September 11th - The Reason

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

-------------------------------

Two years ago, during the presidential campaign season, as the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approached, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann demonstrated yet again why he is not only one of America’s most colossal jackasses, but an undisciplined dullard. (The extraordinarily obvious is sometimes more beneficial than the simply obvious). Olbermann's repulsive on-air reaction to a video played at the Republican National Convention paying tribute to the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks was beyond the pale, even for him. When the video was finished, Olbermann hoisted his holier-than-thou head and had the unadulterated nerve to apologize to the viewers for the network's decision to broadcast the segment. To Keith, and others of his leftist strain, this was a tasteless exploitation by Republicans. To others, it was counterfeit indignation wrapped in political expediency. As one blogger to the Olbermannwatch.com website commented, “His outrage is always so phony, it's hard to believe anyone could buy into it.”

Phony or not, Olbermann's outrage at the mere mention of anything related to the September 11th attacks by anyone other than conspiracists, Bush-haters and film documentarians is not exactly uncommon. I used to believe it was confined only to the fringe left, but I was mistaken. Almost all Democrats instinctively believe that Republicans only mention the attacks as a means of procuring a political advantage. The fact that the main-stream media is, at worst, sympathetic to the American left helps explain why September 11, 2001 is the enormous elephant in this country’s living room.

It's another example of how the American left truly believes that it simply isn't possible for any of us on the right to simply disagree with liberals without having sinister motives. It isn't possible for conservatives to simply think differently from liberals without being some form of bigot or xenophobe. It isn't possible for us to oppose someone like Barack Obama without being a hater of some sort. It isn't possible to pay tribute and honor the heroes and victims of the worst terrorist attack on this country without trying to score political points.

We are not only wrong, we're bad.

You'll also recall last year the date of September 11th was being hailed as America's "first day of service" - a day to volunteer and "encourage and facilitate community service across the country." As "Greater DC Cares" said on its website, it was to be a day for cleaning parks, serving meals to the hungry, restoring our national monuments, and much more.

As I wrote four years ago, there is a peculiarly conspicuous gap in our cultural landscape when it comes to horrific events of September 11, 2001. It is almost as if the images of that fateful day have all but been purged from our societal canvas. The sights and sounds of September 11th - save for the occasional scene of the burning towers in a random news story - are almost entirely tucked away from the American public’s senses by purveyors of news and information, in a way that’s almost conspiratorial. The result is that Americans in large numbers have almost forgotten how it felt on that morning to witness the murder and destruction that unfolded before our eyes, on live television. It’s almost as if it never really happened, or that it occurred so long ago as not to be relevant anymore. In a culture where barely-watched, insipid sitcoms of the 1970s and 1980’s merit their own DVD boxed sets, the images of that morning remain practically hidden.

Consider, for example, how the American people for several years were peppered daily with images of bombed-out vehicles in Iraq, the remnants of body parts and ambushed convoys from road-side bombs, the wreckage of mangled helicopters and images of burning buildings in busy Baghdad neighborhoods. It was a veritable brochure of How-to-do-it terrorism furnished by the mainstream media to illustrate the horrors of what happens while American forces continue to “occupy” a foreign land. But go ahead and try to find anything that depicts the savage murder of civilians in this country by fanatics, and you might as well be looking for Republicans on the New York City Council.

Today, it has been nine years since the horrific attacks that claimed nearly three thousand innocents. Regrettably, the very event that forever changed the course of the world has dissolved into our daily lexicon as two innocuous numbers spoken in succession: nine, eleven. How detached we’ve become to the sheer brutality; it has become a hyphenated four-syllable point of reference without visual reinforcement. In this fantastic age of image stimuli, where everything is instantaneous and accessible, it is criminal that the defining event of this generation – and arguably in our nation’s history – has slipped from our ever-shrinking attention spans.

True, often times we cannot go a single day - sometimes hours - without hearing those two words in some context: nine, eleven. But its impact has diminished. And while it is perfectly natural for the raw emotions of that day to wane, we’re still at war. Unbelievably, only nine years after the fact, the images of 9/11 are less vivid than the faces of rejected American Idol contestants. It is an injustice of the highest order to the victims and a profound disservice to those who serve in harm’s way.

