The House Of The Rising Muslim [Updated Below]

Part of the statement made by Barack Hussein Obama Al-Amriki on Friday, 13 August 2010 [ah…Anno Domini][tip of the fedora to The Lonely Conservative]:

Now, that’s not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities — particularly New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. And the pain and the experience of suffering by those who lost loved ones is just unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. And Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure.

That last sentence almost caused me to have a stroke Friday Evening.  But, I then remembered what one of The Founders wrote and I came to see the wisdom of what Barry stumbled into.  From John Quincy Adams:

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar (mohammed), the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent god; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE…Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon the earth, and good will towards men.

The writ of The Founders must, indeed, endure.

-Time constraints do not allow me to Fisk his little speech as I did another one last week, but I would like to deal with a couple of passages, if I may…

-Al-Amriki said:

So that’s who we’re fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms — it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race, or religion, or wealth, or status….

Tell that to Eric Holder and his apparatchiks.

-Further on:

…Muslim American clerics have spoken out against terror and extremism, reaffirming that Islam teaches that one must save human life, not take it….

I would like to see a list of those clerics and those passages that say the lives of Infidels must not be taken…..what Al-Amriki? [crickets chirping]…no answer?….BLANKOUT.

-We heard this bit near the end of his bloviation:

For in the end, we remain “one nation, under God, indivisible.” And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every great religion, including Islam — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Hmmm…’do unto others’…does this mean we can make it the center of our life’s work to kill all Muslims?  Somehow I don’t think the man-child believes that.  Also, where exactly in The Koran does the ‘do unto others as you would have done to yourself’ passage reside?

-As you know, our Fearless Leader tried to backtrack on Saturday.  Pat Austin ain’t buying it:

That’s the whole thing…context. Of course he wanted his iftar guests to conclude he supported the mosque. Why else issue such a statement at such a time and place?

But now, he has the luxury of saying, “Wait! Wait! You misunderstood me,” to everyone else.

Bullshit.

This Administration is turning into the political equivalent of Ishtar [I could not resist that one].

-Over at NRO, the great David Pryce-Jones has penned an excellent commentary on the speech.  A highlight:

President Obama’s speech on the occasion of the Ramadan dinner in the White House presents difficulties that are becoming his trademark. Why does he find it necessary to be an apologist for Islam? He started it in his speech in Cairo a couple of years back, which also had elements that were downright creepy….

Obama gives off a very chilling and creepy vibe.  What exactly is he up to?  We know he wants to ‘transform’ America into a Socialist sh-thole, but, why?  What is going on in that brains of his?

-Andrew McCarthy has evidence of some of the terrorist connections of some of the people who that attended the dinner on Friday.

-Nice Deb has a very good round-up of Al-Amriki’s perfidy regarding non-Mohammedin religions, and she has Sarah Palin’s response.

-Donald Douglas has provided some very good coverage here, here, here, and here.

-Over at Eye Of Polyphemus, Jamie Jeffords is fed up too:

This is a time for our secular sensibilities to assert itself. I am all for religious freedom, but there are just some things we cannot allow. I draw a line at valuing the freedom of Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero over the memories of those killed in a terrorist act inspired by Islam–and no, I do not say militant Islam. Holy war is a tenet of the “religion of peace” as a whole. To claim otherwise is to propagate a myth similar to Obama’s falsehood that Islam has played a big part in the founding of the United States.

Please do take the time to read the whole thing.

-Some good analysis by DaTechguy is to be found here.

-Over at The OtherMcCain, my good friend Smitty turned me on to an excellent point-by-point refutation by Ric Locke of the myths and lies being spread about by the Progressives on this whole issue.  It can serve as a great handbook for all of us in any arguments with people who just don’t get it.  Two highlights:

The practices you don’t like aren’t really part of Islam, the Religion of Peace.

That’s either a lie or profound ignorance. Read the Koran. It’s on line in several places. As you do so, keep in mind that there’s a chronological order (not the order the Suras are presented) and that, by Moslem doctrine, later versions supercede earlier ones — just because you find a verse and conclude something from it, doesn’t mean some later verse doesn’t contradict it. And to be sure of an interpretation you have to consult the hadith, the scholarly writings and interpretations, and that will take a while.

Nevertheless, it’s clear from behavior that the practices I don’t tolerate are integral parts of Islam. Wherever shar’yah (use of the Koran and hadith as a legal code) is set up, those practices become everyday occurrences not merely supported but actively promoted by the leadership…. They are integral parts of Islam, and people who don’t practice them are severely denounced by those who do as representing an abandonment of the True Faith.

