Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Germany Does What America Should Do

Two countries face terrorist threats. One does something about it, the other dithers. Germany recently shut down a mosque in Hamburg that spawned at least one of the 9-11 bombers. At the same time, the American left and the Kumbaya artists use flawed logic, poor Constitutional law, and Orwellian thinking to justify support for a mega-mosque just a few steps away from the spot where the 9-11 murderers carried out their plans.

The picture shows a citizen walking past the Taiba mosque, which has blessedly been shut down for good. Originally known as the Al Quds mosque, 9-11 ringleaders Mohammed Atta, Marwan Al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah were all regulars there. The Germans tried tolerance after arresting or deporting some of the remaining jhadists, but as can be expected, it didn't work. The mosque again became a hotbed of organizing for future attacks on innocent civilians, western civilization, Jews and Christians. For those of you who aren't aware of an historical fact, mosques are not "holy ground" like churches. Their original and historical purpose was a place to store armaments for jihad against the infidels. And regardless of what the distorters of Islamic theology say, jihad doesn't mean "a personal struggle to please Allah." Nothing much has changed.

For multiple good reasons, the Germans closed a mosque that was a danger to their national security, a threat to all non-Islamic people, and (importantly) a front for the Islamic concept of jihad and the melding of religious belief with hostile political action. The Germans may not have a First Amendment, but they know the difference between free speech and religion and a clear and present danger. Such is not the case here in America. The most recent and egregious example of America's inability to believe in itself and the rules of civilization is the approval of a mosque practically sitting on top of Ground Zero.

Make no mistake--it's a mosque. It can be called an Islamic Center or the Holy of Holies for all I care, but only a complete fool would believe that it's anything other than a mosque. It's quantum leaps larger than the German mosque, and it has the additional advantage of poking an Islamic finger in the eye of decent Americans who consider Ground Zero to be holy ground. Its founders are radical Islamists who speak peace and reconciliation out of one side of their mouths and jihad out of the other.

Leftists, cuckoos, families of 9-11 victims who suffer from Stockholm syndrome, and Constitution-perverters have all jumped in to muddy the waters so that reasonable people can't see the obvious. This isn't a First Amendment issue. Cities have control over who builds what, and where, and anything that doesn't fit into the city's normal plans can be dismissed without any further explanation. You can't build a church in the middle of a freeway. You can't build a synagogue in on the grounds of the local public high school. And there's nothing in the law or the Constitution that requires that New York City allow a mosque to be built in the middle of a commercial district.

In addition, the First Amendment is no more absolute than any other portion of the Bill of Rights. Which is where the clear and present danger test comes in. If the governmental body can demonstrate a compelling state interest in preventing otherwise protected activities, then it can and should do so. The religious issue that the leftists and jihadists raise here is minor and tangential to the political message that Islam wants to foment at this building site. And that message is that Islam must subjugate all other religions and peoples, using mass murder as a method if necessary. That is being taught in mosques nationwide, and this mosque will just be the same thing writ large.

But there are serious Constitutional scholars of a conservative bent who would disagree with me on whether there is a compelling state interest, and that's fine. If it's a judgment call, we should err on the side of protecting the First Amendment. So what? There are dozens of other practical and planning considerations which could stop the building of the mosque without addressing the religous issue at all. But political-correctness, lack of will, cowardice in the face of jihadist threats to sue, and just plain suicidal idiocy have contributed to this exercise in cultural oversensitivity.

The sheep who are allowing this wolf's den project to go forward don't even see the inconsistencies in the proponents' own arguments. "It will be a place of reconciliation." Where in the New York City building and planning codes does it say anything about having to approve reconciliation centers? "It will be a cultural and historical center." Same question. What if the locals don't want a reconciliation center or a cultural center in the neighborhood? Where's the First Amendment argument there? What kind of reconciliation center is built so as to promote irreconcilable differences with the very people who will have to look at it on a daily basis and be reminded of the hole down the street that created a mass burial center for 3,000 innocent civilians? And the great inconsistency: If, as the proponents say, it's not a mosque, then where's the First Amendment argument? You can't have it both ways, boys and girls.

Even with the First Amendment argument, the Constitution only prohibits excessive governmental interference in the practice of religion. Neutrality, if you will. Given all the other non-religious reasons mitigating against the mosque's planned location, it's not excessive governmental interference with religion to ask that they plan their next attack somewhere closer to midtown Manhattan than to Ground Zero. They can be just as religious in a grand mosque located a mile from Ground Zero. The religious/First Amendment issue is a damned red herring, a diversion, a smokescreen, to cover up the fact that most of the governmental entities involved in this decision have lost all sense of perspective, have caved in to pressure from religious organizations so long as they aren't Christian or Jewish, and are more solicitous of Islamic sensitivities than they are of the feelings of millions upon millions of Americans.

