home

Cordoba Center Site Being Abandoned Because Of Obama?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 03:54:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Haaretz:

After weeks of heated debate over plans for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero - the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York - it seems Muslim leaders will soon back down, agreeing to move to a new site. [. . . S]everal people familiar with the debate among New York's Islamic activists now claim that the leaders are convinced abandoning the site is preferable to unleashing a wave of bitterness towards Muslims.

[. . .] It is also possible that the decision was also influenced by comments made by U.S. President Barack Obama on Sunday, in which he appeared to reverse an earlier show of support. Obama said that when he went on record backing the center, he meant only that it was the right of every religious group to establish its own places of worship – but he did not intend to justify building the center specifically at Ground Zero.

(Emphasis supplied.) Is it possible that Obama's "support" has doomed the project? Ironic if true. UPDATE: A denial.

Speaking for me only

< The New GOP Political Trap: The "Ground Zero Mosque" | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Cordoba Center Site Being Abandoned Because Of Obama? | 85 comments (85 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Ironic? Maybe. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by scribe on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 03:56:29 PM EST
    Surprising?  No.

    Name something he's touched that hasn't gone to crap.

    His... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Tony on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:01:45 PM EST
    Supreme Court nominations?

    Parent
    Ah, yes, (none / 0) (#53)
    by scribe on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 06:25:23 PM EST
    A former prosecutor and a fellow-travelling toady who never appeared in court before being shortlisted to sit on the highest court in the land.  The latter I've heard described by one of her former students as "a used-car salesman".

    Two people intellectually predisposed to continue the degradation of the Constitution and destruction of individual rights and liberties for decades to come.

    Color me underwhelmed.

    Parent

    To elaborate (none / 0) (#55)
    by scribe on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 06:31:29 PM EST
    In the past week he's come out twice for the central holding of Plessy v. Ferguson - that separate and supposedly equal is better than everyone having access to the same thing.  

    He said, after the Prop 8 decision, that he thought civil unions were just as good as marriage, for the gays.

    He in his backing-down over the weekend and, more particularly, Reid in his "build it somewhere else" today, decided that a different place would be better, but only for Muslims, it would appear.

    If it were up to him, he would have never had the benefit of Brown v. Board of Education and he never would have made it to the Ivy League, let along the Oval Office.  More likely, he would have wound up hanging from a tree in some wingnut's yard, for being uppity, or have become a disgruntled expat living in Paris listening to expat jazz.

    Parent

    I think it's an insult to the plight of (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by tigercourse on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 06:39:22 PM EST
    African Americans in this country to compare their experience to some people not wanting a house of worship built in a bad location.

    Parent
    God that makes me mad (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    Because it is true.  I wish some people would quit rejoicing that "He's Spock".  Spock had no fricken emotional intelligence, and there is such a thing!

    Parent
    I was afraid of this (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 03:59:27 PM EST
    Obama sticking his nose into the middle of this "discussion" was going to rile up the Tea Baggers and they were going to mount the buses that who knows who paid for and show up in droves.  It never was any of our business.  It was the business of New Yorkers and the courts if the law of the land was violated.  Now it is a focal point for a flash fire.

    Every time I see the word "Cordoba" (4.67 / 3) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:06:48 PM EST
    it makes me think of Fine Corinthian Leather...

    You're dating yourself Mr. Montalbán (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    and all of us who also remember.  ;)

    Parent
    makes me think (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    of one of my first cars.  a chrylser cordoba.


    Parent
    Huh, I wonder what king of material (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:13:58 PM EST
    was used for your car's interior...

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:16:43 PM EST
    I think it was leather and it could have been Corinthian but it was not particularly fine.

    Parent
    I blame Ricardo. (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:18:11 PM EST


    Parent
    KHANNNNNN!!!! (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:29:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Classic. (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:50:31 PM EST


    Parent
    See #51 on this thread.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by scribe on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 06:26:12 PM EST


    Parent
    But was it rich? (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 07:59:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Ahhh, yes. (none / 0) (#51)
    by scribe on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 06:21:41 PM EST
    For those who forgot, and those who never knew.

    And a little added something....

    Parent

    Everytime I see the word "Cordoba," (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 07:09:32 PM EST
    I think of this:  Cordoba

    Parent
    Read the update and I hope it is true (4.67 / 3) (#21)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:18:39 PM EST
    I don't like to see hysteria-mongering rewarded.

    curious (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:22:44 PM EST
    wonder if the original story was an attempt to pressure them

    Parent
    We'll see (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:26:22 PM EST


    Parent
    We'll see (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:19:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:27:11 PM EST
    There was a report that El-Gamal said that he would consider GOvernor Patterson's offer to relocate the Mosque to state land.

