Misunderstood First Amendment rights not applicable to the Ground Zero controversy

Important note: prior to absorbing this post, I recommend perusing my introduction page for a proper preface of my diplomatic advocacy mission.

Most of our leaders and media representatives grievously display a tragic legal and historical ignorance in regards to the highly controversial Ground Zero Mosque project. Their myopic and ignorant chanting of the standard religious freedom mantra amounts to a slap in the face of all who stand true to American honor. These cowardly officials have disgracefully sold out to Islamic deceptive coercion to build a monster mosque that represents all that is antagonistic to America – a hideous monument to reprehensible defilement of the hallowed ground zero site that callously rubs caustic salt into the eternal wound to the American psyche. We will forever be ashamed if we allow the defilement of American blood by gloating antagonistic Muslim worshippers throwing pretentious ritual prayer rugs upon our honored dead.

However, it is light-years distant from a religious rights issue! Our Founding Fathers sought to protect this country from the ravages of religious persecution they knew rampant in Europe and the rest of the world. However, that freedom afforded by our First Amendment to the Constitution of 1789 was specifically reserved for those who held no threat. The founders’ assumption and basis for the law was that, though they knew that cunning men could misuse it for oppression, basic religion is inherently harmless and beneficial. They would never have allowed freedom to any religion that posed a threat, or was composed of significant elements that had harmful potential, or adhered to creeds promoting tyrannical or deadly activities. It would fly in the face of common sense and sound reason to suppose, that these intelligent and experienced leaders such as Jefferson and his colleagues would tolerate a highly antagonistic religion. This concept becomes quite apparent when considering the qualifying portion of the amendment that specifically limits activity and protection of the law to peaceable assembly only. “Peaceable” activity is the essence of this law. Therefore, as anyone who is aware of world events knows, Islam is rife with far from “peaceable” behavior.

Therefore, the issue fails to meet the religious freedom criteria. Neither does it qualify for the progressive element’s hand-wringing and the disingenuous exercise of misguided knee-jerk intolerance, hatred and bigotry accusations. It is a question of establishing responsible protection for our citizens from a powerful and influential global organization that has a long history of substantial aggressive expansionism, subjugation and mistreatment of women, persecution of religions, especially Christianity, and the flagrant maiming, torture, murder, terrorism, and destruction witnessed by millions on television and in the print media. The First Amendment found life during an era in which the Fathers could not have envisioned a modern society held hostage by Islam’s childish tantrums and brazen demands for silencing any opinions critical of Islam. Moreover, they could not foresee America falling prey to a systemic covert infiltration of our society by a devious force determined for domination hiding behind a mantle of “freedom from religious persecution”. It is a Catch 22 trap. The Muslims are abusing our religious freedom tradition by forcing our leaders to blindly insure First Amendment protection despite the overwhelming evidence of the insidious threat embodied in the global Islamic presence. If we deny their right to build their mosque, we will appear to dishonor our national heritage and promises. However, if we allow free reign in the name of religious freedom without first addressing, repudiating, and eliminating the terrorist elements, we dishonor the original constitutional intent and subject our citizens to further intrusion and possible harm from of an belligerent ideology that turns deaf ears and closes their eyes to all the destruction reeked by their radical elements.

Islamic leaders further disingenuous claims that they have no responsibility for the terrorist activities. Moreover, our leaders fearfully bow to their excuses under the deceptive guise of staunch adherence to American liberty. For several years after the 9/11 tragedy, the media displayed the visual truth of Muslim terrorism around the globe and everyone knows that, though a sizeable minority, the radicals claim Islam as their guiding force. Moreover, that significant minority speaks loud and carries a big stick compared to the insignificant mumblings that mainstream Muslims feebly whisper against it. So why are so many supposedly intelligent people now attempting to minimize the effect of that devastating minority? Why is the Obama administration making an immoral bed with the Islamic leadership to silence dissent against any Muslim misbehavior or violence, and as well, covering up any news of such incidences? Obama has ordered the media to desist from any negative Muslim news and promote tolerance and acceptance of Islam no matter what the reality is. In fact, Obama, in league with the Saudi government, is aggressively striving for incorporation into international law, the recently passed U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 *condemning dissent on Muslim activities and Sharia law. Obama seeks a treaty with the world Islamic powers for implementation of the resolution as law that would supersede our Constitution** and bind U.S. citizens for adherence. To date, there are no punitive provisions set forth, but one can imagine, with the violent reputation of the Muslim leaders, how violators will pay dearly for exercising their First Amendment rights which as a result of the new law, have been abolished. Another monumental concern: who decides what constitutes unacceptable “free speech” that transgresses the statute? Obama and his Muslim cohorts claim that no reasonable free speech rights will be violated; however, I have great difficulty granting any validity to that pontification. The implications are fearful.

Politicians are painfully aware of the poignant axiom, “perception is reality”; therefore we must take a hard look at the stark reality and realize that the Islamic pseudo-religion, though populated by many “good” people, as a whole, because of their terrorist minority are perceived by mainstream Americans as dangerous. We must address the hard truth! Islamic leaders, by failing or refusing to weed out the terrorism inflicted by their radical elements have acted as accessory to these crimes. By withholding the exercise of their enormous power and influence that they could wield against their evil minority, they are guilty of collusion. Our criminal elements often find themselves charged with this violation of U.S. law. Moreover, it is terribly tragic for the good element to be associated with the radicals and suffer the resulting stigma because their leadership fails to repudiate and act against the violence. However, it appears that they, by default, have made that choice. Hence, because of this negligence, or in some cases devious connivance, and for our national security, the entire Muslim faith must be held accountable for terrorist activities. The Muslim pseudo-religion, for the sake of the ultimate survival of our culture, must be officially classified as an enemy of the State.

In conclusion, it follows that the New York ground zero Mosque project is an egregious insult to our country and especially reprehensible to the survivors of 9/11 and the families of the needlessly slaughtered victims. Construction should be halted! This appears as a violation of the law, but prohibitive action is necessary for compliance with the intent of the First Amendment. If we cannot bring ourselves to make a tough choice, it it appears then that we are shamefully shackled like extremist-held hostages to the dilemma of what is morally right vs. that which is amorally legal?

Yes, local Muslims may have spoken their displeasure concerning the 9/11 catastrophe, but that inconsequential lip service is worthless in the global scheme. Yes Mayor Bloomberg, America is, as you say, a place for tolerance and openness, but should we really exercise tolerance for Muslim terrorists? NO! So then, why must we be tolerant and open to those who could stop the violence, but do nothing in that regard? Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Therefore, until Islam acts to stop terrorism, as some of their leaders have vowed, but neglected to do so, they should not be afforded our cherished American tolerance and freedom!

* http://bit.ly/pnBfWB
** See the U.S. Constitution Article 6, paragraph 2.

Jerry Clifford, the Word Guru

I need and desire constructive comments of any kind, for they are a necessary educational and enlightenment process. Please visit the comment section at the bottom of this page and follow the guidelines for legitimate response or Please contact me by email: wordguru.jc@gmail.com

This entry was posted in Current events analysis, Muslim issues, Obama's War on America, Religious Freedom and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Please leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s