Radical Islam’s Favorite Enabler Holds Shameful Presser "Describing the Rights Of Islam" as Tear Soaked Eyes of 9-11 Families Look Painfully and Helplessly On
A Daily Pen guest editorial
by Debaris Bjorenserkven
New York – Jack Nicholsen had a line in the movie "As Good As It Gets." During a moment of desperation while begging for advice from his passively antagonistic counterpart, he shouted figuratively, "I'm drowing over here and you are describing the water."
Barack Obama's shockingly hurtful support of the inappropriate and intrusive construction of an Islamic mosque at the site of the 9-11 terrorist attacks was equally worthless to the murdered victims' families.
Shame on you, Barack Obama. Shame on you for being so entrenched in your selfish political correctness and bias for Muslims that you have failed to honor those who have suffered unimaginably as a result of them.
The liberal establishment is off its rocker defending the "rights of Muslims" using the narrative of the 1st Amendment's right to freedom of religious expression as the procaustic approvals of such a deranged thing. Since when did any heathen on the left ever care about religious rights? Yeah, liberals are really the lauded champions of religiously based morality in this nation. Give us a break. Liberals are about as qualified to lecture anyone on religious freedom as Ted Bundy is qualified to lecture on women's rights. It's ridiculous.
But, okay. If you want to play it that way, fine. Let's play, libnuts.
In an August 16th interview on CNN between "Anderson Cooper 360's" host and John Ridley, founding editor of thatminoritything.com and president of the National Action Network (a civil rights activism organization), Ridley, an extreme liberal, said this about the 1st Amendment in its application to promote villification of a conservative radio host, Dr. Laura after she used the word "nigger" on her live radio show last week. To illustrate the hypocrisy of liberals on this matter, we have substituted pronouns referencing Muslims and liberals in place of Mr. Ridley's reference to Dr. Laura:
"The big reaction for me is when (they) talk about (their) 1st Amendment rights being trampled, you know...the 1st Amendment pertains to government impeding on freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with what I feel like or if you want to protest, or things like that. No one is impeding (their) 1st Amendment rights! But, to say that for some reason because someone disagrees with (them) that (they) are being maligned or somehow shoved (out), to me, is absurd..."
Amen, brother! This is a liberal activist saying this. Ridley's analysis is 100% correct. The 1st Amendment is a constitutional restriction on government actions respecting religion and speech, not a restriction on the actions of citizens. Ridley needs to call his liberal friend, Barack Obama, and let him know this.
If the citizens of New York and America choose to reject this mosque being built at ground zero, there are measures they can take to prevent it through protest, economic pressure, vindication, public activism, propaganda, and rhetoric, within the bounds of social and moral jurisdictions, without the government being involved. The 1st Amendment applies to all American citizens...right?
If that concept doesn't grab you, then consider this shocker. Dr. Laura actually has a Constitutional right to say the N-word. There is no law preventing her from doing it. She is protected in her right to speak freely by the 1st Amendment without fear of reprisal from the government. However, decency dictates that this word is hurtful to our fellow black citizens and therefore we should refrain from using it. Likewise, Muslims have a Constitutional right to build a place of worship at ground zero in New York. There is no law preventing it. However, decency dictates that this act would be hurtful to our fellow citizens who lost loved ones on 9-11 and therefore we should refrain from building it.
In 1 Corinthians 10:23, we are told by the Apostle Paul, "Everything is permissible – but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible – but not everything is constructive.”
It requires a higher wisdom to do the things that are beneficial and constructive when permission is available to do things that cause pain for others. Wisdom that Obama and Muslims in this matter don't seem to possess. Of course, building a mosque at ground zero is permissible...but it is not beneficial. It is permissible, but not constructive. Sometimes, things which are permissible are not always beneficial in all situations. If Muslims desire to gain respect for their religious freedom, they need to promote actions which demonstrate a desire not to abuse that respect. Building this mosque in this location abuses both freedom of religion and the citizens' choice to respect it. When Muslims speak of tolerance for their beliefs, they need to be equally considerate of tolerance for the loss suffered by victims of 9-11.
Its too bad that radical liberals are so blinded by their double-standardization and ideology that they are unable to see the equal merit in this. Its very sad for America's future.
Liberal politicians have the most poisonous tongues of all creatures. When they speak, their mind has already contrived the unfathomable lies efficiently rooted in the most hateful ideology used to justify their indecency. They are hypocrites and haters of decency as it is defined by the Son of God, who is Christ Jesus...the only Savior available for all on Earth.
Most do not understand that radical activists say indecent things which intentionally reveal their true character, which is intended to send a message to those they hate. Regardless, being equally displaced, a lack of moral aptitude and limbic orientation when confronted by righteous convictions make both creatures speak without reverence or respect for what is right, decent and appropriate.
Like the radical muslims promoting this unseemly project, Barack Obama is no exception to this. Moreover, to anyone doubting whether or not the Muslim promoters of this project are radical, just answer this question: Would a reasonable, moderate, peace-seeking man even consider such disgraceful social and moral deviancy?
