Tuesday, August 17, 2010

The Scimitar At America's Throat

Call it Park 51 or Cordoba House or The Ground Zero Mosque or The Screw The Infidel Center, the Muslim building proposed for 45-51 Park Place in Manhattan is an insult, a provocation, and a Trojan horse designed to do nothing less than assert Islamic triumphalism. Our genius President has weighed in on the subject. He was for it before he was against it before he was for it. This is what passes for leadership.

Barack Hussein Obama, the great constitutional scholar who taught constitutional law despite never having read the Constitution announced that Muslims deserve the same First Amendment rights as any other religion. Thank you, Mr. Obvious. Now tell us something we don't know. The next day, the Waffle King announced that he was only talking about constitutional rights, but would make no comment about its appropriateness. And then proceeded to comment on the appropriateness. Who needs to argue with this moron? He's doing such a good job of arguing with himself. All of this occurs after months of Obama mouthpiece Robert Gibbs insisting that the mosque is purely a local issue and that the administration should not discuss a local matter.

I have to ask each of my readers "how many of you have ever heard or suggested that the First Amendment doesn't apply to Muslims?" Why do the jihadists, the radical left, and the alleged President of the United States keep bringing up the First Amendment when they all know that isn't the issue at all? Barack, this truly is about appropriateness, a matter reserved for the people and their elected representatives with absolutely no interference with the First Amendment. As I mentioned in an earlier post, you can't build a church in the middle of a freeway. You can't build a synagogue on the grounds of a public high school. And you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. So even if the First Amendment were the issue, it's not clear that a permit denial would violate it.

The monument to Islam is the equivalent of "fighting words." The planners behind this grotesque mosque are counting on the lack of will of the American people, the good will of the people of New York City, and the naivete of the very pro-Islamic President of the United States to allow them to say in monumental form "we don't give a damn about your 3,000 dead and the mass murder of innocent civilians at that hole in the ground a block and a half away from our noble Islamic center." It's tantamount to the Aryan Church building a huge cathedral right next door to a Holocaust Memorial. Sure, the First Amendment allows it, but it's wrong, wrong, wrong.

Let's take a look at how the masterminds of this project have proven that they are facile and bald-faced liars. Look at the original proposed name of the center--Cordoba House. The jihadist liars had several different versions of why they picked that name. It was to commemorate the religious tolerance shown by Cordoban Muslims during the Islamic hegemony over North Africa and most of Spain. Alternatively, it was to commemorate the scientific and social achievements of Islam in Spain. In reality, the name was picked to remind jihadists that the fall of Cordoba to the Crusader Catholic Majesties Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain in 1492 must be reversed by any means necessary.

The planners also claim that the Ground Zero mosque will be an offering of conciliation to the Christians and Jews of America. Yeah, right. The idea of tolerance among the Muslim founders of this mosque is "we'll tolerate you when you're dead or totally submissive." Feisal Abdul Rauf, the chief honcho for the mosque is so sensitive to people's feelings that he has stated that Muslims in America feel "humiliated" and "ignored" and "feel the need to conflagrate." He doesn't seem to have the same sensitivities toward the feelings of people who saw their friends and loved ones being burned alive by that need to conflagrate at the World Trade Center.

Rauf famously said that America was an accessory to 9-11, and that America "created al Qaeda." And he was sensitive enough to say it while the World Trade Center was still smoldering, within a few short days of the mass murder. He frames all the discussions of 9-11 and the mosque so that Muslims are the victims and the opponents of the mosque are the oppressors. That kind of murderous lie tends to create a very un-Christian attitude in me. Muslims are so victimized in America that they must rub America's nose in 9-11 just to feel good about themselves.

Rauf claims to admire the American concept of separation of church and state. Oh, really? Then how does he explain his belief that in Muslim-dominated areas, that concept should be tossed out the mosque window and replaced with sharia law? This center of Islamic learning will be teaching the supremacy of sharia law, which must ultimately be imposed on the entire world according to Mohammed. One should not forget that sharia law doesn't just demand supremacy over all other law, but promotes wonderful modern concepts such as the submission of women to whatever a man wants, stoning for adultery if the woman is raped, child marriage, and youthful mass murder of infidels, particularly Jews. Let's not forget that a woman becomes permanently unclean and inferior upon her first menstrual cycle, but just in case, there's always female genital mutilation to keep women from their evil ways.