The only difference between the mosque in Hamburg and the proposed mosque in New York City is that the jihadists in New York City haven't started plotting the next mass murder--yet. And one more thing while I'm on my rant. The other mantra of the politically correct is that "jihadists comprise only a small percentage of Muslims." To that I say, read Burke. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." If 95% of Muslims in America don't support jihad, then the least they could do is come out actively against it. I don't see any indication that such a thing has happened or is likely to happen. The mass murderers who comprised the Communist Party in the Soviet Union and Maoist China never reached much more than 10% of the population. Do I need to point out what a militant 10% can accomplish?

Add to all of this the recent revelation that the "owners" of the property who want to build this monstrosity are actually only the half-owners. The other half is owned by Con Edison, a public utility which has remained shamefully quiet during this entire debate, hoping that nobody will notice that they could scrap the whole plan just by deciding they don't like the look of the building. More cowardice, more political correctness, and more misplaced sensitivity.


41 comments:

AndrewPrice said...

Good for the Germans. It's about time they started to take Islam more seriously. They seemed quite happy to go after the Scientologists, who are a lot of things, but murderous is not one of them. So it's about time they go after the violent Islamists, which is a million times more dangerous and about as legitimate as religions go.

I get the sense things are changing in Europe (though very slowly). For example, I read the other day that even Sweden arrested some Islamic terrorists -- something they apparently never do. Apparently, to the fury of everyone else in Europe and America, they try to intervene to "talk to people" before they comit their crimes and then deport trouble makers rather than arrest them. Gee thanks.

Joel Farnham said...

Greg Gutfield from RedEye wants to open a gay bar for Gay Muslim Men right next to this mosque. He is serious about it. It will be open 24/7.

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/08/09/investment-opportunity-my-ground-zero-gay-bar/

I call it an investment of a lifetime. :)

Jocelyn said...

I can't imagine this really being built. What construction group in NY will agree to build this thing? And even if this is built I think the gangs of NY won't put up with this.

I wonder if Edison's involvment is publicly known, if they would withdrawl their contribution as well.

I'm not sure how true this is, but I heard that they plan to start or finish building on 9/11/2011.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: The Europeans have been slow to wake up, but it does seem they finally are. Even the French with their burga ban surprised me.

What's interesting is that Germany has had a large Turkish Muslim population population since WW I as a result of their alliance with the Ottoman Empire and need for large numbers of unskilled workers. France and Germany both have much larger Muslim populations as a percentage of the total than America does. It's a bolder and braver move for them to stand up to Islamism than it would be for us. Yet they are doing so, even if a bit slowly. We, on the other hand, are essentially saying "kick us again."

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: My 401Ks are in bad enough shape. I don't think I'll be investing in Greg's bar any time soon. Besides, I come from a city where they have gay bars for Martians, so this wouldn't be anything very bizarre for me. Or is it bazaar?

LawHawkRFD said...

Jocelyn: I agree with most of what you're saying. Sadly, my experience has been that if you don't nip it in the bud, people just tend to forget the original controversy and go on with their daily business. I hope New Yorkers are better than that.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Well, if you don't have the money, you don't have the money. Still, it could be THE PLACE TO VISIT in NY.

StanH said...

What a glaring example of arrogance, that amounts to nothing more than pissing on America’s leg. As an observer of the enlightened Mecca’s of NYC and SF nothing surprises me any longer. They are determined to embrace “diversity” even if it kills them.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: I agree. We should just have a simple name for it for future debate: "Death by Diversity."

I also occasionally recall the words of Justice Robert Jackson: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

JB1000 said...

No matter what, we must not offend them by denying their right to... offend millions.

It might be legal but it is not right.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

If it is built, will you visit the gay bar? It almost could be your patriotic duty!!! ;-)

LawHawkRFD said...

While we're congratulating Germany, we should remember that the Swiss were the first to take a stand, and in a situation similar to New York City's: Switzerland says no to a mega mosque. On the other hand, lefty-loony Berkeley had better get its rear in gear, or NYC is going to get there ahead of them: Minarets In Berkeley?.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: I'll wait until Christmastime so I can don my gay apparel.

LawHawkRFD said...

JB1000: At least part of the problem is that the NYC politicians have forgotten the philosophical/ethical argument that just because you are entitled to do something, it doesn't automatically follow that you should do it.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Unless CON-ED puts the kibosh on this mega-mosque, they will break ground Sept 11, 2011. Ten years to the day muslims murdered 3000 people within spitting distance.

