The battle continues to rage over the proposed Islamic Center a mere few hundred feet from the site of the worst attack by Muslim extremists ever perpetrated on U.S. soil., the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York. Nearly three thousand people perished that day at the hands of a dozen and a half radical Muslims, but the after effects propel the numbers of both perpetrators and victims into untold numbers.

The argument now is over the Constitutional right of Muslims to build where they want in America as compared to other religions, but those opposed to this building acknowledge readily, as true Americans would, that right. But as the after effects of that day linger, the extended families of the victims and the multitudes who were captured on film dancing in celebration as the towers burned and crumbled have only seen their gulf further divided. To the latter group, the day symbolized a huge victory.

To them, that was only stage one of the battle, unarguably a battle for which they could claim success. They blew one by us, and as a movie character once said, “Savor the flavor, kid, ’cause it ain’t gonna happen again”. Undeterred, some still try.

Imam Rauf, at the heart of this proposed building, insists that his is a mission of “bridge building”, a gesture of good faith toward the non-Muslims of America and, by extension, the West. He claims an attempt to demonstrate that compassion can overcome contention, but when met with passionate opposition, turns to stone and cold defiance. Despite the fact that the opposed have done so peacefully, the Imam has dug in his heels and refuses to move.

After a huge outcry from the public and the blogosphere – which has been portrayed as a collection of imaginative juveniles by a nervously envious mainstream media as crazed – the group behind the “Ground Zero Mosque” has strategically changed its name of the project. When the comparison of the “Cordoba Initiative” to the Conquest of Cordoba in Spain in the eighth century was too much to bear, the project name was changed to Park51.

As I pointed out in Cordoba Sounds Nice a month ago, Cordoba was designed to sound more European and romantic to Americans than what its meaning actually held. It was a tactical error by the good Imam and his cohorts based on the assumption that we, Americans, were all fat, dumb and happy. Now that they are discovering the opposite, and as they realize their counter claims that we are merely crazy won’t work, they have cleverly changed the name of the project. But they’re really not as clever as the change might otherwise indicate to the few who are exactly as the Imam thought.

Steve Malzberg of WOR Radio 710 in New York brought this up a few days ago on his afternoon show, and while I’m not quite sure of who is responsible for the discovery, I still credit Steve with having the courage to speak about it. To my knowledge, no one else has. Hopefully Steve will clarify the intrepid party who dug this up and apply proper credit.

But the new name, Park51, is just as Cordoba was; built for subterfuge, which is a mainstay of Mohammed and Allah in the war against the “infidel”. The Quran commands lying in order to attain victory, and many still listen.

What Malzberg brought to light was a reference in the Imam’s own Holy Book to the significance of the kinder, gentler Park51 name, and its relation to the message of triumph just as Cordoba held. The address of the mosque building (I refer to it as “the mosque” for expediency, even though I know those critical will complain of the label) is not 51 Park Place, as manyView watchers will assume with a relieved sigh. It is actually 45-51 Park Place.

*Malzberg’s account is 45-47 Park Place, Wikipedia has it as 47-51 Park Place.

Americans read left to right, Asians right to left. Presumably, Muslims read right to left, I do not claim to know, but it might account for the Park51 being derived from the latter of the address numbers. But a perusal of Chapter 51 of the Quran, versus 45-47, reveals that the message of triumphant conquest is alive in this mosque endeavor. From the know Quran website:

	So they were not able to rise up, nor could they defend themselves –
	And the people of Nuh before, surely they were a transgressing people.
	And the heaven, We raised it high with power, and most surely We are the makers of things ample.

Considering Imam Rauf’s recent assertion that this property has more significance than that of just a “piece of real estate”, it must be considered that he means something else. Perhaps the significance lies in the numerical address of that property. It is, after all, about symbolism.

This guy will not give anyone a job. I fail to grasp why that is so difficult to understand, yet the New York Times on Saturday published an editorial piece that – on its face – seemed critical of Barack Hussein Obama. Well, it was, but for an entirely different reason than I initially thought when I saw the byline; the Times complains that Obama is not enoughof a Socialist.

Grudgingly admitting in the second paragraph that the economy is worse than the Obama administration will acknowledge, the Times piece launches immediately into defense mode in the third paragraph. It fallaciously states that, “The fiscal stimulus of 2009, coupled with low interest rates and other Federal Reserve interventions, kept the recession from being much worse.” Clearly there is no way to substantiate such a claim because it is inherently speculative. Furthermore, it has been widely reported that much of the stimulus money hasn’t been spent, and that a large percentage went towards creating a larger government.

It is a universally known fact that federal employees now earn more than private workers, and the ranks of government workers have increased at an alarming pace. What this means, of course, is that more people, earning higher wages, are being compensated from an employer that produces virtually nothing. The payroll is funded from the labors of an ever-dwindling work force of producers.