New York City Mayor Bloomberg has replaced martyred Rabbi Mier Kahane's determined words "never again" with "well, maybe a couple more times in the name of tolerance." But at least Republican former Rep. Rick Lazio of New York has questioned the funding of the mosque. Tolerance of terrorists has no protection under either the Constitution or common sense, and radical Islam is a clear and present danger. The funding may be coming from Hamas, al Qaeda, or even simply being funneled through the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist scam. Rauf has said a few minor negative things about al Qaeda, but refuses to call Hamas a terrorist organization and takes pride in the support of CAIR. And Rauf is now the man Obama has appointed to be a spokesman for the American State Department in the Middle East--on your tax dollar. Why doesn't Obama just cut to the chase and recruit Osama bin Laden?

The most common argument against listening to the will of the American people and New Yorkers who overwhelmingly oppose the building of the mosque at its proposed site is ludicrous coming from Obama and the left. They love the will of temporary majorities, and despise the concept of a constitutional republic. "Let the people decide" is their battle-cry, except when they're against it. So here, the argument they use is "if a majority of people decided to reinstate slavery, would that be all right?" How damned insane is that question? It's just another red herring posing as a constitutional argument.

The mosque is a finger in America's eye. It's a dare to do anything to stop it. It's an appalling insult to the innocent dead. It's a thirteen story monument to Islamic triumphalism that we are expected to tolerate, even though American troops upon capturing Baghdad were not allowed to raise the American flag since it would be inappropriate triumphalism. It's a paean of praise for Islamic leaders such as Rauf who cagily avoid any mention of jihad or Islamic extremism, let alone the mass murder which was committed just down the street from the proposed mosque. It is, in short, an abomination which no law requires us to tolerate.

The governor of New York proposed to offer free (or at least cheap) ground in midtown Manhattan to resolve the problem while muting the ridiculous First Amendment arguments. I consider it a sell-out, but at least it's not a complete surrender. The historical preservation committee acted with unseemly haste to deny historical standing to the Italianate building (pictured) that the mosque will replace. Buildings with far less historical significance and in much worse shape have been preserved over major protests and simple practicality in every major American city. Somehow, governmental agencies lose their backbone when it comes to dealing with Muslims. The city planning commission and then the city council could find myriad reasons having nothing to do with religion to stop this project. They won't, unless they become more afraid of the voters than they are of the jihadists.

Here's what the New York Times has to say about Obama's seeming abandonment of his "principled" First Amendment original press announcement about the mosque, and what they think of you: "But his 'new beginning' has aroused nervousness in some, especially those who disagree with his counterterrorism policies, or those more comfortable with a vision of America as a white and largely Christian nation, and not the pluralistic melting pot Mr. Obama represents." So there, you bigots!


I'll close with the most ridiculous reason of all for supporting the building of the mosque. It comes from the Huffington Post, which declared with great fanfare that the monument to hate and mass murder will be the first all "green" mosque in America. I assume that among those green amenities will be the absence of toilet paper. There's a reason why under sharia law the right hand is lopped off for certain offenses, including theft. I'll leave that to your imagination or your research.

31 comments:

patti said...

that the muslims connected with this mosque INSIST on proceeding, regardless of the pain they are causing, is enough to be suspect in my eyes. anyone who espouses love and unity, yet is firmly rooted in disrespect and manipulation, is a liar. and that is just the beginning of reasons to be against this abomination.

and seriously, why do i get the hating trolls and you guys are free of them? am i not using the right pest strip?!

Tam said...

Thanks for articulating my sentiments. I (almost) wish I lived in New York so I could raise holy hell against this insult to America.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: The latest is that the head of the group that owns the property (at least the part Con Ed doesn't own) denies that he plans on meeting with NY Governor Patterson to discuss a compromise location. It is another Muslim company, with a large hint of anonymous funding. It is becoming abundantly clear that this is all one huge bluff to gain an advantage is some other arena, or the more obvious determination to exploit America's generosity and sense of fair play. The last thing it is about is either the First Amendment or tolerance/reconciliation.

Didn't Andrew tell you that we have a robotic system which automatically forwards all troll comments to your site? LOL

LawHawkRFD said...