I fully appreciate that there are many who don’t wish to see the horrific footage of that Tuesday morning ever again – especially those directly affected by the attacks and aftermath. Indeed, I have a friend who spent many days at Ground Zero in the days following the attacks, digging through the rubble and remains of the pulverized World Trade Center. He’s told me that he personally could go the rest of his life without ever seeing those pictures again. However, he was quick to add that America should revisit that day, even if only once in a while, to remember why this war continues to be fought.

The people of this nation must be reminded over and over again exactly why we are fighting, with whom we are fighting and what these brutal unconscionable killers have done to us – and what they will do to us if given the opportunity. The harrowing images of the evil that is terrorism – such as those desperate souls leaping from the burning towers - should never leave us. We owe it to the victims of the September 11th attacks, to all those who have sacrificed to defeat this enemy, and to future generations to not only defeat terrorism wherever it is but to understand precisely why we’re doing it.

For many like me, the memories of that day have not dissipated, nor should they for any American.

Unfortunately, for many it has, and with it, that sense of urgency to pursue and eliminate those who did this to us before they can do it again.

Would there even be a debate about opening an Islamic cultural center and mosque at Ground Zero if it hadn't?

America today, more so than at any time in her history, is a visual society. We crave stimuli at an incessant pace. We’ve evolved into a seeing-is-believing culture where almost anything on God’s green earth is a mere click away. Images serve as our prime validators. Additionally, we are a people easily distracted and quickly-bored. Out-of-sight, out of mind. We are a culture of channel surfers pulling our dinners from microwave ovens. We keep in touch with friends and loved ones via instant-messaging and broadband internet connections. We can take pictures, download files, zap e-mails and balance our check books on a cell phone.

But we are not a heartless society. We are, without a doubt, a most forgiving people. And it is specifically that otherwise admirable quality I fear has begun to take hold across the map before its time. Now is not the moment to forgive the enemy. They still exist. Inasmuch as we have to be reminded exactly what they did to us, with troops in harm's way, and terrorists continually plotting to hit us, it is perfectly reasonable to those of us who fully appreciate the scope of the war to be utterly disgusted with images of road-side bomb craters and other negative stories about our forces while an almost purposeful effort is made to shield us from the 9/11 attacks - like we might actually rally around the war effort.

Am I talking about the need for establishing a 24-hour 9/11 satellite channel?
Of course not.

But how about an actual clip of one of the twin towers collapsing into the streets of Manhattan the next time a news story about the 9/11 attacks hits the air? Or how about that second plane slamming into the south tower when a story about the War on Terror and terrorism in the United States plays? After all, it did happen, despite the attempts of the American Leftocracy to pretend it didn't.

In anecdotal terms, the video images of the September 11th attacks are powerful weapons. I have watched the faces of those who hadn't seen the "as-it-happened" accounts of that day for years, and it is a profound experience. (You'll recall that a video documentary I produced chronicling the events of that day was roundly criticized by a New York Times columnist recently as "rhetoric"). Those of us who were paying attention eight years ago obviously haven’t forgotten the event. Indeed, we all have our own memories of that terrible morning, just as we have memories of anything that occurred in our past. But actually affording one’s self the chance to relive that particular Tuesday morning by seeing the events unfold once again conjures up a different type of "memory" – one seeded in an indescribable kind of outrage and violation, of inexplicable horror and seething anger – the kind of “memory” this nation needs to hold on to while American men and women serve in harm’s way. Indeed, after viewing the tapes of that morning with a selected gathering of people, my closest friend turned to me and said, "I forgot how horrible it was."

That's what I mean. He obviously remembers the day as we all do … but images speak volumes.

To the great credit of MSNBC, that network has rebroadcast its original coverage of the 9/11 attacks, as it happened nine years ago today.

For those of us who do not need to be alloted a specific day by the government as a time for service - those of us who view everyday as a day to do onto our neighbors as we would have them do onto us - I choose to remember September 11th as the day evil revealed itself with stunning clarity on our home turf, wiping nearly three thousand innocent lives from the face of the Earth. I choose to remember it as a day wrought with unspeakable horror and unparalled heroism. I choose not to diminish its incalculable impact on all of our lives, nor dishonor the dead and their family members, by attempting to purge it from American consciousness.

September 11th is the day I remind myself of how fortunate I am to live as a free man in the greatest country on the planet - and how quickly everything we take for granted can be taken away.