The piece then goes further, complaining of Congressional gridlock and blaming the minority party – Republicans – for the Democrats’  inability to “accomplish” anything. Perhaps the Times editorial staff has already forgotten the massive Health Care legislation, force fed on a decidedly unwilling populace, and the maneuvering of the majority party in that alleged victory.

But perhaps the most egregious example of political bias – and a gross misunderstanding of economic principle – comes in paragraph seven. Speaking of Obama, the piece states:

“First, he needs to keep driving home that he is committed to addressing the deficit, and that he will call for widespread sacrifice to do so — starting with letting the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans expire at year end. Mr. Obama must tell Americans that claims from Republican leaders that the country can both cut taxes and tackle the deficit are absurd and cynical.”

What is absurd is the notion that increasing taxes on the wealthy – the actual employers of the country – will somehow fill the coffers of the federal government. Keeping in mind the growing number of people drawing a paycheck from the government, it stands to reason that the problem would only suffer the domino effect. The employers, forced to fund more of the insatiable government, will move more of their businesses offshore and shield even more of their incomes from the intrusive clutches of Uncle Sam.

The very next paragraph reveals the chilling idiocy of the Liberal mindset:

“Next, he needs to explain why too much sacrifice, too soon, especially from the middle class, would do more harm than good while the economy is weak. More government support is needed until conditions improve.”

Anyone who actually belongs to the middle class understands all too well that that statement is ridiculous, for while the Liberal elites claim to target the “wealthy”, it is the middle class – doing well, but not well enough to either run or hide – who will be leaned on to support the “more government” that the Times endorses.

The Times editorial concludes with this obsequious gem:

“The economic damage they inherited was too deep, and the economic stimulus they pushed through Congress, for all of the fight, was too small.”

Toeing the party line, the Times dutifully perpetuates the lunacy that what Obama “inherited” was anything but incestuous, a gift from his own party, who managed to derail the Bush years in only two, after regaining control of the Congressional purse strings in 2007.

The most frightening aspect of such an editorial is the fact that readers of that publication already consider themselves intellectually head and shoulders above the rest of us. Granted, they are generally better educated and more handsomely compensated for their labors, but they are dupes nonetheless. Armed with the almighty New York Times, they may prove to be too formidable an adversary for the everyday, naturally smarter person who would otherwise disagree forcefully with such a position. That line of thought must change.

As the sleek veneer begins to fade and tarnish, and as a reticent media feels the unrelenting tug of duty – or perhaps shame – the questions about Obama’s past are finally gaining credibility and momentum. Furthermore, the notions of his incompetency and ineligibility are suddenly seeming more plausible to a larger portion of Americans, no longer cavalierly dismissed with a shrug and a wave of the hand.

I was among a sizeable crowd of bloggers and pundits who were sounding the alarm about Obama’s past associations, from William Ayers to Reverend Wright. But the core of Obama’s character was formed long before he would meet either of those men. It is derived from the dreams of his father and the call to prayer in Jakarta.

While the buzz lately is about the percentage of people who believe Obama to be a Muslim, the media elites are demanding to know how so many people could be so gullible, an irony I find immensely amusing. Equally as ironic is their intense desire to convince those “gullible” people that the President is a Christian, a group they are normally engaged in mocking.

But to believe that Obama is a Muslim is less of a stretch than vice versa. While he may not be a practicing or active Muslim, there is no question that he is a cultural Muslim. He was born to a Muslim father and an atheist mother. In the world of Islam, he is a Muslim. For him to claim otherwise makes him an Apostate, one more hated by Muslims than even infidels, but we’ll get to that particular problem later.

His birth to Barack Sr. makes him a Muslim, that much is clear. What Junior chose to become later in life may have meaning to him or not, but to Muslims, he will always be a Muslim. That was clear throughout the campaign, when people like Mohamar Gadhafi were enthralled at the prospect of a Muslim becoming president of the United States. Louis Farrakhan, leader of The Nation of Islam, felt the same way. Remember these pertinent facts, they will come in handy.

Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, divorced Barack Sr. when the president was three years old, ostensibly because she discovered that the father of her child already had a wife and family back in Kenya. She subsequently married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian man working towards his masters degree at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was five years old, Soetoro was recalled to Indonesia by his government. A year later, Ann Dunham and her six-year-old followed. Soetoro eventually adopted Obama, who then became young Barry Soetoro.

So the young Soetoro was now an Indonesian citizen, and attended madrassa, taking reading lessons on the Qur’an. Obama has confided that he once got in trouble for making faces during Qur’an studies. He himself has stated recently that the sweetest sound he ever heard was the Muslim call to prayer at sunset. During an interview with George Stephanopoulos in the campaign season of 2008, Obama slipped, referring to “my Muslim” faith. (Stephanopoulos dutifully corrected the gaffe).

