If the Muslims and their clerics supporting the GZmosque, are concerned about reaching-out and fostering healing between Muslims and infidels, this is the perfect chance to prove it. Nothing would foster more healing than an agreement to build the GZM elsewhere. Moreover, no meaningful and lasting good can ever spring from a structure founded upon such contentious footings. In deference to the good faith objections voiced by people of every faith and nationality, a wise man would build the GZM elsewhere, to avoid splitting the baby.

Beware disingenuous efforts to drape this controversy in the false flag of “freedom of religion.” There have been numerous attempts to misinform and obfuscate a very simple issue, to wit: That the physical location of a mosque (unprotected) is different from the actual practice of religion (protected). As such, it is not now, nor has it ever been, a question concerning the application of the freedom of religion proviso of the First Amendment.

It became slightly more confusing when BHO mischaracterized the controversy in a speech to Muslims attending a Ramadan celebration at the White House. First, Obama voiced [what sounded like] his full support for the GZmosque. The next day, however, he made comments intended to limit the scope and effect of the “Mosque Speech.” BHO is an attorney educated at Harvard and it begs credulity to assume he honestly believes that the prohibition against building the GZM raises an issue of religious freedom. Unfortunately, when “truth” meets “political expediency” in the Obama regime, “truth” must frequently sit in the back seat.