Friday, August 13, 2010

Citing Overwhelming Support by Vast Majority of Muslims Living in Foreign Countries, Obama Defends Ground Zero Mosque

Just when you think things couldn't get more preposterous, our beloved President unloads another pile of crack-pottery.

President Barack Obama defended the plan to build a mosque near the site of the 2001 terror attacks in New York, telling Muslim guests at a Ramadan dinner at the White House that the nation's commitment to freedom of religion "must be unshakable.''

Mr. Obama's remarks came after weeks of the White House sidestepping the debate that has roiled New York and the nation since developers announced plans to build a $100 million, 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural center just two blocks from the World Trade Center site.

[He said] "But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan... This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable..."

...A Marist College poll found that 53% of New York City voters oppose constructing the mosque near the former site of the World Trade Center. Just 34% favored the plan.

Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles Burlingame was the pilot of the plane the terrorists hijacked and flew into the Pentagon, said she was furious over the president's remarks.

"I'm so angry. I believe this president has abandoned the American people,'' she said. "This isn't a fight about religious freedom for Muslims. No one has argued they don't have the property rights. This is about a project led by someone who says he's trying to build bridges and bring the community together and he's chosen probably the worst place in America and the worst way to do it.''

The president's statements are utterly, completely false.

The imam in question has endorsed the implementation of Sharia law in the United States. By his own admission then, the brand of Islam he wishes to practice is not a religion -- it is a political system.

Sharia law is a legal system that completely rejects the Constitution and the American form of government. Thus, there is absolutely no "separation of church and state" issue.

3,000 souls were murdered by Islamists in the name of their political religion on 11 September 2001. Tens of thousands of innocents have perished since then -- killed in beheadings, stonings, executions, hangings, beatings, floggings, suicide bombings and more.

All were murdered in the name of a political system that adopts the guise of a religion.

But as with health care and the economy, President Obama doesn't care what you or I think. Facts, logic, reason and history play no part in his "decision-making". Only ideology matters with this particular breed of hard-left Democrats.

Hat tip: Larwyn. Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!


harkins.joe said...

The US Constitution is not crack-poterry. Those who frequently complain that O is violating the Constitution are suddenly amnesiac when he cites its first and most important principle and attack him for supporting it.

US Constitution - Amendment 1 - Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For the benefit of those who do not know, or who may not want to know, the above is, verbatim, the very first law of this nation, both in sequence and in importance. If any government ruling can deny the right to build the mosque, then that same ruling will eventually come back to affect every other unpopular opinion.

The issue is the principle that brought the Pilgrims here, the Catholics, the Evangelicals, the Mormons and many others. This is the right that our starving, freezing, barefoot army marched though hip deep snow to win at the Battle of Trenton. This is the law that men died at Iwo Jima to protect. This is the law that my best friend died at 17 years old in Korea to protect.

This is what America is all about. If you do not trust our Constitutional commitment to the right of religious freedom from any governmental interference, maybe you should follow Mark Twain's advice to go to some other country where oppression is openly practiced as a matter of law and not the hypocracy of those who say they support freedom but want to deny it to anyone with whom they disagree.

Here's another opinion on the subject.

Jim - PRS said...

Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Brooklyn said...



Are you serious?

Or are you cracking pottery?

Where in that wonderful First Amendment, does it say the vast majority of the American Public cannot politely suggest someone build One Mosgue somewhere else, in a more appropriate location?

You doth protest far too much...

You do realize, this is the same Mr. Obama who believed the USA had 57 States?

The same fool who believes "Austrian" is a language.

It isn't just an issue of "freedom", as Mosques are being built all over this fine Country. Sadly, we don't see Our amazing form of Freedom in other parts of the world.

Obama seems to have a disdain for the US Constitution, and like a fool, he seems willing to exploit it for his own misguided gain.

For example, Obama and his Democrat Administration cannot seem to recognize the 15th Amendment.

Obama's DOJ dismissed an obvious case of voter intimidation. And it seems clear it was a product of ugly racial bias. This is clearly a sign the law is being used only as the Obama Administration wishes to employ it.

