ON THE MOSQUE

The situation imvolving the proposed mosque at Ground Zero is untenable.  That it has managed to get as far as it has is hard to comprehend.  Ground Zero is sacred ground, hallowed by the deaths of thousands of people of all nationalities, who were killed in the name of radical islam.  There is no other way to spin that fact - 9/11 was perpetrated by islamic extremists.  Now members of that same religion are insisting on building a 'cultural center' within the blast radius of the cataclysm perpetrated by followers of their faith.

The proposed mosque is nothing less than an affront to American sensibilities.  At one of the meetings held over Cordoba House, one gentleman equated the proposition to building a tribute to the Japanese over Pearl Harbor.  Well put, sir.  Both sites are sacred without being religious, and this seems to be something people like Mayor Bloomberg and Mark Levine just don't understand.  

Therein lies the problem in the American supporters of the mosque.  They buy the line about how harmless the mosque is - do they think those in opposition expect them to build gun turrets and missile launchers instead of a pool?  For those of a more religious bent - of which the people building the mosque are - there is a far deeper meaning to the chosen site.  This building was damaged by landing gear from one of the planes on 9/11.  It was in the circle of destruction.  Ground Zero isn't just where the footprints of the twin towers sat, it's the radius showered by debris.  There should be no mosque, temple or church built in those parameters.  The religion of the site is the site.

The perpetrators of 9/11 were religious, the same religion as the proposed mosque. Throughout history, religious wars were capped off with the building of the conqueror's place of worship over the ruins of the defeated, such as the Hindu temple of Ayodhya.  This tactic is to signal supremacy and subjugation, much as the romans chopped down the sacred oak groves in their attempt to conquer the celts. 

The supporters are trying to take the religion out of this story, emphasizing the "cultural center" and downplaying the mosque as just a small part of a larger, benign thing.  But for people waging a religious war - and make no mistake, this is all about religion - this sends a very clear signal.  It wouldn't be surprising if the proposed memorial to 9/11 is planned to be a plaque set into the floor -  the shoe throwing incident of 2008 illustrated their fixation with disrespecting people using footwear.  It would be par for the course, really.  After all, the dedication ceremony for the center is slated for September 11, 2011.  Just a coincidence, surely.

Supporters cannot understand why so many people are so vehement about this mosque. It's not that they want to build a mosque - it's that they want to build it there.  With all of the liberal talk about consideration for the feelings of others, there is little concern for the families of the victims, nor for the nation as a whole.  9/11 is a scar on the psyche of the country and this mosque not only rips that scar open, it pours salt in the wound.   The web site for the Cordoba Initiative states that their mission is to "Improve Muslim-West Relations".  Really?  How, exactly, is forcing the construction of this center, in the face of overwhelming opposition from the american people improving relations?  Calling the opposition bigots isn't exactly a way to win them over, either.  They have a right to express their pain and opposition, and considering they are in the majority, if improving relations was really the goal, their wishes would be heeded.  Ever since 9/11, we americans have been lectured on tolerance and understanding towards those of the muslim faith  And yet, when we demand a little of the same involving a project the imams in charge must have known would have been met with opposition, we are called bigots and intolerant.

This is an affront to our nation.  It is wildly unpopular, deeply painful, and, unsurprisingly, our president just gave the okay on it, stating the government cannot infringe on their right to practice religion.  We do not want to take away their ability to practice their religion, we just want them to do it a respectful distance from the site of an act of war perpetrated in the name of their religion.  That's not too much to ask, and if the imam was so interested in outreach, moving the mosque would be a no-brainer. 

It's time for the concerned citizens of New York to file an eminent domain suit.  Gov. Paterson offered state lands as compensation to persuade them to move a few blocks further away from Ground Zero in order to strike a compromise - a compromise many in the opposition would have been content with.  The offer was refused out of hand.  Eminent domain strips property owners of their rights in favor of the common good, after reasonable compensation has been offered and rejected.  In the case of this mosque, invoking eminent domain is for the good not just of the community, but the country at large. Frankly, there should be a ban on building any and all new religious sites within at least a five block radius of Ground Zero, no matter the denomination.  For any religion, it would be an attempt to lay claim to the site, and it cannot be claimed by one because it belongs to us all.

