« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Point Not Being Made About Mosque-Gate

The story flaming across the headlines about that little slice of otherwise anonymous private property a couple blocks away from Ground Zero has certainly summoned emotions; both sides of the issue have made sound and succinct arguments on their respective behalf.

Those believing this is wholly about private property rights make a good case; it matters little what people do with their private property so long as they do so within the rule(s) of applicable law. Despite a generation of Liberal-creep on our private property rights, most Americans can agree on this point of law. Yep-check one for the pro-Islamic center (or whatever they’re calling it now to deflect hysteria amongst the general population).

Those believing the very idea of putting a symbol of Islam in such close proximity to that place where 3,000 innocent civilians died at the hands of a few Muslims using their faith as the rationale for executing them, calling it “insensitive”, are also correct; why allow placement of a zero-value-added thumb in the collective eye of people that will never forget (and in some cases never fully recover from) what happened that day? It feels like they want to make a shrine to what the Martyrs accomplished 2 blocks away. Yep-check one for the anti-Islamic center…they’re right too.

Both sides have a point, and both sides are right. What to do then?

Howard Kurtz has a piece over at WaPo that does a decent job of linking and pull quoting the most relevant (though I accuse him a little of cherry picking to help make his personal point) reactions from both basically coherent sides of this issue.

What is not mentioned in Kurtz’s piece, or anywhere else for that matter, is the real driving factor behind all this emotion; there is no foundation on which to place any trust that the Muslims behind this plan aren’t up to some nefarious “other” agenda… remember, it was proven on 9/11 that we can never be 100% sure of anything.

We were told in the days immediately after, and for 8 years hence, to be ever-vigilant but to go on with our lives. Of course that guy doesn’t work here anymore-he’s been replaced by one far more interested in apologizing to Islam for American transgressions than in coming together WITH Islam to help them rid their ranks of those still seeking to out-DO 9/11.

We’ve learned because of 9/11 that we’re never completely safe, we’re never completely secure, and we’re never fully immune to acts of terrorism all around the country at any time and in any place. This is the innocence America lost that day, and to be asked by supporters of this plan to forget all that we’ve learned now is just to ask too much. And, it should be lost on no one that those who defend the development of this so-called Park51 project on the grounds of fredom of speech and religion are the very same people who mean to exempt opponents of the plan from exercising these same rights in expressing their opposition to it.

Most unfortunate for everyday Americans is that we’ve had control of the discussion taken away from us by Politicians. Instead of allowing this dialog to finally take place amongst we, the People in the aftermath of that horrific day of inhumanity, our Political heroes have seized the topic to make a few points of their own in hopes of making big scores against their opponents and trying to find the right side to be on in order to garner a few more votes…midterms are not that far off you know.

We know we’ve been told since 9/11 that Islam is a religion of peace. We we’ve been told to move on; the whole of the Nation of Islam is not our enemy…only a small segment is…and that we should embrace this religion as openly as we do every other religion in America because it’s who we are as a People. Of course, who ELSE we are as a people is a society that expects mutual respect and understanding one with another alongside that tolerance we’re expected to show.

And here is where the argument continues to break down. Islam continues to fail at cleansing itself of that small percentage of its membership we accuse of being radicals or fundamentalists or whatever the term is these days. Islam continues to choose silence on the issue of this “small number” of its faithful, and it continues to seek concessions from America and Americans while making no effort to offer concessions it return.

America is many things, but Americans…in light of all the public trust our Government has squandered…seek to trust AND verify. The Imam(s) asking us to trust them on this Park51 development proposal are asking this without giving us any reason to. They are hiding behind the laws, and under the skirts of the Politicians in support of this development plan, and many of these same Politicians are calling us bigots hoping to shame us into shutting our mouths about it…this is no way to conduct a national dialog on an important issue.

They do a lot of that whenever we oppose a thing they think they can curry some favor with in the polls.

Personally, I see the completion of this development project as a boon to all of us who have seen our religious freedoms destroyed in recent years by these very same Liberal mouthpieces who are so hell-bent on seeing Muslims exercise theirs in Lower Manhattan. I hope the Liberals know what they have asked for at Park51, because they are certainly going to get it…we really meant it when we said “Never Forget.”

