Obama: extorting cities in the name of Islam

It’s despicable when Muslims use our laws against us, and it’s worse when they have the permission of  the president.

Recall that last year a new jihadi recruitment center was to be built in the small town of Bridgewater, New Jersey.

Just what American needs: a mega-mosque.

Unfortunately for the jihadis, the township had an ordinance that limits religious buildings to major roads, as it wants to keep the residential character of the neighborhood. The proposal was rejected, and not just because it was a mosque. Many cities across the nation have similar regulations.

Didn’t matter to CAIR, as they sued the city of Bridgewater. The DOJ and Heir Obama came down hard on Bridgewater in a lawsuit forcing the city to settle. The blackmail cost the town $7.75 million!

The Muslims changed the location to a 15-acre lot costing $2.75 million – paid for by Bridgewater.  The township’s insurance carrier are forced to pay $5 million for alleged damages, costs and attorney fees.

And this is not the only town suffering, as Kennessaw, Georgia will soon be forced to build a mosque:



Pamela Greer states this is Islamic blackmail money known as Jizya:

Muhammad very clearly established in Qur’an (9:29) that people of other religions have to pay a poll tax to Muslims called the jizya as a reminder of their inferior status.

The DOJ got by with this by leaning on the 1999 the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA.

It expanded governmental protection of religious liberty in connection with the use of land for religious purposes. RLUIPA gave houses of worship a way to get around zoning laws that interfered with what kind of structures they wanted to build.  Its original intent, although it applied to all religions, was “most pertinent to Native American religions that are burdened by increasing expansion of government projects onto sacred land. In Native American religion, the land they worship on is very important. Often the particular ceremonies can only take place in certain locations because these locations have special significance.”

In passing these sweeping laws, there was concern that RLIUPA, “while intended to safeguard the core constitutional principle of religious liberty, could undermine another fundamental constitutional concern, that of ensuring equal protection under the law.”

Well, it has and it did. Religious liberty for all? What if a religion is supremacist and steamrolls over the rights of non-believers, oppresses women, and calls for the annihilation of Christians and Jews?

Back to top button