Showing posts with label Ground Zero. Show all posts

Zoned Out: What Happened To The Ground Zero Mosque?



Barry Rubin updates us on the status of the Ground Zero Mosque, which you may recall was an issue that exploded this time last year with the "proper" opinion being it should be built immediately (and opponents were racist Tea Baggers in the pay of the Koch Brothers). Well, Rubin reports that the Mosque is never going to be built despite the best efforts of the enlightened left:

Readers of my column know that I have written repeatedly that the “Ground Zero” mosque would never be built for reasons having nothing to do with politics. The main financiers and the imam have gotten into one legal problem after another and Allstate Insurance Company is now launching a major lawsuit for fraud against one of them. As we approach the tenth anniversary of September 11, it’s clear that there isn’t going to be a mosque next to the World Trade Center attack site.

From the start, it seemed to me that the whole project was designed as something of a scam by shady characters to get lots of money from the contributions of the Saudis and others. In other words, the controversial and triumphalist aspects of the mosque were a public relations’ scheme designed to win millions of dollars from the Muslim-majority world’s millionaires. When the money didn’t materialize–the controversy didn’t help matters–the whole thing fell apart.

...

Here’s the real story:

A group of people with a terrible record as developers who didn’t develop, businessmen who didn’t pay their bills, and slumlords put together a very badly designed project that would never otherwise have gotten zoning and other permits. In other words, the true story is how city officials gave special privileges and the media gave sweetheart coverage because people were Muslims building a mosque, not that there was discrimination against Muslims who wanted to build a mosque. Remember, in the end the mosque project got everything its advocates wanted and yet it still wasn’t built.

It is the story of how the corrupt can play a system built around special privileges for special categories of people, in which fear of being labelled some variety of “racist” overrides the proper enforcement of the law.

You have to laugh at this stuff. I mean, the president and the mayor of New York went on Full Smug Liberal Alert over this thing! No one - no one, that is, except the American public, which recoiled at the thought of a Ground Zero Mosque - thought to question the propriety of such a mosque. And, if they did so question, they never even reached the issue of whether the sleazy imam at the center of the project was the right man for such a fraught job. And after all that, whinging Muslims and their political sponsors got everything they wanted - and still couldn't get the job done.


Of course, if they point of such a pointless controversy was to divide Americans over the issue of whether a mosque could be built in a particular location, then I guess you could say "Mission Accomplished," but that seems like a dubious mission indeed. I'd like to think someone out there is embarrassed over this, but it's not likely.




Atlas Shrugged In the Belly of the Beast


The NY Times has a lengthy profile on A-list blogger Pamela Geller. If you've ever wondered how a glamorous woman from Manhattan's East Side has become one of the West's leading anti-jihadist polemicists, you will learn a lot. This is despite the Times' typical approach to writing about activists who do not follow the usual PC progressive line. They obviously can't understand why Geller writes what she writes, thinks what she thinks, and does what she does. Geller, for one, has characterized this as a hit piece and has written an extensive corrective essay:

Referring to me using terms like "socialite," "dilettante," and other words invoking silly, superficial, purposeless women, is downright farcicial. Show me a socialite who is fighting for American values 20 hours a day. I don't even have lunch, let alone gala charity events. The only thing worthwhile in this piece is the actual interview, which is, frankly, all that really matters. But let's have a cursory look at this piece, shall we?

The numbers quoted from my divorce settlement are grossly, wildly inaccurate. I don't want to air dirty laundry in public, but there is absolutely no truth to what Anne Barnard and Alan Feuer "reported" about this. And although I do not want to get into personal matters, how do they know that my deceased ex "didn’t always agree" with what I was saying? Did they employ a ouija board? Just for knowing, this claim also is patently false.

Of course they hold up my lack of journalistic "credentials" as a disadvantage. Clearly we see how this "advantage" has rendered the New York Times and the rest of the fraternity of credentialed journalists hopelessly inaccurate and incapable of objectivity and responsible journalism. Why no piece like this on Daisy Khan, or Feisal Abdul Rauf, or Sharif El-Gamal?

