Posted by
Patrick Henry on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 7:14:56 PM
While the controversy about whether to build a mosque two blocks from ground
zero swirls on, three brazen "cavaliers" have stepped into the breach, swords drawn
for combat. Taking to the microphone, they have boldly sought to resolve the weighty
matter by the sheer might of their words. Methinks Cardinal Richelieu would be
shuddering in his cloak.
First among the mighty word warriors was ebullient New York Mayor Michael
Bloomberg, who did not preside over the 9/ll calamity and has showed his complete
disconnect with its victims by championing the building of the controversial mosque
against all critics. Apparently wishing to demonstrate that his city is the Mecca of
political correctness and religious tolerance, he got out front in favor of the project
and bullied the City Planning Commission not to declare the site a historical marker,
thus clearing the way for the Cordoba Project. It is doubtful whether Bloomberg
knew or even cared that Cordoba, Spain, was home to a large Catholic catherdral
that was razed by invading Moors so they could build a "victory mosque" on top
of its ruins. If that does not inform the significance of this travesty, how else can
the "Cordoba" imagery be explained? A man of Bloomberg's wealth probably
doesn't care who he alienates. He just wants to make sure it isn't the Muslims,
because they don't play nice with their enemies.
Next on the stage was babbling Barack Obama, the amateurish U.S. president
whose mishmash of incoherent statements about the mosque are reminiscent of
former presidential pretender John Kerry who "voted for it before I voted against it."
At a lavish dinner for Muslim leaders that he hosted at the White House, Obama
sounded what bonehead Bloomberg referred to as a "clarion call" to religious freedom.
In retrospect, it seems that he was one of a very few who thought so. Obama argued
that this is America people are free to build and worship where they will, including the
Cordoba Project muslims. This ignores the MANY religious groups who have
been denied building permits on specific sites in MANY cities, counties and states in this
country on the basis of city codes and usage appropriateness. It is also an attack on a
straw man, since no one serious is arguing the plan is illegal.
Drawing immediate fire for his insensitivity by New Yorkers who suffered loss
from the 9/11 attacks, the families of victims and all of his political opponents,
musketeer Obama seemed to waiver. He "clarified" his statement to suggest that he
was commenting only on the constitutional legality of building the mosque at ground
zero, not the wisdom of it. He then hastened to add that he had not and would not
comment on the wisdom, or lack thereof, thereby creating a complete cop out. So does
he think it's wise, thus spitting on the majority of Amerca opinion -- yet agan? Or does
he think it's unwise, but is afraid to say so because he wishes to pander to muslims -- yet
again? We'll apparently never know, which begs the question. If one has nothing new to add
to the discussion, and wishes to avoiod clarity, then why speak up at all? Why make a public statement on a controversial topic in the middle of a tight election and then simply clam up?
It's not only amateurish, it's boorish!
The third caped crusader is none other than the dashing Majority Leader of the Senate,
Harry Reid. Reid, being a quintessential clever politician, simply could not pass up the
opportunity for a free shot. He publicly broke with Obama and Bloomberg and said that the mosque should be built "somewhere else." Do you think, Harry? Reid is embroiled in the
electoral fight of his political life in Nevada, where his personal popularity has dipped lower
than a snake's belly. His opponent, Sharron Angle, immediately threw down the gauntlet demanding that he either support or repudiate Obama's position. It was a no-brainer. After ramming through the Senate bill after bill against the wishes of America, he finally got the
chance to be the good guy, and it cost him absolutely nothing. It helped him appear caring,
savvy, sensitive, and gave him a bit of distance from Obama who hangs like and 800 pound albatross around the neck of every Democrat seeking re-election. It was a freebie and he
went for it. Did he mean it? Let's give the man the benefit of the doubt and say yes. Was he
right? Absolutely, and someone in this bumptious threesome needed to be.
The fight over the ground zero mosque rages on, the end as yet unknown. But be badgered neither by emotionalism nor by self-serving political rhetoric. This issue is not about legality or constitutionality. It is about the memories of fallen victims, the sentivities of Americans in
America's foremost city, the political and cultural messages being sent and what ought to be.
It's one case where no court can render justice. America has to work it out. That's why the significance of the Cordoba image must be considered, the source of the mosque's funding
known and the true motives and ideas of its leaders clarified. Otherwise the doubts have it.
If there's nothing to hide, then why hide it?