Monday, August 16, 2010

The LuLac Edition #1268, Aug. 16th, 2010



Lou Barletta, mayor of Hazleton and candidate for Congress in the 11th District, issued the following statement regarding the proposal to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City: “I strongly disagree with President Obama’s remarks about the construction of a mosque a few blocks away from Ground Zero. The area around the site of the former World Trade Center is hallowed ground, and we need to treat it as such. Ground Zero should forever stand as a perpetual reminder of that dark day in American history, and President Obama must recognize the strong feelings that many of us have about Sept. 11, 2001. The president must honor the wishes of the families of the victims, who have overwhelmingly opposed the construction of this mosque. “Most American Muslims are peaceful people, but Islam’s most radical followers have a long history of placing mosques at the sites of their greatest victories. They did so in Israel, where they built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and in Spain, where they built the Great Mosque of Cordoba. To place a mosque this close to Ground Zero seems to follow that disturbing logic. There are plenty of other appropriate sites for this mosque across the island of Manhattan. The selection of this site – just two blocks from Ground Zero – is incredibly insensitive, almost to the point of provocation. “President Obama needs to strongly withdraw his support for its construction. If nothing else, common sense would dictate that we should not allow this. I hope that the backers of this mosque recognize the uproar and withdraw their plans. If they do not, I hope that New York City officials reverse course and halt this project.”


On Tuesday, August 17, Congressman Paul E. Kanjorski (PA-11), the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises, will appear on CNBC’s Squawk Box to discuss the status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the need to reform the country’s housing finance system. He will also preview the Administration’s forum that will be held on Tuesday morning on the future of housing finance. Chairman Kanjorski has held multiple hearings in the 110th and 111th Congresses on housing finance reform, and recently announced that he will hold more in September.
DETAILS: Tuesday, August 17 at 8:10 a.m.


At 9:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go Lou, Go!

At 10:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again Lou Barletta has demonstrated that he has no understanding of the U.S. Constitution. The President, members of Congress, many appointed government officials and members of the armed forces all take an oath which in one way or another states, support and defense of the Constitution. The first amendment protects both religion and speech. It is the very first amendment to the constitution. So important to our founders that it was placed in the number one spot of the Bill of Rights, you know the part of the Constitution that exists to protect individuals. You would think a person running for Congress would read the document and have some understanding of the oath of office he would be taking if he were to win.
However, Barletta is not above exploiting the fears or lack of knowledge of the voters, to further his own political career. He has made an art form of self-aggrandizement via the distortion of facts and the vilification of others, so it is no surprise that he is taking this slant, on an issue that Congress will have no say, nor does the mayor of Hazelton for that matter, to raise his profile.
I have listened to the radio and have shook my head in disbelief at many of the arguments opposing the site of this mosque. You could hear the ignorance in the callers:
“The majority of Americans 60-70% oppose this, so it shouldn’t happen because we are a democracy.”
First off, the United States is not a democracy. It is a constitutional democratic republic. The people do not make the laws, the people choose representatives to make the law.
Secondly, the individual rights contained within the Bill of Rights, canNOT be voted away by the majority of citizens if they wish to oppress a minority…

At 10:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thirdly, just because a majority support or oppose something does not make it correct. If there are 50 people stranded on an island, 40 men and 10 women, and they take a vote and 40 voters say the women must have sex with all the men, regardless of their free will, does that mean they must? Of course not.
“Building this mosque close to ground zero is like poking ‘us’ in the eye.”
The first amendment allows one to do just that. A free society allows those that disagree with others to have rights, to have the same freedoms. Often times these disagreement are inflammatory and insulting to some.
“The families of the 3,000 Americans who died should have a say in this.”
Okay, well then the families of those who were killed by drunk drivers should have WILK cancel the Friday morning Beer Swilling. How insensitive is it for Webster, Joe and Nancy to be chugging beer at 8:30am when people who lost ones to drunk drivers are driving to work. Ridiculous? Yes. However, there have been more people killed on U.S. highways by drunk drivers then those on 9/11. Sad but true
“People will be offended.”
Yes they will. People get offended that the Catholic Church for decades covered up the molestation of young boys. Should Sue Henry no longer be able discuss her Catholicism on the air? Should you, Mr. Yonki, no longer be able to write your words of support of the faith?
On this issue the terrorist, whether or not by design, will win if it built. That may be true, however the will win either way. If, as senor Barletta claims the building of the masque is a victory marker; they win. If, somehow the mosque is not built because of government intervention; the terrorist win by forcing the U.S. to violate our own Constitution.
Lastly and perhaps most importantly is that this is pure and simply a Constitutional issue. One that no politician can win. If you support the Constitutional argument, you are a supporter of those who attacked us. If you want to ban it you are anti-constitutional.
Should we keep an eye on activities that go on around this mosque. Within reason we should. Other mosques have been used as cover for terrorist cels so it is not unreasonable, in a time of war, to monitor potential threats.
This is an emotional issue and no one will be swayed by any arguments. That is why we have laws and a constitution to guide us.
I am not fond of this mosque being built near ground zero, however, I am much more concerned about the erosion of our Constitution. We gave up enough of our freedoms after 9/11 with the passage of the patriot act. Every time we are willing to usurp another’s constitutional right we lose to the terrorists. Every time we give up a freedom for security we lose to the terrorists.
What was that Ben Franklin said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safe.”
Each time we compromise ourselves in response to terrorist attacks, we lose a little more.

Your Friend and Political Sparing Partner

At 9:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Louie, Louie!

At 5:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Each time we compromise ourselves in response to terrorist attacks, we lose a little more."

Which is why we must kill the r@tb@$t@rd$ when we get them in our scope.


Post a Comment

<< Home