The Times does seem nonplussed that Geller would rather spend her days hanging out with the Robert Spencers of the world, rather than buying shoes like so many of her contemporaries. Geller is a citizen activist who often has a better sense of what outrages the average American (like, say, building a mosque at Ground Zero) than the political pros and journalists who are used to making those sorts of distinctions for us, so of course there must be something wrong with her. And, some of Geller's corrections to the story are laughably typical of the mistakes the Times makes. My favorite: they refer to a video of Geller frolicking on an Israeli beach during the last Lebanese War, something that surprised me when I read it. According to Geller, the video was shot in Fort Lauderdale. But, we all make mistakes.

Still, I don't think the story's that bad (although she's right to be outraged by even the mention of her divorce settlement. When was the last time the Times disclosed the size of the trust funds that so many activists on the Left live off of?) If you are someone who doesn't have the time or inclination to spend hours on the web, but you want to find a perspective outside of the gentry liberal multi-culturalism found in much of America's public sphere, someone like Geller will be a breath of fresh air. Geller's force of nature personality and enthusiasm come through loud and clear in the Times story, even if the subtext seems to be, what is this beautiful woman doing this?


September 11, 2010



Hard to believe it's been 9 years since the September 11th attacks:



This year's anniversary seems much more fraught than it has been in years, what with the Ground Zero Mosque and Koran burning controversies. They really shouldn't be controversies at all. There was once a time when American politicians of all stripes would have recoiled at the thought of a mosque at Ground Zero, or American media would have treated a marginal "reverend" planning to burn a Koran as nothing more than a crank. Not anymore!

While the vast majority of Americans still view 9/11 with a combination of mourning and fury, our spineless progressive elites are determined that we not remember at all. Thus, the public discussion of 9/11 has grown increasingly dislocated from the event itself. The only 9/11 families we ever seem to hear from are "Jersey Girl" types who wanted to bash Bush or Giuliani. The only 9/11 survivors we ever hear from are suffering from some undefined respiratory ailments. A mere 3 years after that terrible day, a jackass from Hollywood misappropriated 9/11 for the title of a meretricious film filled with lies and character assassination. We've been lectured over and over again that we must not give in to hate - as if Americans are ready to rise up and march on Dearborn because they're too dumb to know the difference between a jihadist and an ordinary person going about their business.

Imam Rauf and his mosque are the latest and worst manifestation of this. None of us had ever heard of him before this summer, but now he's going on Larry King making veiled treats of violence if we don't let him build his mosque exactly where and how he demands. As a sign of unity and peace, of course. And, despite a nationwide consensus that such a mosque is wholly inappropriate, not to mention ghoulish, our potentates are moving heaven and earth to give Rauf everything he wants, even as these same leaders would deny Americans a choice in the salt in their food, the lightbulbs in their homes, and the health care they purchase. We've come a long way from the days of a resolute Bush, or an ash-covered Giuliani, that's for sure. Even George Pataki could rise to the occasion. Does anyone think David Paterson could do the same?

9/11 has not really been a "tea party" touchstone, but it could be. The 30% of Americans who are presently running the country on behalf of the 70% are certainly determined that we "forget" or at least remember it on their terms - as another opportunity to don the hairshirt of American "crimes" like poverty and inequality. All I can say is: never again.



Pelosi-ism: Speaker Calls for Investigation of Funding for Ground Zero Mosque Opponents


Today's dumb Ground Zero Mosque Democrat spin comes courtesy of my Congresswoman, who thinks that we need to investigate the sources of funding - of the opponents of the Mosque. You mean people are being paid for this??

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, called for an investigation of those who are protesting the building of the Ground Zero Mosque on Tuesday. She told San Francisco's KCBS radio:

AUDIO

"There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded," she said. "How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we've been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City." (h/t Kristinn)

Calls to investigate the funding for those proposing the $100 million "Cordoba House" have fallen on deaf ears, though, as New York's Mayor Mike Bloomberg has described such an investigation as "un-American."

I guess I could get outraged over this, but Pelosi is so stupid that criticizing her might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Still, as dumb as Pelosi is, there are plenty of Dems who agree with her, thinking that no one could possibly oppose a liberal initiative without the intervening influence of some kind of secretive right wing cabal ginning up a controversy over something that a wide majority of Americans would consider uncontroversial - namely that there should be no sectarian presence at Ground Zero.

