At the last minute, Landmarks Commission switches site of today's hearing about Ground Zero Islamic supremacist mega-mosque site

Exactly!! New Yorkers need to be there in droves....so many that the MSM dare not ignore it.

You are SO RIGHT Chatillon! Our Constitution states specifically that we are to rectify our government when they are trying to do ANYTHING that is illegal, that is... anything UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And that's exactly what's happening. It doesn't take a genius to see that they're trying to keep people from attending when they switch the meeting at the last minute. Their agenda is almost too obvious, and way scarier than most people realize. But people in this country have grown lazy, and prefer to have someone to tell them HOW to think, and WHAT to do. It's pathetic.

Miira... that is a REALLY good question. It seems to me that it should be illegal to ask our id for attending.

I'm afraid that you are correct. If the government fails in it's primary obligation of citizen safety then by God we will protect ourselves!!

Miira wrote:

Please bring a picture ID for entrance into the building.

Does AG General Holder approve of this ID check because it involves NY'ers or because it doesn't involve AZ illegals? What, pray tell, is the Landmark Commission checking ID's for?
...............

Miira, New Yorkers can blame Islam for this, as well. I visited NYC in the late 1990s, and again a year and a half after 9/11—both times I visited dozens of publishing houses—the difference was *stark*.

The first time, I was asked for ID at two of the larger buildings—buildings that had large numbers of companies, some of which were more concerned about security than most. The security guards in both cases had me sign in, then glanced at my California ID. I signed out when I left, but no one paid any attention.

On my next trip in February of 2003, everything had changed. I had to show ID at every building except for one tiny place down in Greenwich Village occupied solely by a small publisher. In addition, the ID process was *much* more strenuous—in most buildings, I not only had to show ID, I had to get my photo taken and wait for a special ID—good only for that one day—to be made up for me. I had to indicate what company I was visiting, and how long I would likely be there.

At several places, I had to have someone from the publishing firm *come down and escort me* up to the company. In one building, I was ID'd in the lobby, *on the floor I got off at*, and in the lobby of the publishing company.

At one place—where my meeting with an editor was going especially well and ran long, the company was notified by security and *had to send someone down—in person—to explain that the company had authorized my presence, and give an estimate of how longer I would be*.

I learned to get to appointments extra early, in case there was a line—there often was—at the security desk. I cannot even begin to imagine how this is impacting business in the financial capital of America.

So—I don't imagine the Landmarks Commission here asking for ID is a specific attempt to keep citizens attending (unlike moving the site of the meeting itself)—just the sad reality of life in what may be America's greatest city post 9/11.

Allah Snackbar wrote:

I'm really not optimistic about the chances of getting this building designated as a landmark. It sounds like everybody has already made up their minds that a mosque will be built at ground zero. Bloomberg is a traitor.
...............

I'm sure a lot of sane New Yorkers must miss Giuliani.

I think you are probably right about the likelihood of the old Burlington Coat Factory building being designated a landmark structure.

Also—while I am all for using all legal remedies open to us, there is something ludicrous about this tack to begin with. Opposing a proposal as ugly as siting a mosque on a structure that was damaged in as vicious an act of Jihad as the 9/11 attacks—and we want to counter it by designating the building an historic landmark?

This reminds me of the opposition to the expansion of the Wahhabist madrassa in Virginia, where—*blocked from voicing any criticism about the Islamic school itself*, neighbors were reduced to talking about how the expansion would *create parking problems*-as though a school teaching hatred and war against the Infidel were no more problematic than, say, a shopping center or a sports arena.

Don't get me wrong—I fervently hope the Ground Zero mosque *is* derailed by the Landmarks Commission—but until we can freely speak out against Jihad and Muslim sepremacism, we are always going to be a terrible disadvantage.

In retrospect, it is easy to see the degree to which (as Hugh would relate)

"The large-scale presence of Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels has brought about a situation, for those indigenous Infidels (and also for other non-indigenous arrivals, non-Muslim immigrants [and future generations]), that is unpleasant, expensive (the costs of monitoring, the costs of security, spiraling ever upward), and physically dangerous. . . .Are we not entitled to ask that those in the government take notice of reality, and cease to allow Muslims into our country, where they can only increase that unpleasantness, that skyrocketing expense, that ominous threat of physical insecurity? What does it take to get the government to respond to our most essential needs and desires? What?"

Lan Astaslem.