COMMENTS

  • janis

    that “Never Forget” takes if they move forward with this thing. The points you make are crucial and not looked at very much by the politicians who support this. Gee, I wonder why. They don’t brag about the leader of Hamas supporting the building of this mosque either, do they. Nor do I hear any of them ( I’m looking at you, Bloomberg,) reel off all the locations of the mosques currently occupying space in NYC. According to what Rush said yesterday, I think, there were over 100 in the 5 boroughs and those numbers were from maybe 10 years ago, if I heard him correctly.

    The other thing none of the supporters call for is to allow Christian churches and Jewish synagogues to be built in Saudi Arabia. Maybe we could start small and just be allowed to carry a Bible into Saudi lands first? Or would that be too insensitive of me?

    • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

      I can see all sorts of new problems for the Islamic center…security not the least among them. You KNOW the prominence they’ve had in the news will draw attention to them.

      Then, there’s the other point-why not have built a non-denominational site where all faiths could join together at the location?

      But, this isn’t about that-is it?

      • 6eorge Jetson

        of a waving image of Mohamed across the street from the planned Cordoba mosque. Just because the law might allow it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be opposed.

  • http://stixblog.com Black River Wolf

    to build this so close to Ground Zero. They have every right and the law cannot stop them from building it. But does that mean it is right????

    Something that is legal does not mean it is a good idea.

    Just listen to some of the Muslims,this is a monument to those that martyred themselves for Allah. In Islam it is encouraged to lie to people about your true cause while in foreign lands. The True goal it to convert all Americans to Islam.

    This will be a victory for those that want to tear down our way of life.

    And if they build a mosque near Ground Zero, then let us build a basilica near Mecca or in any Muslim Country for that matter. Until they do, I say do not let them build anywhere near Ground Zero.

    • Flagstaff

      If that’s true, why are they asking permission?

      If they have to get permission, that means permission can be denied.

      • http://www.campaignfreedom.org seandparnell

        They have to have *appropriate* reasons to deny permission. So, if it’s a matter of the architectural plans aren’t structurally sound, the area isn’t zoned to allow 15-story buildings, there isn’t appropriate parking available for the facility, etc, then yes, it can be denied.

        “It’s an Islamic center too close to Ground Zero” is not an appropriate or legally defensible reason to deny the permit.

        Sean Parnell
        President
        Center for Competitive Politics
        http://www.campaignfreedom.org

        • Flagstaff

          But the supporters of this mosque have staked out the position that the First Amendment gives them a right to build here. It does not.

      • finaljeopardy

        They still need money. Of course, it’s objectionable, despicable really, but that’s all the more incentive for their investors.

    • aesthete

      That Saudi Arabia is a backwater (sans the water) hellhole ruled by crazy monarchs with an even crazier clutch of subjects? Why would anything that they do matter to us, as it pertains to domestic policy? This meme of requiring parity between ourselves and some other group that peripherally represents the disenfranchised group is enormously silly and tiring: should we have taken away the right to property and free speech from socialists until the USSR granted those rights to its capitalists? Should we wait until Liberia’s warlords stop indiscriminately killing members of their own populace before protecting African Americans’ right to life? Should we wait until the UK allows its citizens to exercise their right to bear arms until we allow our Americans of British and Scotch-Irish descent to exercise that right? Should we wait until Vietnam stops being a horrible place to protect, well, any of the rights of our Vietnamese citizens? I can keep going, you know! There’s a reason that we live here (I include ~90% of Muslim-Americans in “we”), and it’s not because we heart Saudi Arabia and its lovely policies so darned much. If anything, taking whatever the Sauds do and running clear in the opposite direction would be a way better idea than replicating their policies as some sort of Christian retribution against their injustices against their own citizens.

      • Flagstaff

        It doesn’t have anything to do with what they do in Saudi Arabia. Yet, it’s the Koran that insists on the literalness of the “eye for an eye” punishment. There is asymmetrical logic involved in he dilemma. By THEIR rules, we should tell them to go pound sand. By OUR rules, we can’t do that.

        I think the American people, as polled, have it about right.

        Most say the First Amendment guarantees their right to build a mosque somewhere.

        Most say it should be built somewhere else.

        If they don’t agree, they are lying about their purpose for the construction. (We can use logic, too.) It doesn’t take 13 stories to build a mosque. Reduce the size and ostentation of the building, and a lot of the opposition to it goes away.