    But from what I have read, the state cannot offer land to build a religious institution.  

    Parent

    It is a problem (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    However, if structured properly, it can be overcome.

    The Cordoba Center could sell the property they have with a sale arranged for a new site. Hopefully they make good bucks on the switch.

    Personally, I think that is what is going on right now - the negotiations for just such a deal.

    Parent

    Well I Hope You Are Right (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    Because there is a great piece of State property two blocks from me, which is getting three district Sanitation depots dumped on it.

    We have been protesting and fighting the city for a few years, and it is almost certain to be built.

    Beautiful empty plot, unobstructed river views...  

    I hope that it is the site chosen for re-location. That would be a hands down win win for me.

    Parent

    Con-Edison owns the buildings and (none / 0) (#43)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:47:11 PM EST
    Soho Properties only has a lease but would possibly purchasing from Con-Ed in the future.

    At least according to reports I've seen.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 05:12:50 PM EST
    Soho Properties paid the owner $4.85 million in cash for the property.

    WiKi

    Parent

    Here is more recent and local reporting (none / 0) (#48)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 05:25:53 PM EST
    than Wiki.


    SNIP

    Although Con Edison owns 49-51 Park Place, one of the buildings that would be torn down to build the Ground Zero mosque, the utility does not have legal authority over what happens to the site, Con Edison said in a statement.

    ...

    According to city records, Sharif El-Gamal, CEO of Soho Properties, paid $700,000 last year to take over the lease on the Park Place building, which most recently housed the Burlington Coat Factory and was heavily damaged during the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

    El-Gamal also bought the adjacent 45-47 Park Place for $4.85 million and plans to knock down both buildings to make way for the new center.

    Cordoba is planned for 51


    Link

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    Redneck news certainly is reporting that. But the fact is the lease expiring in 2071, which I assume is a land lease, includes a purchase option. El-Gamal is exercising that option. Although he can demolish and build without having to purchase.

    The wingnut nitpicking is an empty gesture.

    Parent

    I believe it's more than that (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 06:11:03 PM EST
    Since it's Con-Ed's building, there will have to be a review by the state Public Service Commission, which means it's up to the vote of the five-member board, which is controlled by New York Governor David Paterson.

    I also believe I read that this is also contingent on the Cordoba group raising the funds required to close a deal, should one be approved.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 06:22:07 PM EST
    That is the wingnut spin, anyway.

    Parent
    What's a "wingnut"? (none / 0) (#63)
    by prittfumes on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    Your frequent use of the term "wingnut" is ... interesting. Mind defining it? Thanks.

    Parent
    No oddness tom open minded NYers (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 08:03:41 PM EST
    But I hope the state has to pay a pretty penny for encouraging the caving in to this manufactured outrage.

    Parent
    I can't type (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 08:04:22 PM EST
    I meant 'no offense to'

    Parent
    that sound you hear (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 03:57:58 PM EST
    is sphincters relaxing all over america

    democratic (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:01:25 PM EST
    sphincters

    Parent
    Mob Rule Is An Ugly Thing Indeed (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:06:38 PM EST


    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:09:30 PM EST
    I hope everyone remembers the ADL's role on this forever.

    Parent
    profiles (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:11:13 PM EST
    in courage are in short supply on this for sure

    Parent
    Fareed Zakaria (none / 0) (#11)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:10:58 PM EST
    may be the only one to come out looking good on this .....

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:12:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:11:49 PM EST
    More like nail in the coffin, imo. Foxman really showed his cards this time.

    Humanism, is usually selective.

    Parent

    Funny, how easy it is to wield the whip (none / 0) (#56)
    by scribe on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 06:34:00 PM EST
    when the tables are reversed.

    The ADL really covered themselves in ... manure ... with this one.

    Parent

    I can't agree (none / 0) (#59)
    by Slado on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 07:08:54 PM EST
    While I respect the idea that we should be better then the real enemy (radical Islam) I also respect the side of the argument that says this is too much, too soon.

    By the way how does a small group of worshipers afford $5 million or so worth of real estate in downtwon Manhattan?   Just asking, does that make me a wing-nut?

    But I digress.

    This is hardly mob rule.  This is an open wound that this group clumsily stumbled into and for anyone to pretend that this inevitable crisis wasn't inevitable and that the outrage of victims, republicans, democrats and the general public in NYC was not predictable and justifiable on some level is foolish.

