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.