        The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact.

        • aesthete

          Let’s assume that their intentions from the start were benign: that they really were looking to build a community center that would reach out to NYC (a charitable interpretation, but for the purpose of the illustration, let’s just assume it to be the case). It is clear that, whatever their intentions, they are not bringing about goodwill. Quite the opposite: they’re stirring up sentiment against Islam and Muslim-Americans through this stunt. Whether such sentiment is rational or not is irrelevant: the fact of the matter is, it’s happening. Given that the mission of the mosque according to the proponents is to foster reconciliation and goodwill, how does building the mosque under the current circumstances aid in that goal? They have (or should have) the right to do as they will on their property. The question is, should they? Legal license is not an excuse for moral licentiousness, and in fact makes it incumbent upon the parties involved to exercise said freedom with discretion and wisdom. That the mosque owners are poorly utilizing the freedoms that they have is going to, unfortunately, reflect poorly on Muslim-Americans, even if they are within their legal rights to do as they did.

  • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

    I see your point, but I’m looking at this from the glass half full position…Christians just got invited back into the public square. There can be no future argument about crosses on hills overlooking Veteran’s cemeteries, now can there?

    No more angst over 10 commandments statues being erected “on private property” that non-Christians will have to look at every day…hunh?

    I’m seeing a boon here…

    • http://stixblog.com Black River Wolf

      They will still stop the display of the the 10 Commandments in a court room, or the Christmas scenes in towns for Christmas.

      See this is to show we are tolerant and the Terrorists will not attack us. But it makes it worse and makes us look weak in the eyes of those in the Middle East. If you show weakness to them, they have won and will use it against us.

      We have become the “Paper Tiger”.

      • janis

        say that us letting them build it would show “how superior our form of gov. is.” Which completely misses the point since Islam is not a government, nor a country. All it shows them is that we are so damned weak that we won’t even stop those who attack us from doing their victory dance on our graves.

      • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

        private property is the new buzzword…and while we agree re: the paper tiger thing, I’d be willing to bet this issue is going to change a lot of hearts and minds about worrying over whether WE are offending them when we push forward with getting our own religion back in the eye of the public square.

        Freedom of religion and speech and private property, right?

        • Flagstaff

          how will allowing them to build a mosque on private property advance the cause of some Christians in “getting our own religion back in the eye of the public square”?

          I can’t think of instances where people have been prevented from putting a cross or creche on their own lawn.

          Based on Kelo v. New Haven, or whatever it was called. the city could refuse to issue a building permit based on the fact they wouldn’t receive any tax revenue from the church site. There was a taxpaying business at the site before.

          Building here would advance Islam, not Christians.

          • JSobieski

            Not a local zoning issue, but a neighborhood association matter.

          • jdw4america

            This is America, after all. and we have freedom FROM religion, don’t we?

            Isn’t it interesting that the left tolerates any perverse, blasphemous, immoral, destructive behavior, but will not tolerate a tolerance for Christianity, or Christians.

          • JSobieski

            The family is from Jordan. This is exactly the kind of thing that they couldn’t do in Jordan, and now they can’t do it here . .. at least not in public view from the street.

          • Flagstaff

            Little shrines with what looks like the end of an old bathtub protecting them from the elements. Visible from the road.

            Homeowners’ associations are concerned with appearances and uniformity. Was it a religious objection, appearance, or traffic safety?

            Somebody in Cottonwood, AZ, had erected a giant figure of some kind (Hindu?) overlooking a Catholic cemetery. They had to take it down, and no, I don’t know why.

          • JSobieski

            However, there are other types of sculptures in other front yards. The sculptures are made of stone and are not painted, so maybe they appear more classy than a Mary which is painted.

            When you get to the level of association rules, conservatism doesn’t necessarily mean you want fewer rules. GC is going to address this topic in a diary sometime soon.

    • JSobieski

      This is not some kind of paradigm shift. It is merely a continuation of PC-think. The city of NYC still won’t even MEET WITH the damaged Greek Orthodox Church people.

    • finaljeopardy

      There is is the Greek Orthodox church which was destroyed by 911 and has been displaced. It has an active congregation that would like to resume service in its original location, except the MTA grabbed its private property through eminent domain for a new subway station, even though services have been cut throughout the city and stations are even being closed. The deal just fell through recently between the church and the MTA. Also, there was a steel cross forged from the wreckage at the site that became a pilgrimage icon, but the city moved it because of the First Amendment “no state religion.” This is all ass backwards, and the arguments being used are meant to throw you off.

