WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS.
I was not going to publish this; but it was given to me by a friend. It is so apropos to the fiery discussion of the Muslim Community Center that is already going up in flames around New York City and around the nation. Therefore, I had to.
Dated:
Monday, August 23, 2010.
Subject: SARCASM: We should show more respect to Muslims, especially those in NYC. __________________________________________________
We really shouldn't say "World Trade Center Mosque"---that's incorrect, insensitive and it ignores history (i.e.,the Big Picture).
The mosque's official name will be withheld from the media and the American public until the building nears completion --- no doubt, because its official name will be:
"The Magnificent 19 Martyrdom Monument"
(Informally known to insiders as: "Let's Spit in the Face of the Great Satan and Laugh.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject # 2 -- When the 15-story mosque is built there will be a traditional Sunni balcony where the Muzzein(sp?) will call the faithful to prayer five (5) times a day.
At that height, using a modern electronic loudspeaker, the call to prayer will be loud enough to be clearly heard at Ground Zero. Every day. Five times a day. Forever. (And, yes, they will laugh & laugh.)
That will be aurally spitting on the grave of the nearly 3,000 people murdered to the glory of Mohammed and Allah by the Magnificent 19.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom -- I will never forget or forgive the fact that well over 200 of those people had just gotten to work and were in their offices innocently drinking coffee and reading email .....THEN, 20 seconds later, they had to choose between burning to death or jumping 900 feet to their deaths.
P.S. I quoted the note verbatim.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
BECK OR SHARPTON.
Washington DC saw the two faces of America last Saturday, August 28th, 2010, when two separate and distinct marches took place in the capital. It was Glenn Beck's "Restore America" one, and the other, Rev. Al Sharpton's, celebrating the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, almost 48 years ago.
Although, Beck was claiming that his motive was not one to inject racism into the occasion; and also that there was nothing to indicate that his gathering had any political fervor to it. There were no signs or placards for or against any one person or group. Yet, the insinuation to get Americans to realize that the country was going the wrong way was there.
He did not gather all those people there, just to say that they should turn to God; and to the traditional virtues and values upon which the country was founded. He knew perfectly well that his rally would be 99% in favor of his rantings on his 5 o'clock weekdays FOX NEWS program. That the Obama administration has socialist tendencies, and if it (administration) was allowed to continue, it would ruin the nation. Therefore, it must be confronted in the coming November 2010 elections, culminating in the defeat of Democrats running for re-election. That would predictably be leading to the ultimate ouster of Obama himself as President of the United States in 2012.
Perhaps, he was not aware of the hidden emotions of the crowd, but people were angry and frustrated; and that all the modalities for them to effect future political change were present.
About the same time, Rev. Al Sharpton was holding a rally and a march that illustrated a completely turn around, with almost all the people there being followers of Dr. King or shared his dream. His mantra was that the dream must be sustained until its "arrival" was accomplished. Racism was still pervasive in society, demonstrating the two faces of America, politically, of course.
Everything there in Washington was about race; and not even Mr. Beck or Rev. Al Sharpton could deny that fact; yet the real good thing about both rallies was that they were practically peaceful; and no bad report of any kind was issued by the Washington Metropolitan Police about ANY of them.
Although, Beck was claiming that his motive was not one to inject racism into the occasion; and also that there was nothing to indicate that his gathering had any political fervor to it. There were no signs or placards for or against any one person or group. Yet, the insinuation to get Americans to realize that the country was going the wrong way was there.
He did not gather all those people there, just to say that they should turn to God; and to the traditional virtues and values upon which the country was founded. He knew perfectly well that his rally would be 99% in favor of his rantings on his 5 o'clock weekdays FOX NEWS program. That the Obama administration has socialist tendencies, and if it (administration) was allowed to continue, it would ruin the nation. Therefore, it must be confronted in the coming November 2010 elections, culminating in the defeat of Democrats running for re-election. That would predictably be leading to the ultimate ouster of Obama himself as President of the United States in 2012.
Perhaps, he was not aware of the hidden emotions of the crowd, but people were angry and frustrated; and that all the modalities for them to effect future political change were present.
About the same time, Rev. Al Sharpton was holding a rally and a march that illustrated a completely turn around, with almost all the people there being followers of Dr. King or shared his dream. His mantra was that the dream must be sustained until its "arrival" was accomplished. Racism was still pervasive in society, demonstrating the two faces of America, politically, of course.
Everything there in Washington was about race; and not even Mr. Beck or Rev. Al Sharpton could deny that fact; yet the real good thing about both rallies was that they were practically peaceful; and no bad report of any kind was issued by the Washington Metropolitan Police about ANY of them.
Friday, August 27, 2010
VENUE WASHINGTON.
VENUE WASHINGTON
Somehow, once in a while, one person pits himself against the whole humanity. Some do so deliberately, others, by their own attitudes, place themselves in that type role without even knowing it.
