Ground Zero Mosque: Is Direct Action the Answer?

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court weighed in on the permissibility of a World War I memorial, in the form of an enormous cross, in a national park out West.   The cross could stay, said the Court.

You may recall that within days unknown persons, evidently unhappy with the Court's decision, cut the cross from its moorings and removed it.

Naturally, there's been no media follow-up on this story since first reported, nor high minded editorials calling for respect for the high Court's edict, as typically follow rulings that flags can be burned, or prayers must be banned, or criminals set free.

Mainstream media, of course, hated the decision and show tolerance lapsing into enthusiasm for any desecration of a Christian or Jewish symbol, whether by vandals in black masks or black robes.

Clearly the Ground Zero mosque is intended as an in-your-face monument of triumph to the 9/11 jihadists.   If work on it begins, it calls aloud for direct action.   Action in the vein of the efforts of the cross-rustlers out West.   Surely there are patriotic members of construction unions in New York --- all of them, I'd bet -- who'd be willing to make sure the thing is never finished, or collapses if it is, before it's ever occupied.

Call it a form of civil disobedience.

By the way, the White House political operation has to be in a shambles for President Obama to have spoken about the mosque as he did on Friday, in prepared, vetted, comments.   If you don't think so, every Democratic congressman in a centrist or conservative district does.