Simply have someone buy adjacent, private property, on which nothing is built or displayed except for billboards on which are painted the Mohammad cartoons.

And for good measure, have someone buy adjacent, private property on the other side of the mosque, on which nothing is built or displayed except for a continuously burning cross.

Then have someone try to claim that both must be removed, because they are offensive and incendiary.

Please – let’s stop giving this guy excuses. He is not acting like an idiot – and has not been acting like an idiot at any time during his presidency.

He hates White Christian Free-Enterprise America. And he’s a Chicago street thug. Come on, look at all the people he associated with before the campaign. Look at all the ideas he has espoused – and look at all the actions he continues to take. He expressly denounces American exceptionalism.

Granted, it is consistent with idiocy; with incompetence, etc. etc. But the fact is it fits his Anti-American agenda. He isn’t sticking up for religious rights in an inartful way – he wants to stick his thumb in our eye.

Anybody ever hear him say he loves his country? Yeah, I missed it, too.

I have read through the President’s speech multiple times, and I can’t find where he said he supports the construction of the mosque, let alone came out “forcefully in favor” of the mosque??? What he said was:

“This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.”

And he’s right! Now, I’m sure that he actually DOES support the mosque and, as Erick points out, he has been silent on the First Amendment rights of abortion protesters to stand outside of abortion clinics. However, this is my problem with the level of vitriol coming from our side on this issue. If we allow, or even expect, government to intervene to stop construction of this mosque, we are essentially ceding to government the right to ignore the First Amendment when dealing with a religion that we disagree with. This is dangerous, dangerous ground.

Rather than seeking even more government intervention into religion, we should instead be trying to go the other direction and get the government out of every pulpit in this country. I fear that simply because conservatives disagree with Islam, or find it offensive (which I certainly do), they are willing to give up their own religious liberties, as well.

These gross exaggerations and this emotionally charged debate do grave damage to the cause for religious freedoms. Just remember, tomorrow it could be your church that they are saying ‘no’ to…

is a legal right because I don ‘t accept that Islam is a legitimate religion protected by the First Amendment.

As such, I think the government has the right to block this mosque from being built, and I strongly support and urge the government to intervene and block this and all other mosques from being built.

Obama going all in for construction of the Ground Zero mosque is excellent news.

That is because for two plus year there is no referendum on his policies and performance.

There is, however, a referendum this November where this issue can be raised in a federally important election: The US Senate seat currently held by his sycophant.

I say: Use the NY Senate election (at least in part) as a referendum on the mosque.

If this thing goes through, just imagine all the jihad recruitment posters showing before and after shots of”ground zero”. Before, two tall towers. After, a gold domed mosque with “Mohammad’s Sun” shining brightly over it.

This whole thing is just unthinkable. Our freedom of religion is being exploited. The muslim faith doesn’t seem to care about “insensitivity”. The muslim faith seems to be keeping their eye on the ball. They want to twist things and show an image of victory over the west and it’s evil capitalism.

We need a republican mayor in New York so that he/she can take that land by eminent domain and put up a strip mall or heck, even a 7-11.

His attitude throughout his speech at that dinner was that of someone who was royally pissed off. Funny, isn’t it, that his “anger” was directed at his fellow countrymen?

Were he a chld, these actions might be countered with spanking him, making him go to bed without his supper, and grounding him for a week – things I am sure were NEVER done in his formative years, when they might have made a difference.

His petulance is only going to intensify over the course of what remains of his presidency. At some point, Congress may reach a “Magna Carta” moment; perhaps they will entertain the idea of impeachment – not necessarily for crimes (I’m not sure there are any clearcut legal violations), but for dereliction of duty, wanton disrespect for the office of the Presidency, and contempt for the very people he was elected to serve.

It is becoming increasingly obvious to many of those who helped elect him that he does not have the interests of America in mind. Let’s hope they remember this lesson for a very, very long time…..

His attitude throughout his speech at that dinner was that of someone who was royally pissed off. Funny, isn’t it, that his “anger” was directed at his fellow countrymen?

Were he a chld, these actions might be countered with spanking him, making him go to bed without his supper, and grounding him for a week – things I am sure were NEVER done in his formative years, when they might have made a difference.

His petulance is only going to intensify over the course of what remains of his presidency. At some point, Congress may reach a “Magna Carta” moment; perhaps they will entertain the idea of impeachment – not necessarily for crimes (I’m not sure there are any clearcut legal violations), but for dereliction of duty, wanton disrespect for the office of the Presidency, and contempt for the very people he was elected to serve.

It is becoming increasingly obvious to many of those who helped elect him that he does not have the interests of America in mind. Let’s hope they remember this lesson for a very, very long time…..

. . .and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

And if they object, put them to the sword.”