It has happened several times, with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Idi Amin, etc., on grand scales; and on smaller but effective magnitude, some have managed to instigate others to bring rancor, divisiveness and enmity among groups of people; or even attempt to rally a nation, from their perch, whether it was on the radio or from a TV network station.
They do so repeatedly by way of disseminating adverse information to destroy character and reputation. Defaming political personalities through the media has been around for so long; yet, they know that the public tend to become immune to it, and so it ought to continue.
For example, if using history to cajole people into thinking that things were so bad in their day; and conjuring up names like Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Hamilton, and comparing them with our present day Obama, who was of a different race; the name callings, the background checks, the associations and/or connections with social-political misfits; and added to all that, the innate phylosophical views expressed in speeches by him; was not racist inclined, then nobody knew what that was. The notion of making the blood of some people boil could not be ruled out.
Could it then be said that racism has noticeably reared its ugly head in today's politics? Well, it was up to the ordinary folk to provide an answer for himself.
However, to avoid the semblance of any racist intentions, the name of Martin Luther King, Jr, was on the lips of a TV host, who wanted to draw attention to himself, by organizing another " I have a dream" gathering to match that of King's. The venue? Washington; and for the crowd to hear speeches that might have racial connotations, directly or indirectly, right infront of the Lincoln Memorial; the same spot where Dr. King stood on August 28th 1963. What a coincidence.
Whatever Dr. King did was for humanity; the dignity of all human beings to live as equals; and whoever wanted to diminish it was pitting himself against all of mankind. Only History would tell.
Somehow, once in a while, one person pits himself against the whole humanity. Some do so deliberately, others, by their own attitudes, place themselves in that type role without even knowing it.
It has happened several times, with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Idi Amin, etc., on grand scales; and on smaller but effective magnitude, some have managed to instigate others to bring rancor, divisiveness and enmity among groups of people; or even attempt to rally a nation, from their perch, whether it was on the radio or from a TV network station.
They do so repeatedly by way of disseminating adverse information to destroy character and reputation. Defaming political personalities through the media has been around for so long; yet, they know that the public tend to become immune to it, and so it ought to continue.
For example, if using history to cajole people into thinking that things were so bad in their day; and conjuring up names like Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, Hamilton, and comparing them with our present day Obama, who was of a different race; the name callings, the background checks, the associations and/or connections with social-political misfits; and added to all that, the innate phylosophical views expressed in speeches by him; was not racist inclined, then nobody knew what that was. The notion of making the blood of some people boil could not be ruled out.
Could it then be said that racism has noticeably reared its ugly head in today's politics? Well, it was up to the ordinary folk to provide an answer for himself.
However, to avoid the semblance of any racist intentions, the name of Martin Luther King, Jr, was on the lips of a TV host, who wanted to draw attention to himself, by organizing another " I have a dream" gathering to match that of King's. The venue? Washington; and for the crowd to hear speeches that might have racial connotations, directly or indirectly, right infront of the Lincoln Memorial; the same spot where Dr. King stood on August 28th 1963. What a coincidence.
Whatever Dr. King did was for humanity; the dignity of all human beings to live as equals; and whoever wanted to diminish it was pitting himself against all of mankind. Only History would tell.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
THE NEWNESS OF NEW YORK CITY ll.
BRAVO, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL.
Yesterday, the City Council of New York voted for the new skyscraper, 15 Penn Plaza project, to go up; much to the chagrin of those who were not prepared to see the skyline of New York City going through any type of change.
The Council knew how much the Empire State Building meant; a symbol of industry and strength; it has enticed people from every corner of the earth; and millions of visitors would have observed the city from its observation deck more than two or three times in their lives.
However, progress is progress; and nothing must be allowed to stand in its way; and another magnificent piece of architecture represents the advancement of business, commerce and trade that the city is known for; and also the need to create employment for its citizens.
Buildings of the type that is being planned will have new and/or futuristic technologies and modern architectural improvements involved; features that will attract more tourists and thereby improve the economy of the city.
On that score, the ESB has served the city so well for many years; and the public owed a great deal of gratitude to its owners; however, arguing that any other structure near it would render some kind of an adverse blow to the skyline of the city would be ridiculous, to say the least.
Again, bravo, City Council of New York, for a decision well taken.
Yesterday, the City Council of New York voted for the new skyscraper, 15 Penn Plaza project, to go up; much to the chagrin of those who were not prepared to see the skyline of New York City going through any type of change.
The Council knew how much the Empire State Building meant; a symbol of industry and strength; it has enticed people from every corner of the earth; and millions of visitors would have observed the city from its observation deck more than two or three times in their lives.
However, progress is progress; and nothing must be allowed to stand in its way; and another magnificent piece of architecture represents the advancement of business, commerce and trade that the city is known for; and also the need to create employment for its citizens.