It is a provocation and a disgrace of the local populace as well as the liberal politicians who allowed this to happen.

HamiltonsGhost said...

Lawhawk--Nina Shea at National Review did a pretty good evisceration of Mayor Auntie Bloomberg's misstatement of the facts and misunderstanding of the issue: "In that context, it is important to remember that shutting down a particular religious establishment — or preventing it from being built — does not constitute barring a religion as a whole, as Mayor Bloomberg erroneously suggested: “('If somebody wants to build a religious house of worship, they should do it and we shouldn’t be in the business of picking which religions can and which religions can’t.') It could all depend on what the building is used for, how it is operated, and now, after the Al-Awlaki determination, what is the impact of the preaching and instruction that takes place there — is it likely to motivate people to plan terrorist attacks?"

LawHawkRFD said...

HamiltonsGhost: And she also points out that the major planner of the mosque, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is the one who said: "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened [on 9-11], but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." The oldest trick in the double-meaning defense of wrongdoing--blame the victim.

StanH said...

Hey Lawhawk, I used The Great Washington Turkey Shoot, over on BG today, I attributed it to a friend. I have been throwing it out with business associates, when it’s appropriate, many laughs!

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: I'm glad to help in any way I can. Did I tell you about the $100 per use service fee? LOL

CalFederalist said...

LawHawk. Berkeley and NYC aren't the only ones with problems. During the First Gulf War, the bleeding hearts (Republicans and Democrats alike) created "gateway cities" to take in Muslim "victims" of the war. Nashville, Tennessee was one of those cities. It became heavily populated with Iraqi "victims" who were victims second, Islamists first. Now Tennessee is facing the additional problem of mosques combined with monster Islamic centers where there is so much more open space than in the urban centers. There's lots of room for paramilitary training there, and they're taking advantage of it.

LawHawkRFD said...

CalFed: All true. If I remember correctly, there are several other states, including Virginia, which are facing the same problem. In New York City, there's no room for large jihadist training camps, and in Berkeley the jihadists can't outmaneuver SWINE (Students Wildly Indignant About Nearly Everything), who clog up the streets and parks every day. It won't work in San Francisco because there's only enough room for sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

Outside of the left coast and the east coast, there's plenty of room for jihadists to learn the methods of mass murder domestically and ambushing of American troops overseas.

BevfromNYC said...

Okay, so I know I will be eviscerated for this, but I see no problem with Raef building a mosque/community center only steps away from Ground Zero.

Now wait, before you get out your pitchforks, let me explain why...LawHawk, put down the pitchfork...

For one, I don't see anyway to stop it and yes, Joselyn, people in NYC are just this stupid (see - Mayor Bloomberg) BUT I also believe that this is a perfect opportunity to hold liberal, moderate, and ALL Muslims to their word. If they want to prove that Islam is being hijacked by Islamacists, then, for me, this center will be THEIR Ground Zero. They must prove they are actively pursuing an end to terrorism because ONLY moderate Muslims can stop global Islamic terrorism.

I, for one, will make sure that if they do not speak out loudly, emphatically, and often against global terrorism whenever and wherever it may occur then the owners, operators, and participants of this Mosque/Community Center shall be be held personally accountable for every act of global terrorism in the world. Any hair that is harmed by any Islamic group will be their responsiblity and their shame. And as I see it, NOW we will have a specific place to go to stand in front of, picket, scream and yell to force them to make a stand. If they don't like then, tough. I won't go away and I think there will be others who will do the same.

That being said, actually Jocelyn is right, they are going to have a very hard time finding anyone to build it. There are already several union trade groups who have let it be known that permits might be verrry slow in being approved.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: That's the beauty of a blog that doesn't require all of our contributors to march in lockstep. In fact, I'm sending you a package by way of thanking you for your dissenting comment. When you receive it, ignore the ticking sound and the smell of C 4.

I tend to think you're probably right about it being too late to stop it, but there's always hope. As for the idea of holding "moderate Muslims" accountable for what they do at this future abomination, that's what I discussed in the paragraphs about the German mosque. They hoped for a more reasonable mosque with moderates taking over and making things better. As I also mentioned, the Germans were completely disappointed as the "moderates" stood by while the jihadists returned and started hatching all new plans for mass murder.

I see no point in expecting that this mega mosque will be any different, nor that it makes any difference to the jihadists if we blame them or not. They revel in the attention, and immediately start screaming racism and religious intolerance at those who call them on their bloodthirstiness. They don't care. And once they're in, it will be nearly impossible to get them out or prove their complicity in the next mass murder. So the least we should require is that they put their monument to primitivism, mass murder and intolerance somewhere other than this close to Ground Zero.

