Sunday, September 12, 2010
Let's discuss the mosque!
The above video was posted because a Russian lady had the balls to ask Bloomberg if he can sleep at night. Love it!
Anyway, you might be wondering why we haven't really gotten into the mosque debate on the blog. It's certainly not because we are afraid of discussing controversial subjects. The real reason is because if you look past all the "freedom of religion"/"Muslims are terrorists" rhetoric, there is something more freaky going on. We were just waiting for it to all unfold and be exposed, because we knew in good time it would. Of course the media uncovers facts but then chooses to ignore them because inflammatory statements make better quotes and soundbites and they have all been hopelessly brainwashed that protest becomes evil when people they disagree with are doing it. It also feeds their deluded egos to have discussions with their like-minded colleagues about how they are superior beings because they have succeeded in being "open-minded free-thinkers" and have risen above the level of the Neanderthals opposed to this project who are unfortunately their fellow Americans.
Now, let's take a good look at the non-Muslim-centric issues surrounding this so we can understand what this is really all about.
1) The site of the proposed project was considered historic until Bloomberg said it wasn't. It had been calendared by the Landmarks Commission for more than 20 years. Calendaring of a property is generally rare, which is why the LPC usually only reserves it for properties it plans to designate. It is a phase of the process which prevents alteration or demolition until the LPC has a chance to go through the final motions of designating the building as an official landmark. Because the LPC is so short-staffed, many calendared buildings are put on the back burner for many years. It was only when Bloomberg called Robert Tierney to take it off the list in order to advance this project that the LPC cleared its calendar and held a hearing and - unanimously - found that it had "no architectural value". (Yes, it had NO architectural value, which is why it was put on the list to begin with...) So all the B.S. that you've heard from Bloomberg and Tierney over the years about the LPC being an autonomous body and that despite the fact that the mayor appoints all the members of the board, he doesn't interfere with the body's functioning, is pure bullshit. Note how Bloomberg already had a lengthy speech prepared just a short while after the vote, along with a planned photo op featuring a diverse collection of religious leaders...
And think about this...who purchases a calendared building with the intent to tear it down? No one. Not unless they have secured the assurance of the City government that the designation will fail. And yes, designation would have prevented the "mosque" from being built (Hey Bloomie, we thought it wasn't a mosque?), because the owners have said the demolition of the buildings is necessary in order for the project to proceed. And the City had every right to designate the buildings, as they have for countless other religious structures. The City's right to do so was held up by the Supreme Court long ago.
2) This is really about milking this property for all it's worth. The owners mysteriously purchased the site at a bargain basement price and already are hinting at flipping it for an inflated value.
3) It has been revealed that the imam is a slumlord, the developer is behind on his tax payments and owes lots of money on building fines. Yet it has also been reported that as a 501C3 organization, they will seek City financing for this project. The slumlord/tax deadbeat/building scofflaw status of the main players would likely automatically disqualify them from such funding if they were building anything other than this. Yet it is matter-of-factly being reported that John Liu will sign off on the funding. That's right, once again, we'll be the suckers who end up paying for it.
So we have the government bending over backwards to get a religious structure built at a controversial site despite the overwhelming public sentiment against it. Do you also smell tweeding?
Quite frankly, just considering #3 alone makes us wonder why anyone would protest on these folks' behalf or defend their "right" to build, let alone someone counting on getting re-elected. Obviously, the lame-brained politicians that represent this City think they can hide from scrutiny about their role in this project if they wrap themselves in the flag and the Constitution. And judging by the reaction we see from the media, they will probably get away with it.