Buildings of the type that is being planned will have new and/or futuristic technologies and modern architectural improvements involved; features that will attract more tourists and thereby improve the economy of the city.
On that score, the ESB has served the city so well for many years; and the public owed a great deal of gratitude to its owners; however, arguing that any other structure near it would render some kind of an adverse blow to the skyline of the city would be ridiculous, to say the least.
Again, bravo, City Council of New York, for a decision well taken.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
DEAREST SIR. (Congressman C. Rangel).
With all due respect, please, Mr. Rangel, do not support something that you know in your heart is bad.
Politics aside, Islam is not what people are objecting to. It is the idea of building a mosque so close to Ground Zero that goes to infuriate all peoples, irrespective of their religious beliefs.
We all know you. You have always stood against any type of injustice.
The 9/11 attack was an injustice done on the human race by Islamist fanatics.
They still think that they can get away with such a diabolical act. Your support for the location of the mosque will do nothing but encourage the perpetrators of a heinous atrocity against all humanity.
Politics aside, Islam is not what people are objecting to. It is the idea of building a mosque so close to Ground Zero that goes to infuriate all peoples, irrespective of their religious beliefs.
We all know you. You have always stood against any type of injustice.
The 9/11 attack was an injustice done on the human race by Islamist fanatics.
They still think that they can get away with such a diabolical act. Your support for the location of the mosque will do nothing but encourage the perpetrators of a heinous atrocity against all humanity.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
THE NEWNESS OF NEW YORK CITY.
The Newness of New York City.
Skyscrapers will continue to be built in New York City, no matter what, and better still, stronger and modern ones will find their way to replace even one such as "the signature of New York", a.k.a. The Empire State Building.
Just like the twin towers of the erstwhile World Trade Center, which demonstrated the newest type of architecture and technology, and gave a new cultural meaning, not just to lower Manhattan, but the whole city and its surrounding areas; we the concerned citizenry will want more of them.
Visitors and tourists came in droves to savor the newness of a growing metropolis; they were attracted to the magnetism of those magnificent and massive tall buildings, which made the tourism industry expand. Thus contibuting, by a large measure, to the thriving economy of New York City in the 80s and 90s.
Mayors Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani, all deserving and gaining credit for remodelling and modernizing the Times Square area and driving out the "squeegee car window cleaners" and Grand Central Station squatters, were part of the strategy to get people to come to the city; nevertheless, the skyline was the main attraction.
A new building is now being planned in place of the aging Hotel Pennsylvania, and somehow, Mr. Anthony Malkin, part owner of the ESB is fighting to stop its erection. "The Empire State Building is the iconic image of New York City's skyline.", he says.
That will mean that no other skyscraper must be built closer to it. That is sheer nonsense. We all know that, like any city, New York will continue to develop. He, therefore, cannot hamper the progress of the city.
On the other hand, the President of Vornado's New York Office Division of the company, which is proposing the new building, is also up in arms, and saying that, "The fact is that New York's skyline has never stopped changing, and one hopes it never will."
From that point of view, his statement must be regarded as the right one to which many New Yorkers can relate and connect with.
Over to you, New York City Council.
Skyscrapers will continue to be built in New York City, no matter what, and better still, stronger and modern ones will find their way to replace even one such as "the signature of New York", a.k.a. The Empire State Building.
Just like the twin towers of the erstwhile World Trade Center, which demonstrated the newest type of architecture and technology, and gave a new cultural meaning, not just to lower Manhattan, but the whole city and its surrounding areas; we the concerned citizenry will want more of them.
Visitors and tourists came in droves to savor the newness of a growing metropolis; they were attracted to the magnetism of those magnificent and massive tall buildings, which made the tourism industry expand. Thus contibuting, by a large measure, to the thriving economy of New York City in the 80s and 90s.
Mayors Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani, all deserving and gaining credit for remodelling and modernizing the Times Square area and driving out the "squeegee car window cleaners" and Grand Central Station squatters, were part of the strategy to get people to come to the city; nevertheless, the skyline was the main attraction.
A new building is now being planned in place of the aging Hotel Pennsylvania, and somehow, Mr. Anthony Malkin, part owner of the ESB is fighting to stop its erection. "The Empire State Building is the iconic image of New York City's skyline.", he says.
That will mean that no other skyscraper must be built closer to it. That is sheer nonsense. We all know that, like any city, New York will continue to develop. He, therefore, cannot hamper the progress of the city.
On the other hand, the President of Vornado's New York Office Division of the company, which is proposing the new building, is also up in arms, and saying that, "The fact is that New York's skyline has never stopped changing, and one hopes it never will."
From that point of view, his statement must be regarded as the right one to which many New Yorkers can relate and connect with.
Over to you, New York City Council.
Monday, August 23, 2010
A GREAT IDEA?