This Mosgue issue is beyond the realm of Freedom of Religion, and it has become a matter of taste and decency. It could even be considered a matter of National Security, if those inspiring this effort are proven to have some very unfriendly motives.

Obama seems to have no sense of taste, class, or decency. His joke about the "Special Olympics" was a primary example of this troubling demeanor. He is a rather snobbish fraud without much substance. The first President to ever require a Teleprompter in a major Presidential Press Conference.

Nor does Mr. Obama seem able to tell the truth...

The Democrat has lied about lobbyists, transparency, earmarks, GITMO, signing statements, taxation, executive orders, bows to kings, Iraq, bribes, Blagojevich, AARP support, etc.

It is no wonder his poll numbers are tanking, for no one can believe a word he says, just like his fellow Partisans, like Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Schumer, Dodd, Frank, Rangel, Obey, Boxer, etc.

This is one fool who has pushed the worst policies on the USA, making a disaster for all. The American Public is suffering while the most absurd exploitation of the US Government grows. To no surprise, Fannie and Freddie are seeking more bail out funding in the Billions - just another reminder of the horrid Democratic Party offering.

But to suddenly hide behind 'freedom' is a classic manipulation. This is the same Democratic Partisan President who remained completely silent while the Iranian Regime slaughtered it's own People, who were protesting a rigged election.

He doesn't seem to care very much about freedom, Obama certainly did not seem to care about the formerly oppressed Iraqi People. He childishly demeaned every aspect of working for, fighting for, striving for, the Freedom of Others around the World during the last General Election - and confirmed his 'no meddling' deceit in numerous offerings as a President.

Obama is a very misguided Partisan, who simply is loaded with endless contradictions, pushing policies which are sinking us all.

The Disastrous Democratic Party has made a mess - and Obama's Legacy is a nightmare.

Let's hope the change is finished.

Anonymous said...

Geez you people are crybabies. Unless you can prove this group had direct involvement with the 9-11 attacks your complaints are hollow.

There is no legal objection to stop them from building the community center.

l said...

While we hear all of these claims about religious freedom for Muslims:

"Rebuilding has been blocked for nearly nine years. Where’s the outrage?
Amid all the brouhaha about the intentions of our Muslim enemies to build a monument to terrorism at Ground Zero in New York City, we seem to have forgotten about rebuilding the little Orthodox Christian church that was destroyed in the same attack."
If religious freedom was the issue this church would have been rebuild years ago. Those supporting the Muslims don't care at all about religious freedom, they have another agenda.

Nuke said...

I agree with the 1st amendment, however the location of this mosque is one of the shameful, despicable and immoral ideas ever. The desire of the imman to build bridges is a load of $%^&. This imman wants sharia law implemented in the US. He is insulting the families of those who died. What is worse is the hypocrisy. If someone wanted to open a pork BBQ restaurant, a gay bar, a strip club, a dog kennel or grooming salon even a bar serving open liquor next door, the howls from the Muslim community would be unbelievable and supported by the usual suspects in our politically correct world

harkins.joe said...

Brooklyn is a good example of the problem some people have in looking straight at an idea and thinking clearly. I wrote about one specific and focused point, the First Amendment and the importance of respecting it. He responds with a wild diatribe about everything but that.

He attacks me personally. He attacks and mocks the President and others with a ramble that has nothing to do with the First Amendment and the need for Americans to respect it.

He refers to things I did not say. He goes off on wild tangents about the failings of other countries to respect liberty - and he wants the USA to be just as bad as they are.

He attacks judges whose decisions he does not like because he has not taken the time and effort to actually read their decisions. (btw - those were judges appointed under the previous administration).

He says, as if it is relevant to the issue of the First Amendment and the mosque, "Obama's DOJ dismissed an obvious case of voter intimidation."

The case was dropped (not dismissed) by the DOJ, That much is true. And basically they did that because there was not any evidence that any voter was intimidated. No complaining witness, no trial possible.