Are there legal grounds to block the building?  Unfortunately, no, not really - Obama is technically correct.  But there are moral grounds, and isn't that what social justice is all about?  The morality of the law and it's application?  Compassion for the suffering?  What is eminent domain but taking something from someone to give to another based on the good of the community?  As the CNN poll shows so plainly, a vast majority of people are against this building.  Large swathes of the public will suffer emotional harm with it's creation.  If taking private homes and making them into shopping centers is considered in the interests of the public, certainly stopping the construction of such an emotionally devastating structure as a muslim mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero is, too.

Besides, there's a certain poetry about using social justice to attempt to block the building of the mosque, isn't there?

A LITTLE SALVE FOR THE SOUL

I highly recommend an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal for your consumption.  Dorothy Rabinowitz has written an insightful piece on the victimization of muslims in this country.   The journey begins with Tom Hanks, and ends with a New York cabbie: 

It can't have come as a surprise that one of the now entrenched myths about America—namely, its ongoing victimization of Muslims—should have been voiced again by a leading citizen of our myth-producing capital, Hollywood. The citizen was Tom Hanks, and the occasion his March interview in Time Magazine in which he declared that our battle with Japan in World War II was one of "racism and terror." And that, he noted, should remind us of our current wars.

I have tried to remain mum on Hanks because I really like his work, but good gravy, what an asinine, deep-in-the-bubble, Hollywood lefty remark is that!?  It truly makes me wish he'd never said it, because it's just so ridiculously out-of-touch that I'm afraid I won't be able to see one of his movies without thinking of it.  What is really frightening is that he is becoming considered the "historian-in-chief" of the nation.  Considering many of these historical events are no longer taught  (or taught incorrectly) in our schools, that means the man who thinks race was the main driver for WWII is the most influential "expert" many sectors of our society, not to mention the rest of the world, will have contact with.  Frightening thought.

Mr. Hanks is representative of a narrative that is taking hold in this country, and Ms. Rabinowitz dissects the psychology of it beautifully.  She discusses the three page spread (6 on the internet) the Washington Post did on a muslim soldier who, according to the article, "battles on friendly ground".   Whomever is intimidating Spec. Zachari Klawonn is obviously in need of intervention, but considering the base this happened on, there is a degree of understanding as to why counselling might have been required anyway:

The latest reflection of this trend, grown steadily since the attacks of Sept. 11, came with a three-page spread in the Washington Post on March 24 about the tribulations of a Muslim soldier who reported being subjected to slurs, various other insults, and also a threatening note. His commander suggested he might do well to move to housing off base. The base in question was Fort Hood, where, last November, army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan murdered 13 fellow American soldiers.

The question Ms. Rabinowitz poses is, just how common is this anti-muslim narrative, and how pervasive has it become?   She makes a compelling argument:

The pain of these confrontations was undoubtedly great, as such treatment always is. Ask the members of religious and racial minorities who served, say, in World War II, when it wasn't unusual to hear slurs like "kike" and such hurled at them. Ask black Americans who had the incomparably worse experience of serving in a racially segregated military, where they were relegated to the worst duties. Not to mention being made witness—in parts of the country—to the sight of German POWs held in the U.S. eating in restaurants barred to black Americans in uniform, and otherwise being accorded respect that those Americans could not hope to receive.
Still, there were no instances of those enduring this treatment undertaking mass murder of other American servicemen. There was rage, and there were some riots, but no cases of U.S. soldiers enlisting in the service of the enemy as Maj. Hasan had. (Hasan, it was explained after he had cut down those unarmed servicemen and women packed into that room in Ft. Hood, had suffered prejudice-related pressures as a Muslim in the armed services.)

She mentions the usual suspects that perpetuate the myth by only highlighting the rare instances of bad behavior, and the press, naturally, figures centrally.  This dovetails beautifully into a recent article from Lane Wallace of The Atlantic.   In her piece titled "The Bias of Veteran Reporters" she discussed the tendencies of veteran reporters to make assumptions and only ask questions angled to prove that assumption.  She also mentions their 33% accuracy rating.   Rabinowitz's article is like an expanded example that proves Ms. Wallace's hypothesis. 
 
But Rabinowitz doesn't just prove the point, she uplifts it.  Just when the ire starts to boil at the broad-brush accusations, she quenches it will a much needed reassurance.  It is a reminder that those stories, although unacceptable and upsetting, are the exception, not the norm.  Yes, there are those out there who push things too far, but Ms Rabinowitz reminds us of our national character; what it truly means to be an American and why so many seek our shores.
 