Picket signs work as well in midtown as they do at the World Trade Center Site. Will the souls in the rubble down the street be allowed to hold picket signs that say "we told you so?" Or perhaps, "why have you abandoned us?"

Patti said...

the german (my mother) is so proud. germany is getting props for kicking the ass of terrorists. who could have seen that coming after all these years :) we'd all be smart to follow the german's example...

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: Andrew and I are both of German descent with parents from the Old World. We too are pleased to see Germany taking a stand. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Germans once tolerated murderous speech and actually convinced themselves that there was such a thing as a moderate Nazi. 9-11 was apparently not enough to wake up the politicians in New York City.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel and Jocelyn: Sorry to take this long getting back to you, but it took me some time to use all the obscenities I know to deal with the idea of them opening this multistory cesspool on 9-11. If true, this is adding insult to injury in a way that is so foul as to be completely incomprehensible.

CalFederalist said...

I have an idea. Let them build it. On opening day, wait until there are 3,000 people inside the building, send Rosie O'Donnell in with dynamite strapped to her fat ass, and then . . . . .

LawHawkRFD said...

CalFed: I know that was said tongue-in-cheek. None of us would actually advocate using retaliatory violence. By the way, do you happen to have Rosie's phone number or e-mail address handy? I want to invite her to the "Fire Never Melts Steel" party we're holding in New York City on September 11, 2011.

Patti said...

linking this tomorrow!

LawHawkRFD said...

And the hits just keep on coming. It has now come out that our accommodationist Muslim-friendly President is sending NYC mosque organizer and anti-civilization imam Feisel Abdul Rauf on a good-will and fact-finding tour of the Middle East, acting as an agent of the State Department. Your tax money is paying for this. The only thing that surprises me is that they didn't first send Rauf to Spain (formerly Islamic territory) to join Michelle for a swim and an expense halal meal at the ultra-expensive resort--also on your tax money.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: Thank you, ma'am. You do know that we will both be the subjects of an upcoming fatwa, don't you?

BevfromNYC said...

LawHawk - I understand, but just in case, I will not be accepting any packages from California in the near future...LOL.

You will be very happy to know that Gov. Patterson who seems to be the only official who understands why people are upset, has offered a possible solution.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/paterson-would-offer-new-site-to-mosque-near-ground-zero/

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

I don't like David Frum, but he does have an intriguing idea about the mosque. It just could be a publicity stunt.

http://www.frumforum.com/is-the-911-mosque-a-publicity-stunt

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: It's pretty bad when Paterson is the most sensible politician in the state.

And what makes you think the package will be mailed from California? Bwah, hah, hah.

It's a shame that a State having major financial problems has to offer anything to a bunch of radicals, but if it would end this nonsense, I'd be for it. It would certainly answer the question of whether this is about a Muslim cultural center or a deliberate fist in the face to Americans and the victims of 9-11.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Anything's possible, but I just think that Frum's way off base on that one. It's a publicity stunt for sure, but so much more than that. They've already spent considerable money on the project, and the radicals get to punch us in the face while the "moderates" can convince themselves that this a move at reconciliation and educating all those Jewish and Christian bigots.

The publicity is already backfiring, and a Plan B for a different location to prove their good intentions simply doesn't make any sense this late in the game.. If the three stooges who put up the money really want to build condos, this is a strange way to publicize it. One of the reasons I have problems with Frum is that he either has trouble finding evil, or he draws conclusions on the basis that the bad guys are merely clever, lovable rogues.

patti said...

law: fatwa?! god-bless you...

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: At least you can put on a burqa and hide.

BevfromNYC said...

Patti and LawHawk: I think both of you will be safe from a fatwa as long as you don't draw cartoon depicting your conversation...

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I was actually thinking I'd try a burqa myself, and really stir things up at Greg Gutfeld's Muslim gay bar. It's the best I can do since I can't draw worth a damn. Everything I draw looks like Richard Nixon. LOL

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Could it be that the guy who originally bought the land wanted to develop something else? Like condos? Then found out he needed much more money. So conferred with someone. This someone said unload it. How? Well, the Americans have lots of money. They would buy it from us especially if we said we would build a mega mosque there.

Now, that they have "permission" they don't know what to do except go back to see if they can get money from their muslim brothers to build this mosque that they threatened to build in order to recoup their money.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: That's Frum's thesis. I'm not buying it, but I can't prove he's wrong either. I guess we'll just have to see what develops.

Post a Comment