More to the point, suicide bombing is not just a sacrament of Islam, it’s a fundamental sacrament, as should be clear from extensive discussions of the subject by Moslems — six dozen virgins in Paradise, remember?

And…

Islam didn’t attack us, only al-Qaida!

After 9-11-01, even the apologist US media showed us multiple demonstrations in Moslem countries relating to the event, and the BBC and other news organizations were even less restrained. Every one of those demonstrations — not a single exception — showed the demonstrators celebrating a Moslem victory, expressing hate for America, and anticipating a follow-through of something even more damaging.

Was every Moslem on the planet a participant in such demonstrations? Of course not. But the most, the absolute most, that any putative dissenters from that sentiment did was to stay home. NOT ONE SINGLE ISOLATED “PROTEST” expressed sympathy for the dead at the WTC, let alone any even grudging support for America and Americans.

Some of us — myself included — got back-channel, individual expressions of sympathy from Moslems, there were some condolences and qualified support from individuals on the Internet, and a few Moslem bigshots of one sort or another made mealy-mouthed statements of support. In the latter case, one only had to consult the English closed-caption crawl on al-Jazeera to discover that many, if not all, such statements sounded very different in the original language.

It’s not at all a difficult leap to the obvious conclusion….

Well done, Ric Locke.  He gets it.  I encourage you to read the whole thing.

-In that posting by Smitty, he looks at the GZM as an issue in this year’s elections — it’s well-worth a look.

-The brave Robert Spencer demolishes the lies being perpetrated by the Left when it comes to the location of the ‘Community Center’ — that it is not actually located at Ground Zero, but a few block away.  That is a blatant lie [tip of the fedora to William Teach]:

But also, and more importantly, the Burlington Coat Factory building is in a larger sense part of Ground Zero. The landing gear from one of the jetliners hijacked on September 11, 2001 flew into the building that the Islamic supremacists want to tear down to construct their mosque. That makes this building part of the 9/11 attack site, and will make the mosque — in the eyes of the Islamic world — exactly what the Dome of the Rock is: a mosque of victory built right on the site of the Muslim defeat of the Infidels. The Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, built on the site of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, are declarations of the superiority of Islam over Judaism, and its victory over Judaism. The mosque at the Burlington Coat Factory site, built on the site — not near it, but on it, because of that landing gear — of the Islamic jihad attack on September 11, 2001, will be seen as a declaration of the superiority of Islam over the United States, and its victory over the American economic machine.

The Burlington Coat Factory building, 45 Park Place, which was severely damaged by that part of one of the 9/11 planes, is Ground Zero, as is the former World Trade Center site. That’s why the Islamic supremacists want that building, and only that building, and why they have rebuffed Governor Paterson’s offer to help them move elsewhere, and why they persist in their plans despite a rising chorus of public disapproval and public anguish that shows up their claims to be “building bridges” with this mega-mosque.

If this offensive thing somehow gets built, then Islam will have scored a major victory.

If it gets built then it’s Howard Roark time and it must be destroyed as quickly as possible [without, of course hurting any non-Muslims].

UPDATE at 2101…

-Frequent commentator at TCOTS and other site, Adobe Walls has been very kind in his remarks about this post here and at other blogs.  Over at Pajamas Media, he offered this bit of spot-on commentary to a good posting by Leon de Winter:

I have written here and a several other sites making a comparison between Islam and the Aztec Religion which included ritual removal of human hearts while the victim was still alive. My point is meant to be that calling an ideology or a ceremonial activity a “religion” doesn’t mean we have to accept it as such nor do we have to tolerate beliefs or activities no matter how antithetical to our values just because some other group decides to call such activities a religion. The Aztecs believed that their religious rites and activities including human sacrifice were as spiritually valid or acceptable as we feel our religious rites are today. We do not have to accept that there are any religious elements to this debate about the ground zero Mosque at all. To state that the sole purpose of this Islamic center is to create a monument to the Moslem tactical victory of 9/11 is not intolerant in any negative sense of that word and certainly doesn’t justify the charges of Religious intolerance. In my opinion the only “rights” we have to argue about here are property rights.

Exactly.

-Over at Si Vis Pacem, Ran has some analysis of his own and excerpts from a New York Sun editorial.

-I like Van Helsing’s take over at Moonbattery on Al-Amriki’s clarification of his remarks [tip of the fedora to Adobe Walls]:

He must have looked out the window of his castle and saw the peasants gathering with torches and pitchforks. Now he’s voting “present,” as he so often did during his brief and mediocre legislative career.

It’s pronounced ‘Obama-steen’.

-Of course, Carol Sheeple was compelled to comment on Barry’s backtracking with a zinging Photoshop over at No Sheeples Here.