For all of the reported intellect and political sophistication of our progressive betters, it sure is odd how they keep blundering into these sorts of controversies. They keep talking about how this is a "local zoning issues," yet the President, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority all weighed in on this, willingly and with the full weight of their Bully Pulpits. And, what about the imam on whose behalf they're tying themselves into knots: Imam Rauf is a shadowy figure who is no moderate and doesn't even live in the United States! Has any member of the MSM tried to get this guy on the phone and on the record? Of course, not. They'd rather lecture us on our bigotry. How about the bigotry of a system that would ban Nancy Pelosi from Mecca because she is "unclean?" Rauf isn't even the true owner of the building (he owns half, and leases the other half subject to an option to purchase)! Yet the size of the Democrats' congressional delegations is probably going to shrink over this issue, and the President has revealed himself as cluelessly out of touch with American sensibilities. All for the sake of Imam Rauf. Why?

The unspoken problem at the heart of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is this: the issue of whether there should be a mosque at Ground Zero has been the most action we have seen in the re-development of the area around the World Trade Center. 9 years on, and there is little more than a hole in the ground, and a proposal for a memorial. The same progressive sophisticates who have fast tracked the Ground Zero Mosque have been incapable of rebuilding the fallen towers and construct an appropriate memorial. Why isn't the President lecturing dilatory New Yorkers for that? Why are 9/11 families and first responders insulted by the Speaker of the House, while Imam Rauf benefits from the full weight of the federal government?

It's all a matter of priorities, and we are learning a lot about priorities today.

The 5-Minute Mosque: The Ground Zero Mosque


Everyone and his dog has felt compelled to issue an instant opinion on the prospect of a $100 million mosque being built near ground zero. Sophisticated progressives have predictably come down on the side of building the mosque and lecturing the hoi polloi on their intolerance. Now the NY Times comes up with a timely article about Tea Parties protesting mosques "around the nation"
While a high-profile battle rages over a mosque near ground zero in Manhattan, heated confrontations have also broken out in communities across the country where mosques are proposed for far less hallowed locations.

In Murfreesboro, Tenn., Republican candidates have denounced plans for a large Muslim center proposed near a subdivision, and hundreds of protesters have turned out for a march and a county meeting.

In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.

In Sheboygan, Wis., a few Christian ministers led a noisy fight against a Muslim group that sought permission to open a mosque in a former health food store bought by a Muslim doctor.

At one time, neighbors who did not want mosques in their backyards said their concerns were over traffic, parking and noise — the same reasons they might object to a church or a synagogue. But now the gloves are off.

In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law.

These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat.

“What’s different is the heat, the volume, the level of hostility,” said Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky. “It’s one thing to oppose a mosque because traffic might increase, but it’s different when you say these mosques are going to be nurturing terrorist bombers, that Islam is invading, that civilization is being undermined by Muslims.”

You know, whatever. All these people calling for "tolerance" probably have the right idea because tolerance is all anyone determined to build a mosque at Ground Zero deserves. And by "tolerance," I don't mean pompous speeches from Mike Bloomberg and an annual Pride Parade. I mean, real tolerance of the grit-your-teeth/don't-say-anything-if-you-can't-say-anything-nice variety. Honestly, am I saying anything controversial if I point out that the the level of anti-Christian/anti-American bias in the Muslim world is exponentially greater than the equivalent in the United States against Muslims? I hope not. See, it's hard to be tolerant - or even particularly welcoming - when you know the same courtesy would never be extended to you.

Still, you know what would make a Ground Zero Mosque go down better? How about a freakin' Ground Zero Memorial? Yeah, I know there's one that's going to be there at some indefinite time in the future. But, right now there's just a hole in the ground. It's been nearly nine years, and no one can seem to figure out how to replace the buildings that were knocked down or remember the thousands of innocents who died on that terrible day. Is there any doubt that the Ground Zero Mosque will be open for business before anything else gets done?

There are a thousand reasons, I'm sure, for the dilatory resolution of Ground Zero development. Ask anyone in the Bloomberg administration, and you'll doubtless hear a lot of hushed talk about the many stakeholders involved, the bureaucratic red tape, the landowners, the Port Authority, and the catch-all "sensitivities." All true, I'm sure. But, the exact same people who seem to be unable to cope with the competing interests in Lower Mannhatten, have gone out of their way to rush the Ground Zero Mosque through the permitting process. That's what really irks.

It's another example of our brave new "can't do" society, where a legal thicket exists to thwart the will of the people, while the politically favored are ushered in past the line to the best table in the house.



Best Retirement Invesments Auto Search