    • aesthete

      Hopefully, enough conservatives see this silver lining to work at getting St Nicolas Greek Orthodox Church’s building permit accepted.

  • http://stixblog.com Black River Wolf

    It would be nice to have a day where the atheist do not throw a hissy fit if you have Santa Clause in the Town Square

    • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

      .

      • aesthete

        has consistently been against the Ground Zero Mosque.

        • spainishirish

          http://www.slate.com/id/2263334

          • aesthete

            I was completely wrong there, apologies. Thanks for the correction.

  • Flagstaff

    Everybody agrees there is something off-square about the Imam’s claims versus his demands. He claims to intend to “bridge the gulf,” or “promote understanding,” goals that fit right into the American outlook. Yet, he refuses to recognize that his project will do just the opposite. It will set up walls by turning people against him on rationally emotional bases, if there are such things. It will solidify opposition to Islam among folks who might otherwise want his stated goals to be achieved.

    The Imam is apparently an intelligent man, so let’s suppose he’s a rational one as well. That would mean he has a rational reason for what seems to be irrational behavior. What is the reason?

    The voices arrayed against the war in Iraq have often claimed that it was just a great recruiting tool for Islamic extremists. Have you noticed those voices seldom if ever include Islamic voices in the United States?

    Now let’s assume that those voices are right, and that the reason they aren’t joined by Muslims is that Muslim leaders in the US WANT to increase extremist recruitment, and that they believe that conflict between American Muslims and other Americans would ALSO aid recruitment.

    The way things are now shaking out in New York could have been predicted, and guess what? Almost no matter where we go from here, there will be advantageous (for extremists) conflict between the Imam’s followers and those who strongly disagree.

    If the mosque is refused, the recruiting posters will say “America hates Muslims! They won’t let us build a mosque. Allah says we must destroy the infidels. Join today!”

    But if the mosque is built, they will still say “America hates Muslims. Foolish New York Jews approved our mosque only because they were too stupid to stop it. Their stupid Constitution will continue to protect us as we destroy them. Join today!”

    Once built, there will probably be regular altercations at the site, and there is a good chance violence will be directed at it with the intent to take it down. That possibility is fine with the extremists. More recruiting material.

    This may seem pretty fanciful, but by now we should be acquainted with the the Islamic practice of Taqiyya, lying to the infidels. They are not straightforward. They are not honest with us. We should never try to analyze their behavior using OUR standards. Using their standards, Imam Rauf’s behavior makes sense–he’s not trying to promote understanding of Islam, he’s trying to promote the ADVANCEMENT of Islamic extremism.

    More explanations are found in this short video.

    http://www.redstate.com/bigappleinfidel/2010/08/13/obama-forcefully-endorses-the-mosque-at-ground-zero/#comment-85

    • finaljeopardy

      He is a lawyer who cut his teeth shutting down liquor stores by mosques. He is an advocate for Sharia law. He knows how to use our system against us and has friends in high places.

      I’m just wondering whether his backers will push this when it hurts their own party’s chances at consolidating power. They need money, but it’s a terrible economy. Maybe they have a certain goal of how much they want to make, or maybe they feel this is their hill to die on.

  • renny

    Merry Christmas to one and all and God bless us, everyone.

  • tomkinney

    …about funding sources, post 9/11 conspiracy theories by Rauf, and his refusal to condemn Hamas, et al.

    Then, considering Muslims’ desire to put a mosque there would be of a different order. However, I doubt they will answer them for the same reason we should be suspicious about their goals in the first place; that there is a sub rosa agenda going on here. If not, what’s the problem?

    Howard Kurtz, as you state, like almost all other liberals who have commented on this, hasn’t been forthcoming about these questions, and that’s a puzzlement. Wouldn’t you want to know if the people moving in next door have some nasty secrets that might involve tissue damage to you, and what exactly those secrets were? How could you not want to know?

    The oddest thing to me about today’s left is the absolute self-destructiveness of their agenda(s). For example, wealth distribution taken to the extremes this WH would like to see would gut the left’s personal bank accounts eventually too. All their POVs on these issues would soon start to work against them but they just can’t see it.