A Christian saint provoked, "The best we can do as those sealed in Christ, the One and only King of peace and submissor to God the Father, is pray for His mercy for them when His judgment comes. The unimaginable horrors which are, at this very moment, coursing toward them from the Kingdom, are directed only by the reprevation granted by the One who has been given authority over the Earth in which they dwell, who is Christ. It is by this same authority, established by the shedding of Christ's blood for sin, upon His allowance of His own crucifixion and His resurrection by the Power of God, that we, as his trusted and forgiven, hold power over the depraved who perish without Him. How will lost humanity reject Christ the Son, and think they can find favor with God the Father?"
On August 13, Obama ventured, once again, uninvited, onto “sacred ground”, to a place where he doesn’t belong, when he commented in support of the construction of an Islamic mosque only a few hundred feet from the location where Muslim terrorists murdered 3000 innocent people and destroyed the World Trade Center. He has since “clarified” his stupid remarks with a softer version questioning the wisdom in undertaking such an endeavor, but the damage has already been done…again.
It is not good enough to simply express outrage at Obama's hostility and empty heart. It is not enough to disagree with his contrived doctrine of political lies and hate. He must be rebuked and his words cast down and trampled under the authority of God's grace and mercy.
Obama’s first mistake was saying anything about it in the first place. This is a social values issue to be resolved among the court of public opinion and the will of the citizenry, not the government. Everyone understands the government is not acting to abridge the religous freedom of anyone. Building a mosque at ground zero is not a matter of legal rights. It is a matter of moral right. Some day, in Obama’s fantasy world, when the American government attempts to make a law respecting some religion or abridging the free expression thereof, he can then make his liberal hay. Until then, his advisors should tell him to shut up and save some credibility for the sake of his party’s political future.
His second mistake was being indifferent to the suffering of American families now injured by his contrived, insensitive tripe.
In the address, Obama said,“…let me be clear, as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country…”.
Shakespeare wrote of such legal adherences when he constructed the character of Shylock, as well. The some binding tune was sung by the legalist until the same law he defended suddenly had an inescable hold upon him! Likewise, Obama better be very careful around this subject. His political credibility is fragile enough without adding his rejection of the grief of victims of Islamic terrorists on 9-11-2001.
Let me be clear. No one has ever claimed the government should pass a law against the Muslim, or any, religion, as Obama is insinuating. We all know that the government is prevented from passing laws abridging the people's right to the free expression of religion. We are also aware the government is not allowed to pass any law respecting any religion. However, liberal degenerates are so vastly estranged from the principles of America's founders, and the faith by which they established this nation, they lack the intellectual capacity to understand the 1st Amendment of the Constution is a legal protection exclusively against the government's regulation of religious freedom, not against people's right to reject it. The 1st Amendment is not a restriction against the citizens' right to reject any religion when they determine that any systemic practice, religious or not, is deemed within the court of social values to violate human decency! American citizens are not subject to the restrictions of the 1st Amendment, the liberal government is! If America decides to reject the construction of a mosque because they believe it is indecent, then that mosque is not going to be built. End of story. If the builders attempt to defy the people's will, it will result in conflict, hatred and, perhaps, even violence and bloodshed. I'm no theologian, but those results don't seem very condusive with "tolerance" and "peaceful outreach".
Moreover, there is no law in America protecting one's right to be indecent. It is time for Islam to grow up and embrace the rights of others, not just be offended in their little world of hateful entitlements. Whereas the 1st Amendment protects the free expression of religion from the intrusion of government, it also protects American citizens' right to oppose, violently if necessary, threats against our national welfare. Obama and his liberal minions only seek to uphold the goose...not the gander of this double edged sword.
Obama’s lack of political legitimacy is only magnified by such unmitigated impulses to run astray of his plush liberal sanctuary. Oblivious to his collapsing credibility, he runs into localized social issues against exclusive ownership by vintage Americans and which are simply none of his government's damn business. Obama's "otherness" simply disqualifies him to comment on such matters of authentic holiness. The suffering of victims and their families as a result of actions by deranged, murderous, psychopathic religionist animals on 9-11 is subject matter best left to far worthier, advanced citizens endowed with proven moral aptitude. As a radical sympathist, Obama would do better to remain lashed in advocacy for poor minorities and leave the achievement of authentic justice to those who actually have lost and sacrificed something of value for this nation.
For someone championed by liberals as a lifelong justice seeker heavily beholding to the interests of the political left, Obama seems bound and determined to help his opponents through social and moral self-destruction. Not that he was a legitimate candidate to begin with, but if he wanted to be a community activist, he should have remained in Chicago working for Bill Ayers or Wade Rathke, attending Rev. Jerry Wrights black radical church and doing business deals with Tony Rezco. He could have been an open practician of Islam, instead of a covert one, and could have stood point for Muslims and promoted Mosque construction all over the windy city.
Obama’s words are disgraceful and an offense to the murdered innocents of 9-11-01 and their families. Plain and simple. His communications advisor should be fired.