Since he’s been president, Obama has spent more time reaching out to Muslims and slamming Israel, defending the Ground Zero mosque while decrying home building in Jerusalem. He’s coddled Iran – the country he said he would never permit to have a nuclear weapon – and as a result, Achmedinejad has jammed his thumb in our eye. In a matter of hours, Iran and Russia will begin loading fuel rods into the newly finished nuclear reactors.

Obama spoke in Cairo, Egypt, where he offered apologies on our behalf for having been “arrogant”, something I personally did not need representation on in such fashion. But the interesting part is the fact that he made it out of there alive. Here’s why.

According to the Qur’an, an Apostate is a Muslim who has committed a worse crime than murder; conversion from Islam. Don’t take my word for it, however, read from a “newspaper” that has, since the election, become the official propaganda machine of the Obama administration, The New York Times:

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is “irtidad” or “ridda,” usually translated from the Arabic as “apostasy,” but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered — as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy — but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obama’s case.)

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran’s Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.

For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama — not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law — another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.

At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards.

Curious, the reception he received in a Muslim country, then. So when people like Joel Achenbach write OpEd’s in the Washington Post titled, “Are Americans total numbskulls?“, the question must be reversed upon them immediately. Is Obama a Muslim, or an Apostate? For someone who should be most reviled in a Muslim country, he certainly seemed cozy. Perhaps he didn’t convert? Or he returned?

Claiming that he and his family would find a new church in the DC area by Easter, that hasn’t happened. The excuse is that he doesn’t want to be a disruption. Apparently that is only true of a Christian church as he and his family don’t seem to mind fouling traffic on the streets and airports on New York, feel comfortable closing sections of prime beach areas in Spain, and cause security havoc at professional sporting events. Nope, we can’t attend church because we’ll “interfere”.

Maybe Obama is a Christian Apostate. He’s safe, there is no penalty for that in the true religion of peace beyond disappointment. “How can people believe that Obama is a Muslim?” How can they deny it?

During his campaign for president, Barack Hussein Obama analogized a bus, driven by the Republican party and the previous administration, as having lost its driver and that he was needed to grab the wheel and stop us from going off a cliff. Since his victory at the polls and ascension to the Oval Office, the new president has decided to abandon the public transportation motif and chosen to go it alone in a sports car. His modus operandi now is to rule by fiat.

With one party rule since his election, Obama and his party have become an oligarchy, inflicting their whims on a vast majority that vociferously declares that it does not want them. It is a dangerous trend, for while they are staying within the lines and following the law, they are quickly learning that there is really no reason to maintain that path.

The hubris and arrogance demonstrated by the ruling elites has been staggering, and the clear contempt exhibited by alleged representatives such as Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) toward their constituents, frightening. The actions of the Legislative and Executive branches has been appalling, passing new laws that were obviously unpopular, and the derisive comments at meetings with the people a testament to that contempt.

The Obamas’ opulent lifestyle in the face of a shattered economy and incredible joblessness is an absolute insult to the American people. The hypocrisy of his admonitions in contrast to his own deeds is nothing short of majestic, telling us to tighten our belts as he lives the life of which Robin Leach reported.

Now, the only thing being reported is news about Lindsay Lohan’s arrest and subsequent trial, while the “press” completely ignores the blatant corruption in Washington. It seems the only interest by the media in Charlie Rangel and his thirteen ethics violations, for example, is a desire to hear him complain how it is the Republicans’ fault that he is in trouble. The lack of intellectual curiosity by the media is astounding.

There is also a troubling lack of true opposition from the Republican party, save for a few stray members of Congress who have spoken out. Thus far it seems that there is little standing in the way of the Democrats’ runaway “progress”, and barely a whisper of the disastrous and escalating debt, despite the plaintive wails from the Left when George W. Bush ran a measly $400 billion debt. The media, in the face of a $13trillion debt seems to give Obama a “Heckuva job, Brownie”, something for which Bush was excoriated during the Hurricane Katrina debacle.

Perhaps it could be argued that the Republicans are merely standing aside and allowing the Democrats to commit Hari Kari, letting them take as much rope as they need, only to sweep into Congress in November. That is a hope for change I can cling to, but only if the Republicans handle it better this time around.

Hopefully, they have learned the same valuable lesson that we have.

It appears that Barack Hussein Obama – that champion of Community Organizers – is frightened by the prospect of Conservatives doing the same. It has historically been very easy for the Left to march toward their goals because they faced no resistance from their opposition.