    When wllful blindnessto your own fate becomes your MO…what’s that about?

    http://www.redstate.com/tomkinney/

  • izoneguy

    Worth the 14 minutes to watch

    Tolerence=Suicide??

  • http://www.tobytoons.com TobyToons

    then the Islamic center would have NO PROBLEM with someone opening a cartoon shop across the street, or beside the building that specializes in selling the Muhammad cartoons would they? You know the ones that caused protests all across the globe when they came out. There is nothing illegal about selling cartoons is there?

    What about an art gallery specializing in showing their religious symbols in bottles of human waste? It has happened to Christians, and we were told to just “get over it”.

    I bet the same people defending the building of the mosque would be up in arms if either of those two (LEGAL) business tried to open beside any mosque, let alone the one proposed.

    • http://www.hickpolitics.com Dave Poff (haystack)

      and I bet we’d hear the screams of injustice 1,000 miles away.

      Just imagine the media coverage!

      • finaljeopardy

        Once it’s in, you have to be tolerant.

    • aesthete

      but I wouldn’t.

  • jeffsmnz

    Hey, maybe NEA will fund some of our “art”, such as an image of muhammad covered in feces or swimming in a toilet bowl or conversing with Satan? What is the application process for NEA funding for our “creative self expression”? Where can I apply for a grant to “creatively illustrate the enlightenment of the Taliban’s respect and treatment of women”? What about being sensitive to our “creativity and feelings”? What’s fair is fair, right? I promise it wouldn’t be religious expression, it’s “ART”. Anyway, doesn’t Pelosi want everyone to be able to quit their jobs and be able to freely “express themselves” through their art?

    • finaljeopardy

      We’ve seen the NEA become a propaganda arm of the Democratic party. It’s where the money is coming from, and Islam has targeted oil rich countries.

  • texasgalt

    http://tiny.cc/p3ym7

  • Common_Cents

    You know, those political animals such as the families of 9/11 victims.

    • johnt

      For liberals principles can change by the minute. In any case this story is dead on arrival as far as the MSM is concerned.

    • http://www.campaignfreedom.org seandparnell

      Just the latest effort by Speaker Pelosi to find out who, EXACTLY, it is that disagrees with her and dares to speak out about it.

      As a rule of thumb, I suggest being wary of politicians and their allies who demand to know the name, address, workplace and occupation of anyone who dissents from their political agenda.

      Sean Parnell
      President
      Center for Competitive Politics
      http://www.campaignfreedom.org

  • spainishirish

    entity can be arbitrary as hell and their decision more often than not stands. The nasty reality is that government has acquired so much discretion in land use–Kelo, anyone?–that private proprety rights have been terribly eviscerated. NYC is particularly bad in this regard. I find the speed with which this project sailed through the process a bit troublesome, and imagine the hands of Bloomberg and Obama played strong roles. That’s surmise, of course.

    But this isn’t about property rights or the First Amendment. Those are red herrings. It is about taste and propriety. It is on that basis this should not be built. I would hope the developers and mosque proponents exercise a little compassion here and get past cliches and strawmen arguments and reach a compromise where this is built in another location. And there is a caveat to that last point–even then the funding needs to be scrutinized. This afternoon the mosque developers said they would not rule out accepting Iranian and Saudi money.

    • JSobieski

      I think it sailed through because nobody wanted to be accused of bigotry, and as a result, the more favored treatment was an accident.

      • spainishirish

        I’m certain political correctness played a major role, and strongly suspect a lot of pressure was applied by the mayor on behalf of Obama’s State Department. This won’t bear much scrutiny if that last part is true, either.

  • wahrheit

    I can’t for the life of me understand why, after a fairly reasonable start why this posting seemed to degenerate into “we’re afraid and we’ll act that way”.
    During all the years that the worst of the Northern Ireland conflict went on, the British did not go around banning Irish pubs or other enterprises, even when they were avowedly pro-IRA. One of the reasons I admire the British is that they were not given to fear through all that. They were being bombed and shot at and had openly anti-British Irish on their territory spouting violent threats and expressing open support for the IRA.
    But the Brits are a no-fear kind of people when it comes to radical Islam. Maybe that’s what makes us different. Even now with way more Muslims living there. After all, what do you do with multiple bombings and a transit system? Prohibit mosques in all the areas?
    Islam has a big problem with its conservative wing. Look at Saudia Arabia -our ally and oil supplier- and the fact that an assault victim is trying to get a hospital to maim his attacker as a perfectly legal recourse. We have elements like that on our side who see eye-for-eye revenge as the best recourse, but thankfully not legal (except maybe the death penalty). But there are also large numbers of Muslims who disavow this INTERPRETATION of the Koran, just as most Jews no longer embrace the same interpretation of the Tanach and most Christians have backed away from excluding non-Christians from the worst of the non-believer treatment.
    Give me your thoughts.