A mosque for each site.
Would it not be a great idea, if mosques were erected on each site, where the 9/11 attack planes hit? One at the Pentagon; another in a field in Pennsylvania, where the United Airlines Flight 93 plane crashed, and one near Ground Zero?
That would demonstrably show how much the U.S. honored religious tolerance, even though, we all knew who was responsible for the killing of several thousands of Americans on that heinous day. However, that should not be the mainstay of the argument about whether the proposed mosque near Ground Zero should be permitted or not.
Just as anyone could worship anywhere in America, Muslims have every right to pitch a tent in any space that they could legally purchase and decide to put to any use of their own choosing.
The only thing that people were objecting to was that, building a mosque near Ground Zero would be too close for comfort; knowing fully well that the 9/11 atrocity was committed by Muslims.
Whether they were fanatics or not, they were still Muslims; and nobody could gainsay the fact that the attacks were deliberate. Therefore, the mosque must be found a new place. That would be another great idea, which could generate support for those who wanted to see a multi-million dollar mosque built in the City of New York. There would be no animosity towards any one particular religious sect, as some people were suggesting. There would rather be peace among all concerned.
Besides, could such a plan be tolerated anywhere else in the world?
Would it not be a great idea, if mosques were erected on each site, where the 9/11 attack planes hit? One at the Pentagon; another in a field in Pennsylvania, where the United Airlines Flight 93 plane crashed, and one near Ground Zero?
That would demonstrably show how much the U.S. honored religious tolerance, even though, we all knew who was responsible for the killing of several thousands of Americans on that heinous day. However, that should not be the mainstay of the argument about whether the proposed mosque near Ground Zero should be permitted or not.
Just as anyone could worship anywhere in America, Muslims have every right to pitch a tent in any space that they could legally purchase and decide to put to any use of their own choosing.
The only thing that people were objecting to was that, building a mosque near Ground Zero would be too close for comfort; knowing fully well that the 9/11 atrocity was committed by Muslims.
Whether they were fanatics or not, they were still Muslims; and nobody could gainsay the fact that the attacks were deliberate. Therefore, the mosque must be found a new place. That would be another great idea, which could generate support for those who wanted to see a multi-million dollar mosque built in the City of New York. There would be no animosity towards any one particular religious sect, as some people were suggesting. There would rather be peace among all concerned.
Besides, could such a plan be tolerated anywhere else in the world?
Friday, August 20, 2010
MUSLIMS AND US.
Should it be built or should it not?
New Yorkers have been tolerant in accepting almost all kinds of ideologies; and any type of ideology could be regarded as being religious, since someone would hold dear to it; such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. However, that should not be the issue here.
The World Trade Center twin towers were demolished by none other than Islamist fanatics; and the question was, why?
Now, the same people (and nobody could deny that they were not) would want to build a mosque in or near the place where the towers once stood.
"We would replace something with something better.", would be what the sponsors of the mosque at Ground Zero; the new name for the vicinity; would be saying.
How demonstrative of an ideology? What a paradox? What a contrast?
The mosque would also serve as a community center; and so Muslims would be milling around the neighborhood for many years to come.
How insensitive to the families whose loved ones suffered death on 9/11, as the dastardly deed of Muslim fanaticism has come to be known.
The issue before the New York City Council now should be crystal clear.
Was there any good reason to allow the mosque to be built? Probably.
However, should it be built near Ground Zero?
The answer should not be far fetched.
It would be an insult to all the people of New York City; and therefore it (answer) should categorically be a resounding NO.
New Yorkers could be tolerant, but not to the extent of permitting Muslims to foist their ideology on them in such an arbitarily fashion.
New Yorkers have been tolerant in accepting almost all kinds of ideologies; and any type of ideology could be regarded as being religious, since someone would hold dear to it; such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. However, that should not be the issue here.
The World Trade Center twin towers were demolished by none other than Islamist fanatics; and the question was, why?
Now, the same people (and nobody could deny that they were not) would want to build a mosque in or near the place where the towers once stood.
"We would replace something with something better.", would be what the sponsors of the mosque at Ground Zero; the new name for the vicinity; would be saying.
How demonstrative of an ideology? What a paradox? What a contrast?
The mosque would also serve as a community center; and so Muslims would be milling around the neighborhood for many years to come.
How insensitive to the families whose loved ones suffered death on 9/11, as the dastardly deed of Muslim fanaticism has come to be known.
The issue before the New York City Council now should be crystal clear.
Was there any good reason to allow the mosque to be built? Probably.
However, should it be built near Ground Zero?
The answer should not be far fetched.
It would be an insult to all the people of New York City; and therefore it (answer) should categorically be a resounding NO.
New Yorkers could be tolerant, but not to the extent of permitting Muslims to foist their ideology on them in such an arbitarily fashion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)