Krauthammer vs. Totenberg: Why Does NPR have to live on 'Tit of the State?'

H/T TheBlaze 

Sacrilege at Ground Zero; Does One Really Have the Right to Build Anywhere?

I am in total agreement with Charles Krauthemmer. He is spot on! And, since Krauthammer is so eloquent and nails it, IMO, I am posting his wise words on the Ground Zero Mosque below:

By Charles Krauthamer:
A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).


When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation." Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show "special sensitivity" to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

But then, why not? By the mayor's own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy? CONTINUED

Do the people who want to have a mosque built just a stone's throw away from hallowed ground really have a "right" to build this mosque?  If the proposed building of a particular building on a site can be refused due to zoning laws and aesthetics why couldn't the sensitivity of  the victims families of those murdered on 9/11 hold more clout and overrule the "right" for this mosque to be built? Wouldn't you think that the sensitivity of the 9/11 victims families would be considered far more important to take into account than zoning laws or aesthetics when approving the building of a particular building? I would think so, and in spades.

Krauthammer: Obama Administration's Treatment of Israel "Would Mean Strangling the Jewish Areas in Jerusalem"

There seems to be a bias within the Obama administration and within the liberal community against the continued building of Israeli settlements. One sovereign does not have the right to make those kinds of demands of another sovereign nation. But, regardless, there is no International mandate saying Israel has no right to build settlements. There was in fact no agreement that Israel would stop building settlements altogether.  Is this evidence that liberals are in fact promoting any agenda that opposes Judeo-Christian principles?  Or at least reform Israel into a Muslim State instead of a Jewish State?  Israeli settlements are indeed more than legitimate as you will see here.

"The Palestinian call to remove all Jewish presence from the disputed territories is not only discriminatory and morally reprehensible; it has no basis either in law or in the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.


The various agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians since 1993 contain no prohibitions on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, they specifically provide that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of the peace talks. The parties expressly agreed that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements or Israelis, pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.

It has been charged that the provision contained in the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement prohibiting unilateral steps that alter the status of the West Bank implies a ban on settlement activity. This position is disingenuous. The prohibition on unilateral measures was designed to ensure that neither side take steps that would change the legal status of this territory (such as by annexation or a unilateral declaration of statehood), pending the outcome of permanent status talks. The building of homes has no effect on the final permanent status of the area as a whole. Were this prohibition to be applied to building, it would lead to the unreasonable interpretation that neither side is permitted to build houses to accommodate the needs of their respective communities." CONTINUED HERE

Here is Charles Krauthammer pointing out the absurdity of the Obama administration's position on Israeli settlements:



Here are some facts showing how Palestinian leadership has violated International agreements:

Krauthammer: Obama is "On Wrong Side of Logic and Reason" On Miranda Rights For Terrorists-- They are NOT Merely Civilians Living in U.S.

Krauthammer applies common sense, logic, and the knowledge to know the best way to keep this country safe.  He comes up with the right answer on whether or not terrorists are obligated or required to be given miranda rights.  This administration has clearly been appeasing the far leftsists living in Hollywood. And, instead of taking their oaths of office seriously, caring about the safety of all Americans, this administration has decided to grant extra rights to terrorists, and made it ppolicy to negotiate with terrorists instead of using the common sense required to keep this country safe from terrorists. This administration has displayed callousness and illogical policies when it comes to keeping this country safe.

 

H/T goes to Hot Air Pundit

Charles Krauthammer Speaks on The Age of Obama & The Decline of Obama

In this video, Charles Krauthammer speaks is in front of a crowd at The Heritage Foundation, and delivers a most fascinating and brilliant speech. This speech is on The Age of Obama, and the decline of Obama. I don't want to give away too much of what's in the video but I agree with the way Krauthammer characterizes Obama's pacifism, actually all pacifism, as being a childish notion. The fact that Obama thinks that Iran is a diversion is absurd. Iran is a threat that we must take seriously, instead of tossing it aside like a hot potato and forgetting about Iran's nuclear threat. That hot potato may come back to blow up in our faces (literally- BOOM!!!) if the Obama administration ignores this grave threat to our country. The Republicans need to bring up the issue of Iran often, so Obama cannot ignore this threat that Iran poses to the citizens of this great country. This speech itself is about 35 minutes long and starts (guessing here) about 5 minutes in from where the video begins. Enjoy!!! Grab a coffee or soda, and a snack and relax.

Warning: Get ready for a lot of cleavage.

Charles Krauthammer Speech




If you have trouble watching the video on my blog with it stopping constantly, you can watch it here.

Obama is Weak on Terror

In the article, Krauthammer is spot on. From the very beginning, the Obama administration has been both callous and naive in their approach to the War on Terror. The Obama administration's use of euphemisms with regards to the War on Terror shows a complete disconnect from the reality of the dangers that terrorism poses to America and Americans. Starting from Obama's decision to close Gitmo, his decision to try KSM in a civilian courtroom in New York City, and the administrations's decision to treat terrorists and enemy combatants as mere common criminals shows that this administration doesn't understand what it takes to fight a war or what it means for America to be at War. This administration's actions have made it crystal clear that they have not a clue as to how to deal with the enemy in wartime and that they have gone back to a pre-9/11 mentality. This administration is giving the terrorists all the advantages, the upper hand, while putting constraints on our CIA, U.S. soldiers, have weakened our security increasing the the threat to American lives just to be "nice" and be "fair" to terrorists who will avail themselves of the use of any tactic to kill innocent lives all in the name of Allah. The Obama administration is living in the normative, a non-existent world, instead of what it is in the present - REALITY - which is the grave threat that terrorists pose to America.


Here is Krauthammer's article:

Janet Napolitano — former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security — will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked."
The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.
Heck of a job, Brownie.
The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9-11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantánamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York — a trifecta of political correctness and image management.
And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over — that is, if it ever existed. Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaida has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare.
And produces linguistic — and logical — oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Ford Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" — code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology.
Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.
More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."

Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant — an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians — and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaida in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved.

This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaida training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator — no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the act of mass murder, he's instantly protected.

The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Dec. 29, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab as "extremist."

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is a jihadist. And unlike guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and openly pledge war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses to name the enemy, turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

H/T to Orlando Sentinel