Obama’s time in the White House can be summed up by massive failures within a very small, but extremely potent handful of key missteps which are so blatantly stark that they expose his lack of executive aptitude. Instead, they compliment characteristics his handlers have sought to conceal for more than four years, those of a radical communist sympathizer and community activist.
After a multitude of unnecessary and politically destructive comments about private, localized social issues, Barack Obama continues to prove himself as the radical, liberal activist he was honed to be. It’s become commonplace for this delegitimized, farce of an electant to show his true, radicalized colors when it comes to spewing an ideological bent on four primary fronts including race, wealth redistribution, anti-capitalism and Islam.
The shame in Obama’s words is that he seems to so easily abandon the truth that the construction of any Islamic shrine, or symbol of any kind, anywhere near ground zero in lower Manhattan is not a matter of Religious rights. It is a matter of what is right and which supports the spirit of uniting America, not dividing it. It is a matter of decency reflected by the contrition of an offender to remove himself as far from the pain and proximity of his offense until such time those who were injured by his violence may find healing and establish the capacity for grace and forgiveness at a time and place of their choosing, not the offender's choosing. Do Muslims now believe they can draw American affection buy forcing a relationship upon them? Building a mosque in this proposed location is an act of agression, not peace. If Obama were truly interested in promoting the tenets of a "peaceful", "tolerant" Islam, he would kindly remind his Muslim brothers and sisters of their duty to not be unprovoked agressors (DSQ2:190-195).
These truths are apparent, but, what is more difficult to reconcile is how this mosque is going to get built by any American contractor.
Who is ever going to accept that contract?
WHEN JUSTIFYING MURDER BECOMES RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION, THE APOCOLYPSE IS UPON US
Obama’s lack of insight to recognize Islam’s tenuous social standing in America after 9-11 is only surpassed by his obvious deranged radicalism promoting the construction of the very same kind of infrastructure from whence the evil of 9-11 was spawned. Does he honestly believe that propping another such a potentially satanic haven is supposed to work a miracle of healing. The whole affair is akin to memorializing the life of a murderer by constructing his tomb next to the graves of his victims. How does that promote tolerance, healing and acceptance, Mr. Obama?
We should not be surprised by this man’s lack of orientation toward what is morally right when he is confronted with a circumstance that allows him to be the unadulterated radical activist he was trained to be. Obama’s true faith rests in the god of his own ideological welfare and a perverted sense of cultural justice favoring melanic Muslims over white Christians and Jews. This is now blatantly apparent.
Obama concluded his ankle-deep plunge into shame with a line framing the self-serving hypocrisy when he said, “The writ of the founders shall endure…”
Notice that Obama did not say…”the writ of America’s founders shall endure…”. He said “…the writ of THE founders shall endure…”
The founders of what, Mr. Obama? The founders of Islam? The founders of socialism? The founders of America? The founders of Al Qaeda?
A cross reference of his “shall endure” closing remark with the content of the Koran produces reference to chapter 2 verse 190-195 in which the Koran directs Muslims in their fight against Christians, Jews and most shockingly, against those who are perceived to oppress Muslim worship. This section of the Koran is appropriately and expectedly titled “Rules of War”.
Verse 2:193 actually says: “You (the Muslim) may also fight (Christians and Jews) to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely.”
That is quite the licensure for a religion of “peace” and “submission”, eh? Fits the Obama narrative to a tee!
So, what does a nation do when the right to free expression of religion is confronted by a “religion” professing, as a right of its expression, the duty to kill others in the name of that religion? Where is the line drawn by a government in its adherence to the restrictions of the 1st Amendment and it duty to enforce the law.
MUSLIMS HAVE NO RIGHT TO NOT FEEL OFFENDED
Being offended has become a new qualification for entitlement at the expense of others in America. Obama is the chief marketer of this psychopathology. It has now become a legitimate form of redress to simply claim that you have been emotionally offended, in order to cull spineless, liberal politicians into your favor. This is particularly effective if you claim you have been offended by a white, Christian, heterosexual, affluent, conservative male. This demographic is the new minority in the world.
The tragic reality quickly descending upon Muslims is that, in America, you do not have a right to NOT feel offended just because others disagree with you. In America, we have a right to hate and that right extends as far as our words against you. We have a right speak against blatant tenets of violence espoused by Islam against those who do not believe like them. Moreover, we have an exceptional right in America to bear arms against those who might attempt to hurt us for this same reason. We have a right to prevent the diminishment of our lives and define the terms of our defense as individual citizens. In America, you do not have a right to murder others who disagree with, or even hate Islamic doctrine. In America, rights are not opportunities, they are the best possible protections of the individual against harmful mass doctrine and murderous hordes...domestic, foreign or tyrannical.
Someone in the Obama administration communications office should simply tell Obama to stick to politics and completely avoid issues of character and decency. He sucks at the latter. The Democrats do not need any more help from this de-facto communist regime in losing their maligned power this election cycle. They will wreck that train just fine on their own.
Unfortunately, Obama simply cannot resist the temptation to let his tongue lead the way when it comes to defending the atrocities of Islamic violence.