Dear America,

"Do not separate text from historical background.

If you do,

you will have perverted and subverted

the Constitution,

which can only end in a distorted,

bastardized form of illegitimate government."

James Madison

Gosh,

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," he said. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founders."

"In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion."

So to separate grey area from grey area, he believes that Muslims have the right to build -- for it's a free country -- but that doesn't mean that he means what he said, in that it may not be the right thing to do, now that he's had a chance to think about it.


Who's "he"?  Why our president, of course.

You know, for the longest time, the White House position was simply this... it's not my problem - - it's a local issue, and it should be resolved, of course, locally.


Well, it takes some kind of audacity to go against the 70% of the people who are against the locale of this mosque, some kind of audacity, indeed.


And what a contrast to Germany, no? For in this moment, Germany up and closed a mosque for ties to Radical Islam. The timing of Obama's bah Hamburg is astounding, don't you think? I mean, it was within days of one mosque door closing and another mosque door opening...just a coincidence I'm sure.


And speaking of revolving doors, how about the timing of this little tidbit coming out of Washington:

"The point of all of that is I think that by next year I'll be in a position where, you know, we're going to know whether the strategy is working in Afghanistan. We'll have completed the surge. We'll have done the assessment in December. And it seems like somewhere there in 2011 is a logical opportunity to hand off.

I think that it would be a mistake to wait until January 2012. First of all, I think we might have trouble getting the kind of person they want if there's a possibility that they might only be in the job for a year. You know, who knows what the election situation will look like. But also I just think this is not the kind of job you want to fill in the spring of a presidential election. So I think sometime in 2011 sounds pretty good."

Said Robert Gates, U.S. Secretary of Defense, to Fred Kaplan, of Foreign Policy Press.

So what he means to say to Mr.Kaplan, Gates would rather have it's not my problem be his own personal -- abridged version, that it is  -- foreign policy strategy of 2011...for the benefit of the country, so as not to create more harm than good, if he should wait until 2012 to bail, because he's thought about it and he wants out.

And yet, hasn't it become increasingly clear lately, we have a long way to go?

I just have to wonder, a girl just wants to know, just why would he say this right now?  We have everything in Afghanistan hanging on by it's last surge of ammo, and Gates goes out on drone and drops this?  And coming from a reputable source, unlike the Rolling Stone (only speaking on foreign policy, everything else is golden). 

At a time when Afghanistan is searching the mountain tops high and low for a little bit of lasting security, you, Mr. Gates, makes this crowing revelation that it is time FOR YOU to think about getting out -- aside from the already weary circumstances that lead us to July 2011, when we all pull out; what were you thinkin?

And Mr. President, how in the world could you pick the side of those who wish to build a celebratory mosque over and above those who put you in office?  With all due respect, in the minds of most Americans, you have committed a war crime, treason, call it what you will. 

Absolutely stunning.

A quick glance at either polls or opinion tells you, if nothing else, the issue of the mosque is divisive in and of itself -- not for virtue of the religion, egads no! -- but for the utter, pure destruction of the spirit of America that is of the essence part and parcel of the exact location Imam Rauf intends to build it.

Countless opinions have chimed in to say, the Japanese could not build a monument on Pearl Harbor (not that they would try (lingering on in my head...as an interesting point); and as much as there remains a right for all people to speak their mind, if a person -- of any color -- would be found in the town square preaching racial obscenities or casting declarations to harm another in any way, on the basis of color or religion -- they would be hauled off in handcuffs for reason none other than the blatant and barbarous abuse of their own God-given free speech, end of story. 

"America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet community architectural codes, you cannot build at all. These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero. Build it anywhere but there." --columnist Charles Krauthammer

The unconscionable acts of 9/11 rests heavy in the heart of every American -- still, and for our very own president to be so off base on this one (again), to be so laissez faire in a new world, warped sort of way -- to be so it's not my problem, but at the same time, I will intercede and not only form an opinion but voice it, too, and may even go so far as to further rub it in your face after months of community organized debate -- that is a stroke of audacity that is unprecedented (and we all know how much He loves to be unprecedented).

It's like our own president gave the imam his blessing, or something; like a father over a marriage, like a God over a land, but only in the most perverse sense.  Most Americans see it as such.

I can't wait to see how this administration argues on behalf of the Muslim woman wanting a divorce.  In this country, women are granted a divorce for simply irreconcilable differences, and can be granted rather quickly; I wonder, which law will have "precedence" -- America's rule of law as designed by the founders (Obama's go-to answer of his answer) and embedded deeply and faithfully within our Nation's Constitution and every way of life since 1776 (or thereabouts) -- or the Muslim sharia law, embedded by the rule of man over every woman and child within their nation of Islam since nearly the beginning of time?  Which law has precedence there, or is that a rhetorical question?  (Oh, we are young, but are we that stupid too?  -- oh what?  you don't think it could happen?  here in America?  bit by bit, the people will never know what hit them until it's too late)

Our house is no longer being built on rock, but upon sand.

The Taliban of Afghanistan stoned a couple over the weekend for adultery; is that what we have to look forward to in the town square?  The article linked includes this:

"could mean a step backward for human rights in the country. When the Islamist extremists ruled Afghanistan, women were not allowed to leave their houses without a male guardian, and public killings for violations of their harsh interpretation of the Quran were common."

Could mean?

I mean, really?  Seriously?

I mean, Muslims have that right, but that doesn't mean it is the right thing for them to do.

I mean, I think it would be a mistake to wait until 2012 (for me, anyway, need to time my withdrawal just right, for this ship is going down).

The funny thing about It's not my problem is that it's never usually the right answer -- and surely, you better KNOW it's not your problem, or at the very least wait until the coast is clear, before you speak the words out loud -- any commander in chief or defense secretary should know that much.

Make it a Good Day, G