Tam: You're more than welcome. I'll tell you honestly that it took me more time to delete the original expletives than it did to write and research the article. Well--maybe I'm exaggerating just a little.

Tennessee Jed said...

First green mosque? That is the silliest reason of them all. ARE THEY SERIOUS???

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: All right, Nancy. I'm dead serious (LOL) and so is the HuffPo. I'm sure they'll soon do a Hamas-funded Hollywood production directed by Michael Moore and starring Sean Penn and George Clooney entitled How Green Was My Mosque.

StanH said...

What do you really think Lawhawk, LOL! You are indeed correct my friend this is nothing but a kind of “Ark de Triomphe” for the Islamo-goons, and as usual Barry and his liberal gang are going against the will of the people. This is another act, that will further enrage the American people. If you listen real close, you can hear Americans pounding on their desks, their tables, in a building rage, demanding they stop the insanity, but to no avail. We will soon get to express our appreciation on 11/2, and hopefully we can curtail this insanity. I haven’t been so excited about voting in thirty years.

PS: Bill Whittle has a great video in this regard over at Big Journalism.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: I've finally figured out the proportions on my articles. The ratio is about 5 to 1 reasoned commentary versus angry screed. Today was angry time. LOL

AndrewPrice said...

How true: "let the people decide except when we don't like what the people decide."

What I find so amazing about this whole mosque thing is the hypocrisy. The left would happily zone churches out of existence -- indeed, they've gone after the mega churches. But somehow, now that it's an enemy of the United States trying to build this thing right at the most controversial spot they could. . . suddenly the government has no place telling people they can't build something in a particular spot?

Also, I thought it was hilarious that just as soon as all the leftists started praising Obama for his "courageous" stand, Obama cuts their legs out from under them. And then, as they start whining about horrible racist divisive Republicans. . . Harry Reid says the same thing.

BevfromNYC said...

Okay, as you know I was all for the mosque/community center being built until this weekend when I did a complete 180. As of this weekend when our great Waffle-King (love that! if only we really got real waffles out of it...anyway) made his grand pronouncements AND then waking up Monday morning to the headline in the NY Post that Hamas was all for the mosque and their pronouncement that we MUST build it as planned, I changed my mind. I've heard ALL the reasons and, Tam, I DO live in NYC and my office looks out onto Ground Zero every day...well let's just say I change my mind.

As I stated on HuffPo, if their mission is "peace and understanding" then they are way off message. All of the above and the fact that Imam Rauf refuses to renounce Hamas, a known terrorist organization responsible for the deaths and maimings of countless innocent people around the globe (not just in Israel), has made it abundantly clear that the intended mission of this Mosque/Community Outreach facility is NOT to promote peace and understanding, but to further the agenda of terrorists and radicals.

BevfromNYC said...

Oh wait a minute!!! Nobody told ME it was going to be the first GREEN mosque!?!?!?!? Forget what I said above!

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Obama's foolish statement on Friday night was the most ringing non-endorsement endorsement of sticking it to the people and protecting his well-beloved Middle Eastern friends imaginable. Essentially he said, "I don't endorse the mosque, but The First Amendment, the First Amendment! What a jerk.

Now a group of clergy has denounced Reid for "joining the racists opposed to the mosque" just to retain his Senate seat. When, oh when will they stop using the racism charge? Reid and Obama are both jerks, but what does racism have to do with the mosque?

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I've changed my mind about hot-button issues more than once in my life. But this one smelled to me like a fish rotting in the sun from the very beginning. But your epiphany came at a very appropriate time. When Obama starts defending the First Amendment, you know something is very, very wrong.

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: Are you Obama's "consistency czar?" LOL

patti said...

you, you...troll flingers!!

whoa, i just troll'd you.

i think i'm just gonna start responding to my trolls with :that's what she said.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, You clearly have not been paying attention. It's racism if it's something the left wants and you try to stand in their way. It could be opposition to civil rights, opposition to a mosque, or opposition to having ice cream before dinner.


Bev, I saw that Hamas story as well. Talk about giving away the plan!

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: If I'm thinking of the same troll you're talking about, I'd leave well enough alone. Absolutely wacko. Your proposed response is about right for his intelligence level. Maybe try, "I know you are, but what am I?"

LawHawkRFD said...