The last line is wholly inconsistent with Christianity. It is wholly consistent with Islam. Not just radical Islam, nor just some sect which only terrorists comprise. Islam itself. It is not a “religion of peace,” nor is it in any way compatible with Natural Rights, the fruits of the Age of Reason, nor Science as a discipline. It is an atavistic, reactionary, destructive throwback to the darkest ages of mankind.

Are there relatively peaceful Muslims? Sure. Take Cat Stevens. He isn’t out waving a sword in a supermarket, but ask him about Rushdie.

Ideas can be toxic. And this is one of them, neatly packaged with promises of eternal rewards and impressive architecture. We have the right to say no.

Not all muslims at any one time are at war with the west but as an overarching goal the religion itself is at war with everything not under the control of islam.

The O is for it because it is not good for the rest of us. It is an action that leads to the further empowerment of a movement that is directly at odds with Western Civilization and everything the O likely doesn’t seem to like about the US.

Perhaps a different attitude might be had on the topic if non-muslims were allowed to visit their holy sites in Saudi Arabia or if non-muslims were allowed to build churches/synagogues etc in such currently intolerant lands but there it is.

The problem here isn’t Obama – it’s the entire Democrat Party (and all affiliated groups).

The real problem isn’t that elements of Islam are “at war with the West” – it’s that elements OF THE WEST are “at war with the West”!

I worry that all this recent focus on Obama is getting us to take our eyes off the ball. That “ball” is the entire Left of this country (and many others) – they are a far greater existential threat to our way of life than even the Jihadists are. Obama is just a small part of that.

I’ve got more in common with a Muslim than a flaming pro-SSM man-hating atheist.

Why did it take him several weeks to come to this conclusion? Whatever his beliefs, they’re certainly not heartfelt, otherwise he’d have been out in front of this story weeks ago.

The libs/media have defined this issue as, exercising religious freedom, (very humorous how they care about it now). This plays into their hands and it’s not the issue. Few people deny it’s legal anyway.

What should be the our concentrated debate is how they propose to be our friends through building a Mosque that is causing outrage and why, if they want to be our friends, don’t they consider the feelings of their “friends” They are saying “hey, we’re gonna hold you down and force our friendship down your throat in the name of tolerance” HMM sound familiar?

Islams pitch man, Obama, just said Islam is a religion of “diversity and tolerance” and Obama never lies. So where in all of Muslim land is there a Christian church? How many more Christians will get murdered in the name of tolerance? Oh, and of course, the Mosque will welcome the LGBT and hold courses in diversity. Can you fathom libs love for Islam? They would all be killed, that in itself shows their inability to reason.

No folks the debate needs to be brought to them, we need not defend ourselves, they need to prove themselves and act the part before expecting respect from America.

Any response from this man is not for the welfare of the American people, but just what will sell at the moment.
He wanted applause from the pro-mosque crowd at that moment. Tomorrow something else will be right. Basically, time and again we see that he was for “it” before he was against ‘it’.

The good caring people of America will not let this stand.

So, Crist is throwing this out there that he supports Obama’s position on the mosque. He said this during an interview on CNN, according to Politico.Wondering how this will go over with Florida’s Jewish community? Its pretty large.

Well, Crist’s buttered his bread now he’s gonna have to sleep in it. Rubio needs to trounce this guy big time.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/maggiehaberman/0810/Flas_Crist_supports_Obamas_mosque_stand_.html?showall

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. ~Abraham Lincoln~

What Barak is deliberately doing is smoke and mirrors.
Get We the People riled up about his sanctioning the building of the 9/11 mosque. So what is it he doesn’t want We the People to notice?

What bit of whimsical slight of hand is he about to pull off?

Maybe sanctioning Islam as the official religion of the USA?
No, not possible. The United States Constitution does not allow a state/federally sanctioned or recognized religion.

How about seizing all Private Retirement funds and Savings Accounts and then replacing what was in those private accounts with Government backed Securities, Bonds etc?Or maybe all that damnable TRILLIONS of National Debt he and his buds charged up.
After all We the People do not have any clue about saving and managing money.
Or about budgeting or paying our bills on time.

Hmm. Maybe a Land Grab with all sorts of mineral assets or arable land for growing crops or grazing cattle removed from production.

Hmm. What are Barak and his little friends up to these days.

Too bad we can’t scrub Washington DC clean as easily as I can scrub my toilet.

This republic was not established by cowards; and cowards will not preserve it. ~~Elmer Davis

I am stone forged from the fires of creation into flesh ~~Pamela1631

The greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.~~Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret.)

