What the Ground Zero Mosque Controversy Reveals About America’s “Politically Correct Elites”
The Ground Zero Mosque controversy has exposed, once again, the Grand
Canyon-wide divide that exists between the “heartland” of America and
America’s “politically correct elites,” who insist on lecturing the rest
of us about why we are wrong to oppose the 13 story mosque at Ground
- The Wall Street Journal column below is a MUST READ in this regard.
- Tuesday night, Bill O’Reilly slammed CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad’s refusal to answer two basic questions about the Ground Zero Mosque. Awad went so far as to say
“there is no linkage between the Islamic faith and 9/11.”
- O’Reilly followed Awad’s appearance with a revealing interview with Newt Gingrich, who called the effort to build a mosque at Ground Zero a “political act.”
What started small has become a
national groundswell. Brigitte Gabriel has done dozens of TV and radio
interviews, helping raise national awareness and opposition to the
Ground Zero Mosque, with approximately 60% of Americans now opposed. Our petition now has over 81,000 names. If you haven’t signed yet, please do so today.
The American Center for Law and Justice is filing a lawsuit opposing the construction of the mosque at Ground Zero, and boycotts of New York City are being discussed.
America, this is your opportunity to speak out! Enough of out-of-touch, politically correct
elites dictating to the rest of us! Help us continue to mobilize public
opinion by signing our petition and forwarding this email to everyone you know!
ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org The Wall Street Journal/OPINION
August 4 2010
Liberal Piety and the Memory of 9/11
The enlightened class can't understand why the public is uneasy about the Ground Zero mosque.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
Americans may have lacked for much in the course of their history, but never instruction in social values. The question today is
whether Americans of any era have ever confronted the bombardment of
hectoring and sermonizing now directed at those whose views are deemed
insufficiently enlightened—an offense regularly followed by accusations
that the offenders have violated the most sacred principles of our
It doesn't take a lot to become the target of such a charge. There is no mistaking the beliefs on display in these accusations, most
recently in regard to the mosque about to be erected 600 feet from
Ground Zero. Which is that without the civilizing dictates of their
superiors in government, ordinary Americans are lost to reason and
decency. They are the kind of people who—as a recent presidential
candidate put it—cling to their guns and their religion.
There is no better exemplar of that faith than New York Mayor
Michael Bloomberg, though in this he is hardly alone. Compared with the
Obama White House, Mr. Bloomberg is a piker in the preachments and
zealotry department. Still, no voice brings home more unforgettably the
attitudes that speak for today's enlightened and progressive class.
Immediately after the suspect in the attempted car bombing near
Times Square was revealed to be Faisal Shahzad, of Pakistani origin,
Mayor Bloomberg addressed the public. In admonishing tones—a Bloomberg
trademark invariably suggestive of a school principal who knows exactly
what to expect of the incorrigibles it is his unhappy fate to
oversee—the mayor delivered a warning. There would be no toleration of
"any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers."
That there has been a conspicuous lack of any such behavior on the part of New Yorkers or Americans elsewhere from the 9/11 attacks to
the present seems not to have impressed Mr. Bloomberg. Nor has it caused
any moderation in the unvarying note of indignation the mayor brings to
these warnings. It's reasonable to raise a proper caution. It's quite
something else to do it as though addressing a suspect rabble.
It's hard to know the sort of rabble the mayor had in mind when he told a television interviewer, prior to Shahzad's identification,
that it "could be anything," someone mentally disturbed, or "somebody
with a political agenda who doesn't like the health-care bill." Nowhere
in the range of colorful possibilities the mayor raised was there any
mention of the most likely explanation—another terrorist attempt by a
soldier of radical Islam, the one that occurred to virtually every
American who had heard the reports.
The citizens were, of course, right. Those leaders bent on dissuading them from their grasp of the probable cause of this near
disaster were left with their red herrings hanging—but remembered. Mr.
Bloomberg's "someone who doesn't like the health-care bill" would be
inscribed in the golden book of howlers these events have yielded, along
with Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano's brisk assurance there
was no evidence this was anything but "a one-off."