And now, for another update. Amid all the phony charges of suppression of free exercise of religion, the plaintive cry of the Greek Orthodox Church of Saint Nicholas at Ground Zero that was completely ruined by the building collapse and fire has gone unheeded by the political allies of the Islamists. The church has been seeking assistance and plan approval from the City of New York since almost immediately after 9-11. Every roadblock possible has been thrown up to stall or destroy the church's plans. The city has no problem finding reasons to prevent a previously-existing Christian church from being rebuilt, while it rushes through plans to build a brand-new gigantic mosque which didn't exist on 9-11. So much for equitable enforcement of freedom of religion. Of course the church was a mere four stories tall, so they probably don't have enough money or enough weapons to intimidate the city bureaucrats, all in the name of the First Amendment, of course.

JG said...

If I could type a rebel yell, I'd do it here. Excellent work. I'm sick to death of seeing my Canadian "friends" go on about the backward bigotry of Americans because we just can't assimilate Islam. Makes me wonder if Canada isn't a lost cause. Sorry, that's harsh. But it's true.

9/11 was throwing down the glove. The mosque is raising the victory flag. We cannot let it happen.

LawHawkRFD said...

J.G.: Well said: "9/11 was throwing down the glove. The mosque is raising the victory flag. We cannot let it happen." The Europeans tried surrender in the form of over-tolerance, and are paying the price. Germany, at least, has awakened slightly as have France and Switzerland. Surrendering to intolerant mass murderers is suicide, not tolerance. As for your Canadian friends, you'd better warn them that the Islamofascists haven't yet realized that the courts have declared gay marriage to be a basic human right.

darski said...

quote>>>If I could type a rebel yell, I'd do it here. Excellent work. I'm sick to death of seeing my Canadian "friends" go on about the backward bigotry of Americans because we just can't assimilate Islam. Makes me wonder if Canada isn't a lost cause. Sorry, that's harsh. But it's true.<<<<

Trust a Canukistanian... Canada is long past lost

LawHawkRFD said...

Darski: I was hoping it wasn't that bad in Canada. Apparently, it is.

LawHawkRFD said...

Darski: The only lawyer I would ever consider marrying! I've read most of her pieces on Islam, and I do know that she has brought up Canada more than once. In San Francisco, I wore the tee-shirt with her picture and the quote about bombing their cities and converting them all to Christianity. It's not as much fun to wear here in Caliente since almost everyone agrees with that sentiment.

darski said...

In Canada the only thing funnier than freedom of speech is freedom of religion. Our Bureaucrats just cannot get their arms around the concepts. You have to remember that God was evicted by bureaucratic fiat. He was not allowed to attend our service for your 911.

LawHawkRFD said...

Darski: Well, don't tell Obama and the Democrats. They'll use it as a game plan.

Joel Farnham said...

I just read that MS Pelosi thinks that the opposition to the Mosque should be investigated!!!

There is seriously something wrong here, when Pelosi feels that we should be investigated because we oppose the mosque! Who the hell does she think she is?!!!! Our Owner?!!!!

And just what will she find? A group of slaves, scared sh#tless because the speaker of the house doesn't like our position? Or a group of free men and women ready to blow her to the next century?

Patti said...

joel: you just made it to the top of her list! dukes up, buddy!

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Thank God I got out of San Francisco. I'd be tempted to strangle that crazed wannabe oligarch. She has now "amended" or "clarified" her remark to include "investigating the funding of the proponents and opponents of the mosque." How democratic. The witch (with a capital B) knows damned good and well that nobody's funding the opposition, but there's a very serious question about who is funding the mosque itself--Hamas? Al Qaeda? The mosque planners refuse to reveal most of the information regarding funding.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: Obviously the Wicked Witch of the West forgot that the Messiah on Friday was holding forth on the First Amendment. She clearly doesn't know about the free speech portions of the First Amendment, but fully understands the Free Ride for Muslims portion of the Amendment.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

Nancy may have created a situation where she becomes vulnerable. Not in the Election sense, but in the investigation sense. She won't be able to stop investigations on her or her minions after November.

I just hope the Republicans grow a pair.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: We know we have nothing to hide. So let's challenge Pelosi and the Islamocrats to go right ahead and conduct an investigation of both the mosque rats and the opponents. The only restriction is that the investigators must have no ties to either side or either political party, and the investigations must be completely public. The mosque rats have plenty to hide.

Post a Comment