Topic: Proposal for new business plan
June 17, 2019 / By Chasity Question:
Could there be MORE "Free Exercise" of religion with the Mosque Re-located?
If the Mosque is Re-Located is the Constitution Better Served?
Could Obama Now Say that the Mosque Should be Re-located for More Free Exercise of Religion?
Let's say DCI Panetta, and CINC of Northern Command filed a report with Obama that said that if the Mosque at Ground Zero goes forward at that location then every single penny of money contributed for it's construction and endowment would have to be scrutinized by CIA, DIA, NSA, DHS, and FBI.
Such intensive scrutiny would require global investigations, since presumably the $100 million is not coming from the Wall Street crowd, but it's coming from the Global Muslim Uma.
This would cause "free exercise" objections to be raised and they could not possibly be satisfied without compromising the national security of USA. We can't let Hamas, and Kuds Force, and Al Qaida, and Taliban, and Iran Revolutionary Guard, and Renegade Saudi Princes fund this Mosque. And we can't let it be funded without knowing where the money is coming from. So "free exercise" issues would be raised bigtime as the money for the mosque comes in.
Obama could now say:
"The interests of the "free exercise" clause would be more fully served if the proposed mosque were located elsewhere. Accordingly, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, and to my most primary duty under Article II, I am ordering that the Mayor of NYC cause to be withdrawn any approvals that the NYC planning commission may have extended on this project."
This way Obama does not lead the Democratic Party over a cliff in November.
The GOP is not handed the House and the Senate on a silver platter.
The GOP is 100% perfectly braindead. They don't have a single idee except lower taxes. Mostly they want the capital gains tax to not be raised. That would give $680 Billion to the top 1% of taxpayers, which the GOP feel is perfectly fair and reasonable -- all millionaires should become multi-millionaires. This is 100% of the GOP agenda. They have nothing else to say.
But I do.
I say that when the White House shows up for duty blotto drunk on Political Correctness, then it must be the ordinary citizens that stand the watch. We are the only sober ones left.
You say I got all this from FOX, or Limbaugh, or Beck or Hannity -- well I challenge anybody to show me where any of those people said anything that I say BEFORE I SAID IT. See, if I said it first, then even if they say the same thing, that does not show that I copied them.
I never listen to those guys. I've been in the national security business for 25 years. I don't need those jerks to tell me what to think. I can make my own mistakes perfectly well without copying them.
Dolphin314etc is just the little friend of all mankind, trying to find a way to save this stupid President from his stupid remarks so he doesn't completely take the Democratic Party over the cliff with him in Novermber.
Obama could get a new report. Have a new insight, and come forth with an updated and revised and better policy. Presidents can do that. He can dress it up with a little theatre. Everyone comes out better. Rauf would have a real hard time raising $100 million if every donor or every penny got the "full monte" FBI investigation (which is inevitable at this point).
American muslims would be much much better off if this whole issue just went away. This was an improvident provokation made by a foreigner, who is a radical Sharia proponent, and a trouble magnet.
Arleen | 10 days ago
when you're human you are able to call your self an Atheist or some thing else you desire which includes fundamentalist Christian. you'd be incorrect for sure. you're a human and your ideas is greater than your religious definitions.
Originally Answered: A Modest Proposal?
Okay.....pretend it's YOU (not Swift) getting ready to write a "Swift" essay.
You notice that every time you pass by the food bank, you see a long, long line of people, but on the shelves and tables inside, you notice that the stuff that people have donated is old, stale or just unappetizing, and a lot of it is stuff that you wouldn't buy at the store. You see stuff like stale doughnuts and white bread and canned beans. There are too many people in line -- disabled, with mental problems, battered women who have no help -- all hoping for a hand up.
Imagine that you decide to volunteer at the food bank. You even start to buy food out of your own money to share, because you see so much poverty and misery -- all these people who aren't necessarily lazy; they've just been dealt a bad hand in life and need some help to get steady.
SO....you spread the word. You tell your friends and neighbors (and the local newspapers) of the suffering you see every day.
They say "Oh, how sad!"
Or "Well, poverty is just a fact of life!"
And then they go back to their video games, or the mall, or sit down in front of their plasma TVs.........
So you write yet another letter to the editor (of your local paper), in which you announce that after considering the plight of the poor, you've come up with a great idea to make things better for the rich AND for them. It will clean up the streets, improve the economy, and end world hunger! Come on, doesn't everyone care SO much that they want to end world hunger?? Aren't we willing to sacrifice a little for the good of all people?
Since all that poverty is out there, why not just unburden the poor -- those unplanned babies could be put to good use, and eventually, we'd have no more poor people! No more beggars! Wouldn't that be lovely?
Swift wrote (caustically):
"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout."
So -- that was the solution! Do you suppose Swift REALLY thought that people would buy into this baby-cooking and eating routine? Why would he suggest something so disgusting? What reaction was he trying to get from the people in his society? Did it work??
Hope that helps.
Originally Answered: A Modest Proposal?
Did you really not notice the sarcasm dripping from that piece?
Swift is appalled at the upper class's treatment of the poor, and is outraged by their objections to even having to look a them. so he (sarcastically) proposes that everyone just eat babies and children, which would provide commerce and money to the poor families who sell their babies, and of course rid them of the need to feed that child in the first place.