I have been concerned from the first day I heard about this mosque being a serious consideration to its plans being made and the way paved to it becoming a reality, That America is really in for more trouble.as this evil based culture continues to  infect the American way of life as we have known it.

I thought it would be generations before something like this would even be proposed but it is only 9 years since 9/11 and they are confident and brazen enough to do this~!!!

How they have been reaching not only the poor & uneducated but the liberals seem to readily embrace them as well.  Islam is its own 'nation' that inhabits 'host nations' til it has opportunity to mingle in and attempt to take over. There  it is the second largest religion in the world, but as far as unity of purpose it may as well be the largest since most Christian religions are divided.Their trained and ingrained loyalties are to islam first and since they train the willing fundamentalists or jihadists in the ways of subversive terror that makes them a potential national threat, since the moderates whom we may embrace and are peaceful, are the cloak that covers the extremists whose deeds are done in darkness and with little or no warning.

While the simple act of putting up a place of worship and claiming to honor the dead from the WTC may superficially seem legal, right and that they are entitled, I believe no such entitlements should be granted or even considered since it was what is at the heart of their so called religion, which is in fact to kill the infidel~ They have fatwa'd against the US and the West, declaring themselves to be religious enemies of the USA and then they manipulate  our religious freedoms law to basically rub it in our faces that they can continue their jihads and build a monument to it~

I am not go ho anti muslim  but I see danger in them by their passed performance. I see a mosque at Ground Zero as an afront to our nation and to the victims of 9/11. I think our law concerning religious freedom is not 'biblical' or written in stone that it has to be liberally interpreted but that is was pretty straight forward written based on colonists fleeing the Church of England and that Thomas Jefferson was writing it with the perspective of enabling "Christians' to establish and run their own churches without state interference and also to protect those who wished to refrain from church to be able to do so. Islam was not much of an issue back in those days for England or the US.Islam was subdued by England for a long time and I dont think islamic immigration and colonizing the US was part of the intended equations.

Islam transcends many nations using host nations to provide land for their nation within a nation. They are not only separatists but imperialist in nature, wanting eventual world domination.They are not to tired, poor and rejected of the world passing through Ellis Island in the 20th century looking for a new hope and beginning. They are looking to colonize and push their agenda on every people they encounter. Look at what they did to India and similar places... Look at Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan~!!
Now they are cleverly using our laws to enable them to right to power in our nation, not to be equal with all but to continue pushing and dominating til they can eventually grow enough voters up  to take over in a generation or two.Coupled with Obama's support and the way he is leading the US into socialism, he is setting the stage they need to be able to take over by the time out grandkids grow up.

Well what can be done about it to stop it?

Ave

Is the Ground Zero mosque about peace or is it a trophy for Islam?

Published: Tuesday, August 24, 2010, 4:49 AM

Just call him “His
Arrogance.” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, that is.

Any
lingering doubt vanished on Aug. 6 when he declared that opponents of
the
planned mosque near Ground Zero “really ought to be ashamed of
themselves.”
The
pretentious one then analogized questioning the motives of the mosque’s
prime
movers to interrogating ordinary people about putting money in the
collection
basket at their churches.

This from a guy who, as the de-facto dictator
of the city’s public school system, permits the display of the Islamic
Star and
Crescent during what is now generically referred to as the “Winter
Season
Holiday,” but hypocritically prohibits a similar display of the Nativity
scene.


Bloomberg, of course, is the one who really ought to be ashamed of
himself for his disgraceful insensitivity to the family and friends of
the more
than 2,700 people who were murdered by Muslim fanatics during the
September 11,
2001 attacks on lower Manhattan.

In bondage to evil, they were conditioned to believe that the premeditated slaughter of innocent
people put
them on the fast track to the promised land.

For Bloomberg to base his
support for the controversial mosque on First Amendment grounds is
incongruous.
Besides that little matter of the banned Nativity display, his own
Metropolitan
Transportation Authority nixed ads opposing the mosque on city buses
until a
federal lawsuit prompted a change of heart.

A lawyer with the group that
initiated the suit noted that the MTA’s reversal was a victory not only
for free
speech but “against Mayor Bloomberg’s bullying.”

It’s also absurd that
Bloomberg has chosen to seize - selectively - on the First Amendment’s
free
exercise of religion clause to justify condemning mosque opponents
while, at the
same time, ignoring the free speech guaranteed to them by that very same

amendment.

Then there’s House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who, last week,
actually called for an investigation of mosque opponents.

Addressing a
San Francisco audience, she lamented that the first questions asked of
her was
about “a zoning issue in New York City.”

You got that? A zoning issue.
And all the while you thought it had something to do with showing a
modicum of
respect for those whose lives were either snuffed out or changed forever
by
radical Islamic ambitions.

The mosque also got a boost from the Associated Press last week when it cautioned its reporters to refrain
from
characterizing the project as the “Ground Zero mosque” or “mosque at
Ground
Zero.”

This despite the fact that landing gear from one of the hijacked
planes fell on the planned site.

CREEPING SHARIAH
 
 

In fact, the phrase “Ground Zero mosque” was initially used by
Feisal Abdul Rauf, an Arab-American Sufi imam and the project’s chief
promoter.


His expressed ambition is to “bring Shariah to America,” a formula for
imposing Islamic law on this nation. For every person who discounts that

possibility, this deadly serious enterprise inches closer to fruition.


Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls the phenomenon “creeping
shariah,” the framework to accomplish the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated
goal “to
destroy Western civilization from within.”

On Friday, Aug. 13, President
Obama, speaking at a White House gathering to celebrate the Islamic holy
month
of Ramadan, expressed his strong support for construction of the
controversial
mosque. Stating that “our commitment to religious freedom must be
unshakeable,”
he compared the opposition to bygone eras during which. he claimed,
Catholic
churches and synagogues encountered similar opposition.

Too bad nobody
bothered to ask him to cite one comparable instance. Given the
extraordinary
nature of the attack on America by Muslim extremists, there are none.
And that
makes Obama’s remarks just plain dumb.

It is a matter of record that
Muslims have repeatedly memorialized their victories by constructing
mosques
over the once-holy places of the “infidels.”

Examples include Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque, which sits atop the site of the Temple
Mount, one of
Judaism’s holiest sites, and the Cordoba Mosque in Spain, which was a
former
cathedral dedicated to St. Vincent.

While Muslims have a right to
freedom of religion as protected by the First Amendment, so, too, do
opponents
have free-speech rights to oppose a project that is, at best, plainly
insensitive and, at worst, would constitute yet another trophy for yet
another
Islamic triumph, a further desecration of those thousands of murdered
Americans.


The trophy theory got a boost last week from Mahmoud al-Zahar, the
co-founder of the Hamas terrorist movement, when he solemnly declared
that
Muslims “have to build” the mosque at the controversial site.

If backers
of the mosque really just want a place to peaceably practice their
religion,
they’ll exhibit the kind of sensitivity and respect they want from
others, and
seek an alternate site.

If, however, in the face of opposition rooted in
understandable anger and anguish, they persist in their demands that it
be built
at the contemplated location, then it’s clear what they really want is a
trophy.


So, in the end, actions will speak much louder than words, even those
uttered by Obama, Pelosi and Bloomberg. 

 
 
[Daniel Leddy’s column appears each Tuesday on the Advance Editorial Page. His e-mail address is
JudgeLeddy@si.rr.com.]