The Concord Project: Fighting for Freedom in the Fall

Who can be surprised at this further betrayal of America?
HIS NAME IS “H-U-S-S-E-I-N”!!!!!

that would be violated if some conservatives got their way and got the government to stop the building of the mosque would be the right to property. It is obvious why Pres Obama went the fraudulent 1st Amendment/”freedom of religion” argument; he doesn’t care about or believe in property rights.

And I really will leave it at this.

Of course I believe that there are moderate Muslims, just as I believe there are moderate anarchists and moderate Communists and moderate Christians and moderate hunters and moderate members of NAMBLA, etc, etc.. But they are moderates *within* their groups, not moderates as we would normally use the term. The group itself may be far, far to one end of the spectrum, and a moderate within a given group may advocate things that fall far outside of what is acceptable in a society.

Please don’t come back with the “so you are comparing Islam to NAMBLA?!?”, because I am not. Let me say again – I am not. And I will agree that advocating voluntary submission to sharia law appears to be a moderate position within the Muslim community.

Separating our mutual admiration for Martin from this subject, I argue that submitting to sharia law in America, by any process and within any time frame, is so far removed from the founding principles as to be completely unacceptable and advocating it is radical beyond words. THAT is the debate I want to have. THAT is what we need to work out in order to move forward. THAT is the bright line that I cannot work myself around.

You and I (and Martin, for that matter) have stood together too many times to let it get ugly, which is kinda where it is going, so I am bailing now while the bailing’s good. I fear that future bannings cloud the horizon, and I hate to leave, but I need to go catch the 3rd round of the PGA.

I always miss the good stuff.

A secular socialist or communist, like in the Bathist Parties in Iraq and Syria in the eyes of the world! However, at a very young and impressionable age while in Indonesia, he attended the Muslim schools. Where I am pretty sure he was well indoctrinated into the Muslim faith. Since his mother and maternal grandparents had no real faith to teach him, what do you think he really deep down believes? He will take the side of Muslims all the time either covertly or overtly! If you don’t see that, you have more of a vision problem than I do!

A gay activist is suggesting a homosexual bar across the street from the Cordoba House that will offer a non-alcoholic section for Muslims.

That’s what I call sensitivity.

Seriously, I see it everywhere, from Bill O’Reilly’s show to the Blogosphere to the diaries of well-intentioned RedState members. Too many people keep trying to figure out Obama, attempting to use the old measures of rationality, honesty and honor in hope of “understanding” him.

Here’s all we need to understand: the guy is the first “un-American” president we’ve ever had. America and American traditions are just not of interest to him, in fact they’re an anathema. He’s the bastard child of a “free-thinker” and Frank Marshall Davis, a black America-hating Communist from the 50-60s mold.

To have someone like this as President confuses the hell out of Americans who can’t or don’t want to believe it could be true.

It’s this confusion that gives Obama and his ilk the cover he needs to pull his devious crap. We need to JUST ACCEPT the fact that this guy is bad news, all around, AND HE IS PLAYING US, and laughing at us.

He will use our respect for the office he holds to constantly confound us, buying himself and his legion of misfits and socialists all the time they’ll need to kneecap America.

Our only hope: effectively neuter this crowd by recapturing Congress in November.

P.S. Don’t try to convince that this guy is more Christian than Muslim. This latest foolishness should erase all doubt.

( I’m trying to catch up and I guess I entered late in the “game.”)
Hey Red,
What exactly is your purpose? To be “right” at any cost? You, sir, have not been intellectually honest. You quote selectively only the parts that defend your beliefs. You are the one dishonestly representing what the president said, as pointed out by others who have shared the entire quote.
It seems that most conservatives, including myself, are angry that the concept of allowing a Mosque to be built at Ground Zero is even seriously considered, given what it means to the citizens of this country, not to mention the world and our enemies. It is highly inflammatory. It’s called symbolism and it is as in your face as a spit in the face.
I think you are creating a non-issue. The issue of whether they have the Constitutional right to build a Mosque is not the question. The chosen site is in the worst possible taste, not even considering what this symbol represents.

How is it that this “in your face” and unsubtley insulting Mosque is deemed acceptable while the government routinely steps in and demands that Nativity Scenes be removed because they are inappropriate and offend some people? Or that crosses be taken off grave sites of those who fought for liberty and the right to religious freedom? Christianity is being routinely persecuted by strict government regulations and the ACLU. If you are going to cry “freedom of religion!” shouldn’t it at least be applied equally? There are zoning laws that do not allow churches to be built just anywhere. Would our president allow and encourage a Christian church to be built at Ground Zero?

This is not about the first amendment or prejudice against Islam. It is, to me, about the lack of equality which has been blatantly condoned. Christians can’t even have a Bible in their office or in their possession in school. Would the governmet strip the Koran from Muslims? Obviously no. And that is the truth.