The notion that it is for the greater good that the people be led to suspect virtually any cause but the one they had the most reason
to fear reflects a contempt for the citizenry that's of longstanding,
but never so blatant as today. It is in the interest of higher values,
Americans understand—higher, that is, than theirs—that they are now
expected to accept official efforts to becloud reality.
Such values were the rationale for the official will to ignore the highly suspicious behavior of Maj. Nidal Hasan, who went on to
murder 13 Americans at Fort Hood. A silence maintained despite all his
commanders and colleagues knew about his raging hostility to the U.S.
military and his strident advocacy on behalf of political Islam.
Those who knew—and they were many—chose silence out of fear of seeming insensitive to a Muslim. As one who had said nothing in the
interest of this higher good later explained, Maj. Hasan was, after all,
one of the few top-ranking Muslim officers the army had.
In the plan for an Islamic center and mosque some 15 stories high to be built near Ground Zero, the full force of politically correct
piety is on display along with the usual unyielding assault on all
dissenters. The project has aroused intense opposition from New Yorkers
and Americans across the country. It has also elicited remarkable
streams of oratory from New York's political leaders, including Attorney
General Andrew Cuomo.
"What are we all about if not religious freedom?" a fiery Mr. Cuomo asked early in this drama. Mr. Cuomo, running for governor, has
since had less to say.
The same cannot be said for Mr. Bloomberg, who has gone on to deliver regular meditations on the need to support the mosque, and on
the iniquity of its opponents. In the course of a speech at Dartmouth on
July 16 he raised the matter unasked, and held forth on his contempt
for those who opposed the project and even wanted to investigate the
funding: "I just think it's the most outrageous thing anybody could
suggest." Ground Zero is a "very appropriate place" for a mosque, the
mayor announced, because it "tells the world" that in America, we have
freedom of religion for everybody.
Here was an idea we have been hearing more and more of lately—the need to show the world America's devotion to democracy and
justice, also cited by the administration as a reason to try Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. Who is it, we can only wonder, that
requires these proofs? What occasions these regular brayings on the need
to show the world the United States is a free nation?
It's unlikely that the preachments now directed at opponents of the project by Mayor Bloomberg and others will persuade that opposition.
Those fighting the building recognize full well the deliberate
obtuseness of Mr. Bloomberg's exhortations, and those of Mr. Cuomo and
others: the resort to pious battle cries, the claim that antagonists of
the plan stand against religious freedom. They note, especially, the
refusal to confront the obvious question posed by this proposed center
towering over the ruins of 9/11.
It is a question most ordinary Americans, as usual, have no trouble defining. Namely, how is it that the planners, who have
presented this effort as a grand design for the advancement of healing
and interfaith understanding, have refused all consideration of the
impact such a center will have near Ground Zero? Why have they insisted,
despite intense resistance, on making the center an assertive presence
in this place of haunted memory? It is an insistence that calls to mind
the Flying Imams, whose ostentatious prayers—apparently designed to call
attention to themselves on a U.S. Airways flight to Phoenix in November
2006—ended in a lawsuit. The imams sued. The airlines paid.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser—devout Muslim, physician, former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for
Democracy—says there is every reason to investigate the center's funding
under the circumstances. Of the mosque so near the site of the 9/11
attacks, he notes "It will certainly be seen as a victory for political
The center may be built where planned. But it will not go easy or without consequence to the politicians intent on jamming the project
down the public throat, in the name of principle. Liberal piety may have
met its match in the raw memory of 9/11, and in citizens who have come
to know pure demagoguery when they hear it. They have had, of late,
plenty of practice.
SIGN the ACT For AMERICA Petition by clicking on the link below:
Click Here for More Information September 11, 2010. PROTEST THE 911...
*** Join SIOA and FDI on Sepember 11, 2010 at 2pm, on Park Place (between Church and West Broadway) as we pay our respects to the murdered and demonstrate against the Ground Zero mega mosque opening on September 11,2011. ***
Check Out the Lawsuit Against the Mosque:ACLJ Poised to File Court Challenge to Proposed Ground Zero Mosque After NYC Declines to Landmark Historic Buildinghttp://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=3859