Conservatives never actually got together before to act on their displeasure with the Socialist advance that has been going on in this country for decades, mainly because they were too busy building their lives, families and ultimately, a nation. Now, however, with the Left poised to topple and ruin all that Conservatives have toiled to accomplish, the gloves are off.

Barack Hussein Obama was in Austin, Texas on August 9th to deliver – yes, another – speech to a friendly audience at a Democratic National Committee (DNC) finance event, and after a rambling diatribe that opened his remarks by blaming his predecessor and the Republican party for our current ills, finally got to his attacks on a group of …Community Organizers. He called out the organization Americans for Prosperity (AFP) because they have had the audacity to oppose his agenda, and he did it by name.

Ironically, Obama worries that we who donate to AFP really don’t know who they are and he claims that all the Democrats have asked for is disclosure. Funny how we never knew where all of Obama’s campaign money came from, yet he still wants the other side to “fess up”, a notion that prompted his heinous rebuke of the Supreme Court at his State of the Union Address. If he’s worried about how we spend our money, I have a laundry list of advice for him, but that’s for another time.

For anyone with the stomach to read through it all, the full text of Obama’s Austin speech is here. For an excerpt of his attack on AFP, I have mercifully provided it below:

Right now all around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates all across the country. And they don’t have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s a big oil company, or a big bank. You don’t know if it’s a [sic] insurance company that wants to see some of the provisions in health reform repealed because it’s good for their bottom line, even if it’s not good for the American people.

Now, this may shock some readers but it must be pointed out that – ahem – Barack Hussein Obama is lying. A simple perusal of the Americans for Prosperity website clearly states “Who We Are” and “What We Do”. For an ideology that screamed for freedom of speech and civil liberties throughout the Bush administration, this crowd sure seems eager to shut us up, from the Tea Parties to talk radio to grass roots organizations like AFP. Why?

The answer couldn’t be clearer. Barack Hussein Obama and the other points of The Triad – Pelosi and Reid – know that the clock is ticking. They know that the other team has the ball and is about to score, and score big. They know that the guys with the white hats are coming for them and they are terrified. And the most amazing aspect of this is that we have mobilized as we have in such a short time. That speaks volumes about just how devastating the policies of these Leftists have been.

It also speaks loudly to the threshold of the American peoples’ tolerance for socialism.

Since the federal government seems hell bent on preventing its member states from enforcing immigration laws it refuses to enforce itself, I have a suggestion that may just work. It will require an enormous amount of cooperation between the various states in the Union, but I believe that most of them are more than ready for such laborious efforts. Frustrated by the ever-increasingly intrusive powers wielded by the federal government and its encroachment on states’ rights, it might be time for the states to exercise their own rights that will be formulated in an unassailable manner.

In Colonial times, Philadelphia had a logistics problem in fighting fires in areas well developed and already having relatively tall buildings for the time. With no pumping system, it was difficult to get sufficient water to douse flames to the site of the fire, so some innovation was required.

In 1736, the Union Fire Company was formed with the assistance of Benjamin Franklin, whose name has sometimes been associated with the organization. It was a volunteer fire department, the first of its kind in Philadelphia, and one of the principles borne of its existence was the “bucket brigade”. Each member of the force agreed to furnish for any alarm six leather buckets, at personal expense, to fight the flames.

They would form a line with the buckets with the first man at a well and the last at the fire, and pass buckets full of water toward the fire and the empty ones back toward the well, until the fire was extinguished. The teamwork proved much more effective than men with buckets running to and fro in haphazard fashion. Even common ants know the benefits of cooperation.

To defeat the progressive notion that illegal aliens can be protected by a federal government reticent to enforce its own laws because it’s afraid to lose its perceived voting base, the states can form their own version of the bucket brigade and effectively put out the fire.

While the federal government can claim – with efficiency, apparently – that it supersedes the states’ authority regarding federal law, the states still have a degree of sovereignty regarding local matters and the laws governing them. For example, states can make it illegal to reside within its boundaries if one is not a legal United States citizen. While this might be perceived as merely shoving one state’s problems into neighboring states, that’s where the enormous cooperation comes into play.

Rather than the state of Montana hauling a truckload of captured illegal aliens down to the Mexican border repeatedly, they could have an extradition-style agreement with Wyoming to accept custody at its southern border. Wyoming could then transport the prisoners to its southern border with Utah, and so Utah to Arizona. Once in Arizona, that state could either arrange with the Mexican government to accept its citizens, or, they could be remanded to the custody of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department are ICE certified, trained and contracted to aid the federal government in immigration enforcement pursuant to section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; Delegation of Immigration Authority. I somehow doubt that Sheriff Joe or his deputies would mind the responsibility of being the final arbiters of the disposition of criminal invaders in America.

It seems perfectly fitting that such a solution could have been unknowingly conceived by one of America’s founding fathers.