ecently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities – particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack – from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda’s cause is not Islam – it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders – these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion – and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

That is who we are fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms – it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race or religion; wealth or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us – a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.

Eeyore shrugs and says, "Bush would have done the same thing."  Same nonsensical dhimmist bootlicking about Islamic fundamentalism being a "gross distortion" of a "peaceful" religion.  Same "outreach" bloviating.  Same attending a Ramadan dinner in the first place.

And he's right.  Bush would probably have gone to this dinner and given the same speech, maybe even verbatim.  But he would have done so as the avenger of 9/11, the liberator of Afghanistan, and the conqueror of Iraq.  The man who, however temporarily, put the fear of Allah into the Iranian mullahs, and terrroized Muammar Khaddafy so thoroughly that he surrendered Libya's nascent nuclear weapons program without so much as an ultimatum.

Barack Hussein Obama did so as a hard-left Ameriphobe, a quisling who hates everything America has traditionally stood for and sees his own country as a villain that needs to be diminished, and sees its enemies as victims of that villainy entitled to obsequious genuflection and reparations and appeasement in perpetuity.

In short, politically speaking, President Bush had the moral AND power standing (as the "strong horse" in Muslim terms) to credibly dispense such graciousness, however insipid it was.  The One is simply a putz, a useful idiot whom our enemies will use as much and as long as they like until he's either hounded out of power at home, or they finally get everything out of him that they need to realize their endgame.

This is why King Hussein should have stayed the heck out of the Ground Zero Mosque tempest.  And, paradoxically, it's also why, in his own mind, he decided he simply HAD to jump in with both feet.

Dan Riehl sums up the political fallout:

He thinks he is setting an example, providing us a teachable moment, while at the same time, doing everything he can to convey to Muslims that he is tolerant of them. I agree with Melissa Clouthier and also agree with Sissy Willis, America is mostly tolerant of Muslims and Islam, but what they want, is some tolerance and respect in return.

Obama and the Democrats don't see it that way. Their world view dictates that Muslims must be seen as an aggrieved party by the West and need to be accommodated whenever possible to improve any relationship. Their disconnect with the American people and victim mentality here is a disaster coming at the end of non-recovery summer....

The New York Post elaborates:

One thing is certain: the mosque will now be a hot issue in the midterm elections and a litmus test for candidates across the country. It would serve Obama right if he loses his House and Senate majorities over his support.

There was a better way. It came from Governor Paterson, whose offer to help the mosque developers find another location held the potential for a harmonious settlement.

But without even a serious conversation, they rejected the offer, reinforcing suspicion that provocation to the memory of 9/11 is part of the developers' plan.

It is self-evident that their professed aim, to build bridges across religions, can better be carried out in a spot not in the shadow of the murderous attacks by Islamic fanatics. Moving the mosque would help prove their motives are trustworthy and win a level of public support they won't get otherwise.

Paterson's offer called their bluff. While much about the project remains a mystery, we now know the developers are not the healers they say they are.  Having Obama in their corner doesn't change that. It only raises the stakes for him and America.

Debra Burlingame, who has moral authority on this subject like Cap'n Sensitivity has sheer, high-octane, industrial strength hubris, elaborates further, and Sarah Palin elaborates even more beyond that.

Oh, and guess what: Obama Insurance Group is now shoehorning its entire business operation through a sharia filter.

I dunno, gentles, I just dunno.  We know he's on the level with this Islamiphilia.  Only other motivation I can think of is that it's one more gambit to try and fire up the disgruntled Donk crazoid base, since our side is already ready to burst.

Just think about that for a minute.  Barack Obama is so desperate to motivate his party's core supporters to go the polls in November that he is making a barely, um, "veiled" appeal to functional solidarity with our worst enemies.

"Not so funny anymore," indeed.

For some of us, it never was.