Pages: 1 2
Yesterday, Politico ran a story entitled “GOP takes harsher stance toward Islam” by Ben Smith and Maggie Haberman about the Republican Party’s alleged slide toward “Islamophobia,” complete with a tut-tutting quote about (what else?) tea parties and bigotry from Honest Ibe Hooper of Hamas-linked CAIR. Smith and Haberman do not, of course, see fit to mention that Hooper is the front man for a group that is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas jihad terror funding case, or that several of its officials have been convicted of jihad terror activities, and that thus Hooper himself merits the title of “bigot” — and much worse titles — far more than do those who oppose him and his ilk in the name of Constitutional freedoms.
But that’s not why I’m writing this. Nor am I writing it because the Republican Party is allegedly growing more realistic about the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism. I’m glad to see some of its exponents talking sense about the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero, but that doesn’t mean that they have any more of a realistic or informed appraisal of the roots of jihad terrorism, stealth jihad, and the like than they always did. The party appears to be pretty much as clueless as it has always been, but time will tell.
No, I am writing this because of an offhand remark that Smith and Haberman make: “…what is now nationally known as the ‘Ground Zero mosque’ – it is actually a few blocks north of the site…”
This has become a common weapon in the arsenal of mosque proponents. They will say that the mosque needs to be at 9/11 to demonstrate American religious liberty and as a gesture of healing to reverse the damage done on 9/11, as Daisy Khan has said. Then they will contradict themselves by saying that the mosque won’t be at Ground Zero anyway, but a few blocks away, and so it doesn’t really have anything to do with 9/11.
Pages: 1 2