But an inconvenient truth exposes Brooklyn's eagerness to smear the President. The case was dropped on January 9, 2009. The President was not sworn into office until January 20th. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, did not take office until about 5 weeks after that and his appointment was not confirmed until June.

Bottom line, it was not done by "Obama's DOJ" but the previous administration's DOJ.

Brooklyn wants the First Amendment (which he addresses with sarcasm) to include subservience, which he himself would rightfully never tolerate, to someone else's opinion. He wants to throw away that most basic of all our laws because of what he calls "taste and decency."

All along he ignores and dismisses the simple concept, the one on which this nation was founded, the rule of law. He really misses the point that as soon as anyone's rights under those laws are denied, his own rights are also finished.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on everything except the importance of respecting the most basic law of our great Constitution.

harkins.joe said...

Nuke said, "If someone wanted to open a pork BBQ restaurant, a gay bar, a strip club, a dog kennel or grooming salon even a bar serving open liquor next door, the howls from the Muslim community would be unbelievable - etc. "

Sorry to tell you this Nuke, but just about every one of those things already exists in that couple of blocks. There's not just one bar; there are several. Yes, you can buy a pork-made hot dog from the street vendor a few feet away. Plus there's a Sushi shop (raw fish and shellfish is a big Koran no-no as it is to Jews) right around the corner. There's a cigar shop, up the block, run by a really cute and sexy Dominican woman.

In other words, it's about as diverse a place as you can find.
And, as someone else has pointed out, when you speak of anything in Manhattan as being "two blocks from xyz" you may as well be saying two miles. The spot we are talking about is not "sacred ground." That ground is over there, part of the ground plan of the World Trade Center, not even visible from Park Place.

FWIW, there already is a mosque a few hundred feet away (Masjid Manhattan, 20 Warren St.). Members of their congregation were among the estimated 300 Muslims who died that day.

Let's have little more faith in the laws our forefathers gave us.

directorblue said...


Did you not read my commentary? Sharia law, which this imam advocates, is NOT a religion. It is an entire political system. It is NOT protected under the First Amendment no matter what you want to call it.

If a motorcycle gang call itself a religion and large percentages of the members preyed on old people, killing and robbing them repeatedly, do you think it's their First Amendment right to build a clubhouse next to the senior center?

Unknown said...

While the 1st Amendment does indeed protect religious expression, Islam as practiced by those who advocate the most rigid interpretation of the Qur'an (which is eternal and immutable), are mandated by scripture to wage unending war against non-believers. Towards that end they advocate, among other things, jihad, sharia, honor killings, FGM, stonings, oppression of women,taqiyya, naskh (abrogation of the peaceful verses)etc.. Islam is NOT a religion but a POLITICAL system that controls every aspect of a Muslim's life.

To deny Cordoba would not be an affront to religious freedom; rather, a pre-emptive protection of the values and freedoms that are hated by Islamists as well as stopping an ideology that wants to subjugate or conquer non-Muslims (Sura 9:29).

We can deal with this problem now by denying this project or be faced by a larger problem later after its establishment.

By the way, research taqiyya and consider when assessing the words of the Cordoba supporters. Deception is an important tool by Islamists which we can only ignore at our peril.

harkins.joe said...

Actually, political systems are protected by the FA. It's an issue of free speech and the right of assembly. It's clearly there in the language of the First Amendment.

There are many many many political systems I do not like. I am a former journalist who spent time in a 3rd world military prison for knowing and saying what that government did not like said aloud. The minute someone wants to shut down open and free discussion of any political idea, I will oppose it and go back to prison or put my life on the line to object to that. If a government can shut down a person or group for talking about sharia law or stop a nazi rally or a communist rally or a meeting of little old ladies who want to use a dildo, they can shut down me. They can shut down you.

Do not be afraid of an open society where distasteful or repellent ideas are advocated by fools and charlatans - or worse yet - by true believers. That willingness to allow open discussion is what makes this country so strong. Let them talk about sharia law all they want so we can confront its women-hating, rights-denying tyrannies out here in the powerful sunshine of free speech.