    The building of this center is highly insensitive to the victims of 9/11 and to many people in this country.   Right or wrong it is and that some can only cry  mob rule,  or wing nut when a group of people express themselves makes me question their real motivations.

    Are you really for religious freedom or are you for sticking it to a certain group of people?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 07:25:06 PM EST
    This is an open wound...
    take some meds and it will heal nicely.

    The downtown Muslim community has zero to do with 9/11 or criminals, like McVeigh, who are wont to blow up buildings. For you to conflate this community with terrorists is bigoted in the highest degree.

    And speak for yourself, not the families of 9/11 survivors. I doubt you know any of them, and certainly they are not of one voice. Not to mention that they have no say as to what goes on in my neighborhood.

    And as far as the needs of the NYC downtown Muslim community, that is none of your business either.

    Parent

    I think the reversal (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:15:32 PM EST
    probably in the end had more to do with safety concerns with the hysteria being whipped up.
    I think this illustrates that the backers of the project are probably seeing the same things those dem candidates were seeing.

    Safety Concerns? (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:17:01 PM EST
    You mean wingnut head's exploding?

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:18:47 PM EST
    I mean crazy wingnuts trying to harm the place and its occupants

    Parent
    Absurd, IMO (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:24:03 PM EST
    That is the stuff of fantasy land. This is a mindF*ck issue, nothing to do with reality.

    If your idea is correct, well then it is even more of an argument for building it. The Democrats could daily clips of it to show how unamerican the GOP is.

    Maybe Newt, Palin and McCain could go to jail over it.

    Parent

    huh (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:27:12 PM EST
    have you not been paying attention?  we are in a season when pols are suggesting "second amendment remedies".  
    all FOX does is whip these people up.  the administration is a "regime" Obama is a "usurper".

    get with the program.
    this is what they do.  and when someone drops off a bomb, well, it certainly had nothing to do with their innocent pronouncements on the subject.


    Parent

    You should remember that (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 09:54:09 PM EST
    Squeaky is a self described non-watcher of TV and non-listener to radio.

    That means he knows almost nothing about what is going on more than 10 blocks or so from where he lives...unless he reads it on some lefty blog.


    Parent

    What A Load (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    In case you missed it, information these days, about the world is transmitted through the internet.

    You may want to try it some day. Newspapers, teevee and radio are nostalgic for some but redundant.


    Parent

    to be clear (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:20:21 AM EST
    I am not suggesting that a better quality of information is available on tv or radio that there is on the internet.  
    quite the opposite.  jim would be the other extreme IMO.  
    what I am suggesting is that there are times when you are able to hear and or see things live and unedited that may give you a better idea of how crazy or enemies are and how far they may be willing to go to make their points.
    this does not mean that someone who skips tv or radio is any better informed on most things that matter.  mass media is hardly an illumination tool.
    it does however sometimes IMO add another dimension from time to time.

    personally I never get "information" from mass media.  only spin and background.


    Parent

    I would agree (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:34:33 AM EST
    that mass media is full of bias. Look at what it did for Obama.

    I would agree that the Internet is full of a million facts, and some of them are true.

    Same for newspapers, magazines and books.

    But when you deliberately shut yourself off from TV and radio there is no way for you to have a grasp of what if happening.

    Parent

    Deliberately Shut Myself Off? (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    I am aware of more that is going on in the world than any of my friends who watch teevee, listen to radio, and read newspapers.

    The fact that teevee and radio bores me, is just a matter of taste.

    Parent

    Live And Unedited (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 12:27:35 PM EST
    Never happens. There is always a POV when someone is behind the camera.

    And I do get my fill of stuff that rises to the top through YouTube, etc.

    Parent

    You Are Buying Into The Bedwetter PRogram (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:30:08 PM EST
    It is nonsense. There are more sites in NYC than you can count, that have 10000's of people who hate them.

    Some have airport type security, most carry on business as usual.

    Parent

    perhaps (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:32:11 PM EST
    but if they relocate I dont believe for a second it has anything to do with anything but safety concerns.


    Parent
    Money concerns (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:33:53 PM EST
    I think they'll raise good money if they move it.

     

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:36:31 PM EST
    The wingnuts are working for the Muslims...  great ironic twist.

    Parent
    do they need money (none / 0) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:36:56 PM EST
    if so thats a little surprising.

    Parent
    Need? (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:39:21 PM EST
    If you have spent $4 million, and it turns into $20 million...

    more money to use.

    What do you think that these guys Saudi Princes?  

    Parent

    Im sure thats true (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:38:30 PM EST
    but this is a special group hating this one.

    Parent
    Special Group? (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:40:33 PM EST
    You mean wingnuts and their Democratic minions/enablers?