That is where we meet a nameless, faceless New York cabbie.   His simple words of empathy and gratitude are touching.  In speaking of 9/11 and the aftermath, the former resident of Pakistan recounts a meeting with his judeo-christian neighbors after the attacks that brought home to him just what kind of country he has chosen to raise his children in:
 

"...Do you know," he said, in a voice suddenly sharp, "what would have happened if Americans had done this kind of attack in my country? Every American—every Christian, every non-Muslim—would have been slaughtered, blood would have run in the streets. I know the kind of country this is. Thanks be to God I can give this to my children."

 
Amen.
 
I urge you to read the whole article.  I left out a pertinent fact about the cabbie's story - something that would never make a three-page spread in the mainstream media.  It just doesn't follow their narrative.  Check it out.  In these rancorous times, it's nice to hear, for a change, that we are not necessarily as evil as we are portrayed.
 
 

GITMO NORTH

The Obama administration has announced that they will be moving Gitmo detainees to a federal prison in Thomson, Illinois.  Perhaps they are not sure what the term 'close' means.  There is a huge difference between 'closing' something and 'relocating' it.  Maybe because they have no real-world experience, they're a little confused.  If they did, they would know that if you close a business, that means it is done, finished, no longer in existence.  Relocation, however, means the business continues as it was before, just in a new location.

Apparently, a heavily guarded military installation is an inappropriate setting for violent terrorists captured on the battlefield.  What's really needed is a federal prison with union member guards (whose main interest is in cashing that paycheck, rather than national security), that will eventually be even more super-max than the superest super-max prison (super-duper max infinity, maybe?) available today. 

Administration lawyers have also made brief mention that there are some detainees who can't be tried for one reason or another, but can't be let go because they are such bad characters.  Bringing them to the states would cause the courts to clamor for civil trials for them in the interest of 'justice'.  Which means they need an alternative place to keep them.  Since other countries don't want a bunch of dangerous terrorists on their soil, finding a home for those dirtbags is proving tricky.  So, most likely, they will stay in the real Gitmo for a while longer yet.

Which means we'll have Gitmo North and Gitmo South.  So I guess you might say Obama has actually expanded Gitmo.

What really gets me, though, and I haven't heard much about this, is the fact that they are going to be moving these islamic extremists a mere 420 miles (just under 7 hours by car) from the largest muslim population in the United States - Dearborn Michigan.

This is not to say that all muslims are radical, but the truth is that there are radicals on our soil.  30% of Dearborn's population is muslim. Even if there are few homegrown terrorists, there are certainly those who are at least sympathetic to the cause.  How difficult do you think it would be to 'lose' a few foreign radicals in a population of roughly 30,000 muslims?  It only takes a few to aid and abet.

Planning a prison break a mere 420 miles away, with the entire US to hide in afterwards is a heck of a lot easier than planning one on a military base on an island 90 miles from the US mainland.  Once the prison break is effected, how hard would it be to melt back into that large population and prepare for the next jihad?

It is widely acknowledged that most muslims are peaceful, but, taking a look back over recent history, it is also easy to see that when the radicals among them lash out, the peaceful members rarely speak up.  The shoot out at a warehouse in Dearborn that took the life of a radical imam back in October was soundly condemned by certain sectors of the muslim community, who ralllied around the dead imam.  The moderate muslims remained silent on the issue, for the most part.

Even though most of the community has been born and raised in America, there are those who feel they are muslims first, Americans second, and we forget this at our peril. 

Supporters of closing Gitmo are fond of saying that the reason it needs to be closed is because it is a recruiting tool for radical jihadists.  So....moving it to Illinois is suddenly going to make it more acceptable?  Or is the point that we need to move them here so that we are forced to subject them to our civilian court system - practically guaranteeing that they will be freed and thus no longer a worry to the administration?

Well, until they are captured on the battlefield again or, God forbid, commit another terror attack on American soil.  I guess we'll just have to deal with that when it happens.

In an effort to find a silver lining in all situations, there's this - at least there will actually be some real job creation out of this mess, so that is a refreshing change.  Granted, they are dangerous, union only jobs, but why nitpick, right?

Focus on the silver lining (no matter how thin) and ignore the inconvenient truths.  It's the progressive way.