We cannot defeat bad guys and bad ideas, by becoming them. We have already given up too many of our freedoms in a foolish attempt to protect ourselves from tyranny.

Further, you are confusing speech with actions. Motorcycle gangs and right-wing militia and other groups can talk all they want about killing and raping. You and I can talk all I want about very distasteful ideas such as child molestation or accuse the president of being a liar or worse. Pick up almost any popular novel or watch any blockbuster movie. Violence are what they are all about.

But actually making plans (which is action) or actually doing any of those things or taking any concrete step towards doing any of those things, is illegal action - and there are plenty of criminal laws to deal with illegal actions.

Speech is not action and it is still protected by the FA. Read it carefully and you will see that. If you really care about the rule of law as a special American quality, you will find certain web pages genuinely exciting. Start with this one and the links in the texts: and then go on to Google more pages.

Finally, some may notice I do not use a fake name here. I am proud of my right to have my own opinions. I want you to have yours as well. These rights are too valuable, too essential to our country's future, for me to hide behind a fake name.

But I've made my point. There's no need for me to continue in this venue.

God Bless American and thanks to our founding fathers for what they created.

directorblue said...

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Support for a political system that advocates the destruction of our society -- which defines Sharia law to a tee -- is not protected by the First Amendment nor condoned by any our Founding Fathers in any of their writings.

Anonymous said...


"Sorry to tell you this Nuke, but just about every one of those things already exists in that couple of blocks. There's not just one bar; there are several. Yes, you can buy a pork-made hot dog from the street vendor a few feet away. Plus there's a Sushi shop (raw fish and shellfish is a big Koran no-no as it is to Jews) right around the corner. There's a cigar shop, up the block, run by a really cute and sexy Dominican woman."

But I'm sure you'd agree that our laws also protect the citizen's rights to pool their money together, purchase any land around the mosque and open a bisexual bbq strip joint amusement park. Sodom & Gomorrah, NYC?

Sure, it'd be insensitive, but obviously, feelings aren't being considered here.

It's not about the RIGHT to build it. It's about the insensitivity being conveyed by a man who claims to be concerned with being sensitive. If the Imam gave a rat's ass about the 9/11 families, he'd build his center somewhere, anywhere else. That's obviously off the table. And it deserves a legally-protected response in kind.

Unknown said...

harkins.joe says this... "That willingness to allow open discussion is what makes this country so strong." Open discussion is not in the cards if sharia law prevails.

Unfortunately, he believes that he has made his point (specious at best), but has apparently signed off.

Joe, I do not say this condescendingly, read the Qur'an, particularly Sura 9 (believed by the four major Sunni schools to have abrogated most of the earlier Suras) and the Hadith. You may not have the same idealistic opinion(s)about Islam in general and Islamists in particular.

To use the off-quoted expression... The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Anonymous said...

One of the difficulties in a democracy is that when you make a rule to protect yourself, the rule also ends up protecting others..even those you may dislike.
For example freedom of speech allows you to speak your mind. But it also allows people you don't agree with to have a voice too.

In most undemocratic countries like north Korean, Burma and China they have solved this problem by allowing freedom of speech but limiting it to those they agree with.

In America we have a rule that says if an area is zoned for mosques, churches and temples any religion should have the right to build there if they can meet all the legal and financial requirements.

Many Americans blame the religion of Islam for 9/11. They want to make a new rule that says only certain religions they approve of can build near 9/11. The danger is that this is the same justification the North Koreans use to suppress free speech they do not like.

Once you accept their logic it's easy to buy some rather odd notions like....

1. No Muslim mosque should be allowed to be built without approval of of local residents.
2. Out of respect, Families who practice Islam should not be allowed to buy a house within a certain distance from a relative of a victim of 9/11
3. All the 9/11 terrorists were Muslims. Therefore all Muslims are terrorists and are not protected by our laws.

Anonymous said...

Joe Harkins is a libtard cock sucker.
I'm sure he will champion my free speech rights to say this.