There is a vast difference between the right to build and the moral decency not to build. Obama has made his opinion very clear. Although I am not too surprised. Morals seems to zoom over his head.

I have to admit that RedState’s been kinda uncomfortable for me these past few days. To see my religion get bashed as a cult, as somehow not a religion, is hurtful … but I can handle it even if some Imams I know would say that I should simply withdraw and never again visit RedState. I believe withdrawing may actually do more harm than good.

So let me clarify; I am not a “moderate Muslim” – I am a Muslim, period. And therefore as a tenet of my belief I believe in Shariah. The difference between me and the idiots who think crashing planes into buildings would hasten the day when the entire world would be ruled by Islam is that I do not believe there is any way it can or should be done by force. It must not be imposed, it must be accepted by the community at large of their own free will (even if it takes 10,000 years) or else all one has done is not turn people to Allah but subject them to oppression (which Allah abhors) and ultimately turn them away from Islam.

Moving on to the issue of life as non-Muslims under Shariah as Dhimmi meaning “people of the covenant” – it may surprise a few here to know that Dhimma in the Arabic context in general and in the Islamic context in particular actually means “covenant of protection and security.” Which is why historically, Islamic states often referred to non-Muslim citizens as “people in our Dhimma.”

Part of the covenant is that the right of the Dhimmi to worship as they please is not curtailed, neither is one’s right to property, and to equality of justice – they are even allowed, if such is their inclination, the eating of pork and drinking of alcohol. Their places of worship are not to be tampered with and neither are they to be denied access to them. A crime committed against a person under the protection of the Dhimma draws the same punishment as a similar crime against a Muslim, even (or most especially) when committed by a Muslim.

On the jizya – the jizya tax is levied on non-Muslims in lieu of the Zakat that is levied on Muslims – it is an annual per capita tax on income imposed only post pubescent and able-bodied men and by the Command of Allah and His Messenger (SAW) it cannot be in any way onerous. Note that Zakat for Muslims is a tax on property and wealth not just income. If the non-Muslim is unable pay the jizya, then the jizya must be paid on his behalf out of the general treasury with no harm to befall him or his property. Umar Ibn Khattab (the second Caliph) was known for harshly interrogating jizya collectors to ensure that they did not employ force (“with neither whip nor lash?”) in the collection of the jizya and regarded money collected in such fashion as tainted.

The jizya forms part of the covenant between the Muslim authority and the Dhimmi. Another thing that might surprise a few here is that Muslims are obligated to lay down their lives if need be to protect the lives and property of the Dhimmi – it is an unalterable part of the Dhimma covenant as specified by the Prophet and his Caliphs after him. And note that under the Dhimma, non-Muslims are under no obligation and cannot be compelled to join in the armies of an Islamic state.

Furthermore, and this surprised even me when I first learned of it – if the Islamic state is incapable to provide the protection as stipulated in the Dhimma, then it is obligated to return the jizya.

That said, to correct Aaron, as a Muslim I am (and must be) in favor of the Lesser (i.e. “external”) Jihad … if the situation demands it. If war is declared against Muslims and Islam, I am obligated to fight and I would gladly do so. I don’t believe it has been and I do not see how it could be at the moment so I’m pretty mellow on that front. Besides, the conditions that must be satisfied for a proper jihad to be declared are numerous and exact, basically forcing all other alternatives to war to have been exhausted before we can take up arms.

Second, even in the conduct of jihad there are numerous rules that must be obeyed lest you lose the blessing of Allah. i.e. no harming the unarmed, women, children, the infirm and people who have surrendered. No destruction of property, not even a tree. All prisoners must be treated humanely to the extent that they are to be given food first in times of scarcity and upon a surrender on the battlefield, they are to be escorted to a place of safety and protected by Muslims even against other Muslims.

One of the lesser known stories of the Rwandan Genocide was the role Muslims played in saving the lives of thousands of Tutsis – both Muslim and Christian. The non-Muslim Tutsis who entered mosques seeking shelter were considered by Imams, both Hutu and Tutsi, as being under Muslim protection similar to the status of people under the Dhimma.

Furthermore, my view (and may Allah forgive me if I’m in error) is that the external jihad (to use Aaron’s terminology) is not always to be fought with arms – it is more likely than not now to come down to a battle of hearts and minds. In fact, if one properly fights the Greater Jihad (the struggle to perfect oneself in obedience to Allah), one’s behavior, one’s kindness and sense of justice, etc. is as much a weapon as a JDAAM.

Assalamu Alaikum.

but our discussions are helping me to better formulate our differences.

I think it comes down to a continuoum of private citizen to state actor. I have a few more steps in between than you do. I am also more willing to address an existential threat in my view.

Always a pleasure though.