    • gekster
    • JSobieski

      (1) There was no question of the IRA ever trying to transform England. The violence may not have been limited to Ireland, but there was no plan by any group of Irish people equivalent to the blueprint for stealth Jihad by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood has a proactive plan for subverting our country from within. Documents to that effect have actually been discovered in a the Holy Land Foundation case, The failure of people in the “you are overreacting” camp to ever address the Muslim Brotherhood (far more dangerous than AQ) means that the concerns are not being addressed, and fear will increase as a result.

      (2) The Brits do have a far bigger problem with Jihad than we do at the moment, the problem is getting worse, and I would suggest making another anology if you want to keep things toned down. Due to the historical relationship between UK/Pakistan, UK is grand central station for people with all sorts of nasty people.

      (3) The people with the non-violent interpretations of the Koran/Hadith seem never to actually cite specific scriptural references. In contrast, people like OBL quote text vertbatim repeatedly. Note that the concept of abrogation is cited by the violent types to discount the peaceful verses when they rile the Arab street. When the peaceful interpretors cite the peaceful provisions without explaining how abrogation doesn’t erase those provisions, you have a failure to address the fears of people.

      Let me be totally honest here. I am very much afraid. Obama will be an unfortunate blot on our history, but I do not doubt that our Republican can survive Obama. To me, the stealth Jihad threat is far more terrifying because it is far more gradual, and for the most part, the risks are not even discussed in the public square.

      I probably saw things the way you did until about 2006. With the reignition of the Hezbo-Israel War, I started doing things like reading the Hamas charter. That led to reading the Koran and the Hadith.

      People like me are afraid because in terms of a textual basis, it appears to me that the nefarious Muslims have a far better argument for their position than Westernized Muslims do. I have done a lot of looking around to find a robust example of scripture based indictment of the nefarious interpretaion of Islam, and I can’t find one that convinces me. I find few credible attempts (failing to address abrogation makes an attempt not credible in my view).

      So yes, I am afraid. However, I am not in favor of violating the constitution by banning all mosques. Frankly, I think that will not help us in the short, middle, or long term.

      (4) A large number of people disavowing something is not necessarily a majority, and even a large plurality of 1 Billion people not disavowing violent invocations provides Jihadists with a very large pool of potential foot soldiers. I would point out that the most people fighting in wars for monarchs or dictatorships probably didn’t really care that much about the cause, but did nontheless for reasons that are complex. The context for example of the Fort Hood shooter is very troubling. Everybody was so PC, that people died.

      If we became a bit less PC, a bit more open on this issue, I think all sides of the issue (including the many Muslims who I acknowledge have no interest in destroying the US) would be better served.

      Someone out there should address the arguments made by people like OBL or the Muslim Brotherhood, and use accepted religious texts to argue against their interpretations in a robust manner. OBL has written a fair amount of diatribe over the years. It is worth noting that no Muslim blogger out there that I am aware of prepares written refutations to such writtings that are grounded in Islamic scripture.

      In case, there is any doubt about this point, let me be clear – I am NOT in favor of stopping the construction of mosques in the US. I am against the GZmosque because there is abundant evidence that the funding will come from foreign sources who do not have our interests at heart (Iran is quite the opposite).

      I am infavor of an active counter-intelligence/surveillance of suspicious activities that are conducted as mosques. However, once a mosque is cleared, they should be left alone.

  • intelligentdiscussion

    What I think is funny, and its something Liberals are all trying to ignore, is the individual who is leading the effort to build the Mosque. The person trying to build the Mosque practically says the United States deserved 9/11.

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/4314871/whats-really-behind-ground-zero-mosque-controversy/?playlist_id=87796

    • JSobieski

      so his career is obviously progressing rapidly