Anonymous said...

Joe Harkin makes a critical error in his analysis of free speech when he states unequivocally that "speech is not action". To advocate for Sharia is to advocate for the overthrow of our republic. To provide material support to those that advocate for the imposition of Sharia here in America are assisting a subversive political entity whose goal is domination. In other words, the creation of an Islamic state identical to and ruled by the same oppressive and evil men that rule in the Islamic world

Where do you draw the line? True Muslims cannot be citizens of any free nation because their allegiance is to the Quran and the Hadiths. Living in this country is a privilege, not a right; therefore all immigration of Muslims should immediately cease. Any Muslim that advocates for Sharia should be deported or stripped of citizenship and deported to their country of origin. The Muslims that committed the atrocities on 9/11 hijacked 4 jet liners, nothing more.

Sunflower Pipes said...

I served with American Muslims in the Army, I volunteered with American Muslims on 911 at ground zero, I talked and shared meals with American Muslims here in New York there are 1.5 Billion Muslims all over the world, I assure you they are not all bad. In fact most of them are good people, they have families, they work hard they have good values, they pay taxes. I will also assure you that most Muslims aren't trying to indoctrinate the world. I have never had a Muslim try and convert me, I cannot say the same for Christians.

Brooklyn said...


It grows even more funny...

Harkins JOE?

Is that the real name?


Or is that a play on what we THINK is the common American image?

This is a laugh riot...
"Brooklyn is a good example of the problem some people have in looking straight at an idea and thinking clearly."

Spoken like a tried and true PARTISAN, who insults others - living in utter denial about the opponents understanding and ability.

I understood your vapid point all too well, and was thinking all too clearly about your desperate effort.

These Partisans think they can shape a debate on the ONE ASPECT they feel is their strongest argument - and try to ignore the rest.

It grows so laughable. It is like when a Democratic Partisan gets caught in vivid corruption, a Democrat will ignore it - while just having offered the most intense condemnation for the Republican caught with a lesser offense.

Democrats are stuck with this tunnel view of reality. They will alter their view of the game, just to fit their Partisan obsession.

Now again, we see them trying to exploit the FIRST AMENDMENT, just as many Democrats exploited it prior after 9-11, justifying the leaks of essential classified documents regarding National Security (which was clearly orchestrated for pure political greed).

JOE claims, Obama is for the Constitution!

Cackle cackle...

But again the evidence is clear the Obama TEAM - these unethical Democrats only exploit it for their OWN greed. They have failed to address the 15th Amendment - protecting the rights of Americans to vote. Obama and Holder could care less about the Constitution in this regard.

The Constitution is being abused again for the Democrats game, just as JOE plays trying to CONTROL the entire debate.

It is so funny. It is an amazing, vivid contradiction about the concept of FREEDOM - especially FREEDOM of Speech - or even a concept of TOLERANCE of other opinions and beliefs.

And the comment author doesn't even seem to realize they are hypocrites of the first order. They foolishly complain about being mocked, as they themselves from the beginning offered tiresome hubris and demeaning snobbish expression from the start.

"Go to another Country" - JOE SAYS! If you RUBES don't like it, using Mark Twain in the most vivid attempt at manipulation of the Partisan's perceived Audience - (can this Democrat Author provide more stereotypical insulting clap trap?)

JOE represents the ONE WAY street of the contemporary Democratic Partisans, and their desperation of ignoring all is amusing.

The same folly which tries to say all opposition to TAX INCREASES are greedy, racist, fascist, etc.

No one is violating the FIRST Amendment by encouraging others to build something somewhere else - out of respect for those lost in a tragedy.

No one has denied anyone their rights in the FIRST AMENDMENT in this case.

Hiding behind freedom, after endlessly debasing the worthy efforts to promote, empower, fight for, FREEDOM around the World after 9-11?


Classic Democratic Partisan deceit.

Let's bring back the old definition of the word "IS". Let's play games with the US Constitution when it serves our folly.