    Parent
    you know (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:44:58 PM EST
    the fact that you do not ever watch tv or hear radio is more obvious some times than others.  you really can not appreciate how crazy these people are in print.  and its not always on youtube.

    I am not a bedwetter but I believe completely that we are in new unexplored territory with some of this stuff.  its not what has gone before.  its next level.  where it will lead is not clear at all but to not take it seriously is whistling past the graveyard IMO.


    Parent

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 05:16:19 PM EST
    Just because I do not watch teevee or listen to the radio, hardly means that I am not informed. I read quite a lot on the internets.

    As for the bedwetter crowd that is all in a frenzy, those f'ers are not going to take the time to get off their couches.

    If they are scared of Mooooslims, they are more than likely to have the courage to do anything more than press a button on their computer saying "yes, I am against the Mosque".

    It is sad to see that they have infected you as well.

    Parent

    He's really not (none / 0) (#45)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 05:11:38 PM EST
    we've already had a re-emergence of the anti-Governement scum that marked the Clinton era right- Cop shooters, the guy attempting to attack the Tides Foundation, the nutball who hit the IRS building in Texas-- these whackos are out there and frankly they're not going to stop at anything short of another McVeigh.

    Parent
    I have been thinking for a while (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:23:36 PM EST
    that if they do this they are either planning to have the best security this side of disneyland or they are very very brave.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 04:28:11 PM EST


    Parent
    I find it amusing (none / 0) (#58)
    by Slado on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 07:03:14 PM EST
    that this is being characterized here as a wing nut conspiracy.

    Harry Reid and a host of other democrats have either run, backtracked or come out against the building of this "center".

    The majority of americans oppose this.  A clear majority of every party and group.

    I respect the opinion that some have on this issue but to brand everyone against you as a wing nut is a clear sign that you have no real argument for the "center" just the need to feel superior.

    Majority Smajority (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 07:27:50 PM EST
    The tyranny of the majority does not overrule the constitution.

    And, because someone calls up someone and asks a leading question, does not make for a majority.

    BS on both counts.

    Parent

    "wingnuts" (none / 0) (#68)
    by diogenes on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 10:42:42 PM EST
    You may not like the majority but a "wingnut" is a nut whose politics are on an extreme wing of a party; that could hardly be a majority.

    Parent
    oh really (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:21:14 AM EST
    tell that to the Germans circa 1940

    Parent
    Or the Japanese-Americans circa 1942? (none / 0) (#76)
    by BTAL on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:34:27 AM EST


    Parent
    or todays (none / 0) (#78)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 09:44:36 AM EST
    North Koreans

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#79)
    by sj on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:15:28 AM EST
    Another good example of where the majority were on the wrong side.

    If indeed the majority supported it.  Before my time, and didn't find in a quick google so I can't say that definitively.

    Parent

    Why choose cordoba as the name? (none / 0) (#70)
    by diogenes on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 10:44:53 PM EST
    From Wikipedia
    "The Caliphate of Córdoba (Arabic: خلافة قرطبة Khilāfat Qurṭuba) ruled the Iberian peninsula (Al-Andalus) and North Africa from the city of Córdoba, from 929 to 1031. This period was characterized by remarkable success in trade and culture..."

    Some terrorists still want to take Spain back.  

    Not with strategic thinkers (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:49:06 PM EST
    like you and Pam Geller on their trail..

    The world wide jihad doesn't have a chance.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 10:47:48 PM EST
    And some right wing hacks still want to conflate the Muslim religion with terrorism.

    Parent
    And in 1492, the Muslims were expelled (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 11:20:51 PM EST
    by the Catholic monarcy from their last stronghold in Spain, i.e., Granada.  

    Parent
    Another right-wing talking point (none / 0) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:44:31 AM EST
    bites the dust.  Read it and weep.

    The symbolism of Cordoba and the Cordoba mosque is complicated and many-layered, but one thing it appears not to be is some kind of triumph over Christianity.

    Parent

    so why choose that name (none / 0) (#82)
    by diogenes on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 07:17:35 PM EST
    Why exactly did they choose "Cordoba" center instead of the name of any one of a number of caliphates in now Islamic countries?

    Parent
    Because (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 08:26:23 PM EST
    Despite your wishing otherwise, America is still a free country.

    Parent
    Jeepers, I provided the link (none / 0) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 17, 2010 at 11:22:44 PM EST
    read it yourself.  Given the history, it's an extraordinarily appropriate name for what they're hoping to do.

    Parent
    Cordoba Center Site Being Abandoned Because Of Obama? | 85 comments (85 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment