The Never-Ending Story of Cordoba House: Why The Consititution is Unconcerned With Your "Feelings"

I have a theory that there hasn't been a serious debate about anything at all in the United States since the fall of the Berlin Wall. There's something about an existential threat that keeps folks focused. Say what you will about radical Islam, but it isn't an existential threat.

Even if the Republican talking points about the Takfiris wanting to "destroy the American way of life" were something other than a delusional fantasy, it wouldn't matter because only Americans can accomplish those goals for the jihadis. It is only by overreacting to the perceived threat that fundamental American freedoms can be undermined.

That is hardly unique in U.S history. Americans tend to fully lose control of the facilities every few decades and demand that their own Constitution be subverted in response to some threat. You see it going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts, through Internment and McCarthyism, right up to today's War on Terror.

Osama bin Laden seemed to understand something about American psychology that few of America's enemies ever have: That you don't have to hit the United States very hard before Americans start destroying themselves. In some cases, you don't have to hit them at all.

The gutting of the Fourth Amendment that began with the War on Drugs has been completed by the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. And now federal politicians are involving themselves in the zoning decisions of New York City, and treading awfully close to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in doing so, which conversely impacts the Fifth Amendments property rights guarantees.

I'm speaking, of course, about the planned Cordoba House (or Park 51) development in Lower Manhattan, near the former World Trade Center. I've touched on the topic before and, frankly, I couldn't be more bored by it.

This might be the simplistic debate in my lifetime, and therefore the silliest. What started out as the kind of mindless drivel that passes for news on the blogosphere has now ensnared a sitting president and several of his likely challengers. And the whole thing is remarkably stupid. Dumb politicians, commentators, and bloggers are enraging an equally dumb public stampede over something so mindless and unstoppable that it almost perfectly encapsulates everything that America has become.

I wouldn't be honest if I said that I was completely comfortable with the idea of a mosque or cultural center named after the conquest of Spain being close to Ground Zero. I agree with the right that a provocation, and one that's in particularly bad taste. Where I part company with virtually everyone on the right is their view that the feelings of anyone: you, me, the 9/11 families, or anyone else is any way consequential.

In fact, I find it ironic and hilarious that many of the same people who often decry the left's obsession with "sensitivity" and "feelings" are the one's relying on both as their last refuge in the simplistic and wrongheaded push to stop Cordoba House.

There are only two questions in this debate that are of any value whatsoever;

1. Do the developers enjoy religious freedom, expression and association rights under the First Amendment?
2. Do the developers have a Fifth Amendment right to do with their own private property whatever they wish?

If you agree that the answer to both is "yes," then the debate is pretty much over, isn't it?

The United States Constitution was primarily designed to protect the unpopular, and even obnoxious and repulsive, conduct and beliefs of the minority from the will of the majority. That's why the constant reference to polls showing that 70-some-odd percent of Americans opposing Park 51 couldn't be less relevant or more dishonest.

I don't think that anyone opposing Cordoba House would support an overwhelmingly pro-choice "concerned citizens group" from stopping the construction of a Catholic Church within two blocks of an abortion clinic, simply because it would make the clinic's clientele feel "icky", nor should they. I seriously doubt that there would be this kind of outrage on the right if someone wanted to open a gun store two blocks away from Columbine High School - assuming that there isn't one already there.

Nor should the "feelings" of the 9/11 families or the American people as a whole matter. Crime victims don't usually have a say in limiting the rights of victimizers, which assumes that they were victimized by Islam in the first place; a dubious proposition at best. Most serious people agree that 9/11 was either a criminal conspiracy or an act of war plotted and executed by a very small group.

I've tried to refrain from saying anything about the 9/11 families and their various agendas one way or another. But if Ann Coulter can question their character at will, it's only fair that some issues be raised on the matter of Park 51's opponents from that camp.

Debra Burlingame has written a statement against Cordoba House that most blogs and - within days - serveral politicians will hop on top of. They oppose President Obama's "support", presumably because they actually expect a sitting president to stand in opposition to the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution which is sworn to protect and defend.

Well, Ms. Burlingame - who lost her brother, the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 - is a founding partner with Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol of "Keep America Safe", a Republican policy 501 group. Unsurprisingly, Debra never takes off her "Official 9/11 Family Figurehead" hat to put on her "Republican Policy Hack" one, nor is she ever identified by the blogosphere by the latter. A more cynical mind than mine would suggest that this is a pretty exploitative practice, particularly on an issue like this in an election season.

Of course, this is a cynical game for hacks that seek to exploit ignorance, most notably, yours. The bloggers, politicians and activists at question are unfailing in the attempts not to mention that they have an agenda other than a stupid mosque in New York City. They want to win an election, smear Democrats, and disassemble conservatives and Republicans who disagree with them.

The best example of this that I've seem was put by the animals at Andrew Brietbart's virtually retarded Big Peace, which compared New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's eloquent defense of religious freedom to Philippe Pétain's selling out of France to Hitler ... unfavourably.

I link to that article in particular because it's so animalistic in it's stupidity that it might actually be educational. The tone of the article makes it almost impossible to ignore that it was written by a right-wing DJ who's dumb enough to seem proud of being published by WorldNetDaily.

President Obama, being President Obama, seemigly couldn't stop himself from walking into this minefield on Friday, which tells me that his speechwriters and political advisers are spending the summer on LSD and/or Ketamine. Park 51 is a matter for the NYC city council at best, not the Oval Office.

By wading into this controversy, Obama has opened himself up to attacks by Sarah Palin; who once proudly hosted a witch doctor in Alaska; and Newt Gingrich, who is currently enjoying his second religion with his third wife.

Palin wrote the most nonsensical thing I've ever read on her Facebook government-in-exile page about Obama's constitutional defense of Cordoba House - which he later wasted no time in walking away from.

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive "cross-cultural engagement" and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite? Mr. President, why aren't you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson's generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Why haven't they jumped at this offer? Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as "hallowed ground"? I believe these are legitimate questions to ask.

Palin, who most people presume to be running for president, is seriously asking a sitting president whether or not Americans should be exercising their constitutional rights. What exactly does she expect him to say? "No, the Constitution does not apply in Lower Manhattan. The unwritten and unspoken doctrine of 'hallowed ground' that the Republicans have just invented forbids it"? Wouldn't that prove all of the worst things that people like Palin have said about Obama's relationship with the Constitution in the first place?

Governor Palin's cross-usage of "they" is also interesting. Are they the "they" who murdered 3,000 Americans building the mosque? Are "they" building it on behalf of those who did? If the answer to both of those questions is "no", then what's the issue, other than a profound or made-up problem with Islam itself?

As a general rule, I avoid asking profound questions of Palin because she's monumentally stupid. And so is anyone who would vote for her. Moreover, she seems to later double down on her ignorance of everything,. Exactly how many blocks away is far away enough, Sarah?

Gingrich, who isn't actually a moron - just unbelievably cynical - is even worse. First, he demanded that America's religious freedoms be more in line with Saudi Arabia's. Now he's saying this;



That's some truly awesome lying right there, as opposed to Sarah Palin's weapons-grade ignorance. Palin dropped out of four colleges, whereas Gingrich was a professor of history, and can therefore be expected to know better. And he did, during the Bush Administration.

Firstly, an act of Congress declaring a national memorial wouldn't stop the building of a religious site site under my understanding of the law. That's especially true in a neighborhood where a Fox News host wants to open a gay bar, and a strip club already exists.

Secondly, I'm not aware of the Japanese ever wanting to build anything next to Pearl Harbor. I'm actually pretty sure that they regret having anything to do with it the first time.

Thirdly, the Holocaust Museum? Seriously?

I've tried really hard to avoid profanity in this post, but What. The. Fuck?

Newt Gingrich is supposed to be a historian of some repute and, as such, knows that the Holocaust was an act of the German government, on behalf of the German people. That goes a long way in explaining why we bombed German civilians.

If 19 Yale students gang-bang a cheerleader, that doesn't make it a Catholic rape. That's just as true as the fact that the Mafia's funnelling of money to local parishes make them "Mob Churches." But if you're going to argue that Cordoba House is funded by "Wahhabi Sunni money," you're going to make an interesting case against the U.S government announcing a $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia - which actually is "Wahhabi Saudi money" - this past weekend. Or the hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons sales to the Kingdom since at least 1981.

The former Speaker's analogy comes right out and actually says that Islam itself was behind 9/11, and that "the American people" are free to "accept" or not whatever they do, regardless of what the actual Constitution demands. There are few other ways to interpret his remarks other than to say that America is at war with Islam, rather than a radical fringe of it.

That Speaker Gingrich is an opportunistic scumbag and Sarah Palin is a borderline moron are hardly secrets, even among people who admire them. But there are serious questions that have to be asked of them, and anyone who supports their positions on this ridiculous issue;

1. Does the United States Constitution have embedded within it a requirement to be inoffensive?
2. If so, where are they?
3. If not, what remedies does the government have to remedy it under the Constitution?
4. If there are none, why are so many national politicians speaking so authoritatively about stopping it?
5. What would you do differently if you were president?
6. Does having the governor of New York offering property to Park 51 in the place of the old Burlington Coat Factory violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
7. If so, why do you support it?
8. If you feel that it doesn't, please explain how.
9. Would you speak out against the First and Fifth Amendments as president?
10. If so, under what circumstances?
11. Who exactly was behind 9/11?
12. Do you believe that anyone involved with 9/11 is a part of the Cordoba House development?
13. Do you believe that anyone involved in Cordoba House is "materially supporting terrorism", even under America's overly-broad law?
14. Do you believe that Cordoba House is affiliated with al-Qaeada?
15. Do you believe that Cordoba House propagates "radical Islam?"
16. What is "radical Islam?"
17. Does propagating radical Islam violate any laws of New York City, New York State, or the United States of America?
18. Is there any distinction between "radical Islam" and Islam generally?
19. If so, what is it?
20. Is the United States at war with Islam as a whole?
21. If so, how do you propose to defeat it?
22. If you object to religious monuments near national symbols, would you object to, say the Ten Commandments placed anywhere near any nationally identified historical site?
23. Would you object if said placement of the Ten Commandments was on private property?
24. Would you use your influence as a political figure to remove it?
25. Do you believe that the Second Amendment allows someone to take a gun into Church, regardless of the "feelings" of other parishioners?

If you're running for office and opposing Cardoba House, it's a reasonable expectation that you would do something about it, if elected. Otherwise, why would you bring it up? And if you support this kind of rhetoric from politicians, you should be expected to explain what you expect them to do about it. That shouldn't be an overly difficult task, now should it?

Maybe I'm overly sensitive about this, but I come from a political movement - especially in my country - that dictates that politicians shouldn't act upon the individual sensitivities of individuals or collective groups at the expense of individual rights. Ezra Levant wrote an entire book about just that, which I bought and rather enjoyed and agreed with.

All I ask is that I presented with a specific case of criminal conspiracy or national security threat before I believe that there's a credible case to believe that people's religious or property freedoms be taken away from them.

On the other hand, I'm not American, and I think that the nation has already gone far too down the road of stupid rhetoric and cable TV demagoguery for common sense to make any difference any more.

There are deadly serious debates that the American people need to have that actually threaten their national existence, mostly involving their now mortal levels of debt and the truly excruciating ways that they can be resolved. But those are hard; and silly issues like Cordoba House, abortion, gay marriage and Lady Gaga are realitively easy.

It's your country, do what you want with it. Just don't expect a whole lot of praise for your "exceptionalism" anymore.