Long ago, the Clintons made it their policy to lie about the Genocide in Rwanda. There is similar deceit being provided today from this Obama Administration. Perhaps the most vivid, was Napolitano's attempt to define Terrorism as merely a "man made disaster".

The majority of the American Public knows it is being played, by those like JOE, who insult everyone's intelligence.

As if WE don't know the Constitution?


More JOE!

Tell us more !!!

Unknown said...

Sunflower Pipes said... I assure you they are not all bad. I absolutely agree that the vast majority of Muslims are good people.

It is the religion of Islam coupled with strict adherence that is BAD. By some estimates more than 270 million people have died in the name of Islam since Muhammad undertook his conquests nearly 1400 years ago. Why? Because the Qur'an mandates conversion of non-Muslims, submission (dhimmitude) and paying a tax (jizya).

Further, since 911, there have been nearly 16,000 terrorist attacks worldwide, most of which carried out in the name of Islam.

Cordoba is a threat.

xax said...

Too bad Joe’s not around anymore, but I have to get this off my chest.

Joe is completely correct.

Therefore I'm sure Joe also understands that the people who are upset with this are simply exercising their right to free speech, their right to peaceably assemble and their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And since Joe acknowledges that there is already another mosque close by- why build another one so close to ground zero after 9/11? Also given the imam's own, at best, questionable ideology- how is this building nothing more than a purely political act? Also given the potential name of the building, is Joe aware of the Caliphate of Cordoba and its historical significance to those who want a global caliphate?

And NO, political systems aren't protected by the first amendment Joe. The first amendment is a component of our political system. The first amendment protects our right to free speech within certain limits like slander and yelling fire in a crowded room. At no point does it say that we should be tolerant towards other political systems- particularly any of those that wish to supplant our own.

You see Joe, they're not just talking about Sharia Law- they want it implemented. So we ARE NOT confusing words with actions. They have been very clear in what actions, given the opportunity, they would take. And that action is Sharia Law, which is completely opposed to our 200 years of governance. It's something that would strip you, Joe, of all these liberties that you love so much. Don't you get that?

I have to say this Joe, but you are an example of what political correctness has done to society. We've seen your type before. You are more interested in proving your superiority via “tolerance”, “acceptance” and “openness” that you refuse to see what is right in front of your face. You refuse to take their own words, which they have been shouting for decades, at face value. I enjoy how you talk about an open society, yet you berate those of us who oppose the mosque with a barrage of talking points about how we need to be more “open”. Just like you, huh Joe?

Just because some people oppose this mosque, does not mean that we are in danger of shutting down another’s right to religion or speech. Should we shut down a Nazi rally or Communist rally? No. But it was people like you, who felt that “tolerance” and “openness” was more important than what was morally right, who allowed groups like those to come to power and wreak their havoc upon the world. You see Joe, to be “tolerant”, to be “open” to ideas does not mean we HAVE TO LIKE those ideas.

So, why is it that we are the only ones told to be open? What about this imam? Why not direct your high and mighty diatribe towards him? After all, he says he is interested in building bridges. And given that this mosque offends so many throughout NY and the US, why continue on with his plans? Is he not guilty of being intolerant and not “open” to our grievances? How about you Joe? Why is it that you cannot understand why so many take issue with this mosque? Are you guilty of not being “open”?

Anonymous said...

The problem with building this mosque or accepting Islamic religion in this country is this: The Muslim community is using our democracy against us while they do not believe in a democracy themselves. The Sharia and the U.S. Constitution are not compatible. Wake up America!

Sunflower Pipes said...

Hey John I could throw out a string of statistics of atrocity's Americans have committed including massacring the Indians and maintaining a massive slave industry, and then say John is a threat. But it wouldn't be true would it? Because you did not do those things and you do not believe as the people that did those things. Well that is how it is with the people building the community center two blocks from the Trade Center Site.

725... 3 said...

@Directorblue: You said "the brand of Islam [the imam] wishes to practice is not a religion". Sharia is a political system, and a nasty one at that, but are you saying that a religion that encompasses a political system actually ceases to be a religion? Please clarify.