-

The President, Constitutional Illiteracy And Ground Zero

by guest blogger Andrew Roman

The President supports the Ground Zero mosque

If New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a fool – and it’s hard to argue the point – then how exactly would (or could) one characterize President Barack Obama?

Be creative.

My bag of hackneyed adjectives has been raided so much during the first nineteen months of the Messianic Age that I’m left with nothing but literary lint and a deep aching for a “What Could Have Been” McCain presidency. (That’s pretty scary in and of itself).

Michael Bloomberg - sage, arbiter of social justice, salt and cigarette warrior – has openly supported the construction of the Ground Zero mosque and cultural center in the name of tolerance and acceptance, much to the delight of the New York Times. The irony, of course, is that such a center is needed least of all in America, the most accommodating and tolerant nation on Earth.

Bloomberg has carelessly and inappropriately yanked on the First Amendment as some sort of justification (and validation) for the Islamic Cultural Center’s construction two blocks away from the site of the worst terrorist attack in this nation’s history, an attack perpetrated in the name of Islam. The fact that the entire issue has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with religious freedom somehow escapes the billionaire three-term mayor.

It’s a point worth beleaguering.

Muslims are, in fact, perfectly free to practice their religious beliefs in the United States of America. That’s precisely what the First Amendment says. They cannot be denied the right to be observant Muslims. And, as has been noted endlessly, they can do so in any of the over one hundred mosques located in the Big Apple, if they so choose.

But King Bloomberg says the proposed Ground Zero mosque and cultural center must go up because the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom is on the chopping block.

It’s an argument that makes a lot of sense … if you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

Religious freedom isn't the issue here. There is no threat whatsoever - not a scintilla's worth - to the Constitutional right of religious freedom in the opposition to this mosque and cultural center.

This issue is about sensitivity, compassion and common sense.

It's also about the Mayor being terrified of enflaming Muslims.

New York Mayor, Mike Bloomberg

You’ll recall Bloomberg is the same mayor who asserted that the Times Square bomber was probably a disgruntled opponent of Obama Care.

The Mayor doesn't seem to get the point that it is not unreasonable for people directly affected by the 9/11 attacks to object to a house of worship being constructed mere steps from the site of an act of unprecedented evil - a terrorist attack carried out by those who murdered nearly three-thousand innocents in the name of that particular faith.

But in Bloomy’s world, if people do object, it’s simply too bad.  Their objections are not to be tolerated.

It is up to them to adjust.

But now, into the ever-growing bouillabaisse of ignorance, insensitivity and stupidity – taking his rightful place along side the term-limit smashing mayor of New York - goes the young metrosexual from Chicago – our President - so enamored with intrusive government, so in over his head, so out of touch with the people he is charged to serve, that his incompetence in all arenas outside of the campaign-trail is (or should be) unquestioned among those who have functioning synapses.

On Friday, Barack Obama came out in favor of the construction of the controversial Ground Zero mosque.

Of course he did.

It’s Ramadan.

And while he would not participate in the National Day of Prayer Service at the White House in May, he did take part in an iftar dinner last week - the evening meal at which Muslims break their fast during the month of Ramadan.

Iftar is a religous observance ... and the White House was more than happy to host the event.

He, like Bloomy, went on to justify his position by (conveniently) referencing the country’s founding principals, saying:

As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.

How exactly does one characterize a man who could make such a foolish statement?

How exactly is America’s commitment to religious freedom being compromised?

How is religious freedom in danger when the entire discussion is about one specific location in an area of Manhattan considered sacred to many – a war zone - where thousands were murdered in the name of Islam?

No one – repeat, no one - is calling for the removal of any already existing mosques in New York. No one is asking for any Islamic cultural centers – of which there are many in New York – to be shut down.

This is about the area in and around Ground Zero; a place where two tall towers used to stand, brought down in an act of war by followers of the very faith that did so in the name of that faith.

It is not unreasonable for people to object.

You'll recall that the White House was originally silent on the matter, saying only that it was a local issue ... even though it was the United States of America, as a nation, that was attacked on September 11, 2001.

site of the proposed Ground Zero mosque

Now, with Ramadan upon us - and the Ground Zero mosque controversy ever-growing across the country - the President has done an about face and decided that the matter is, indeed, a national issue worthy of his commentary and Constitutional prowess ... even though (once again) this is not about the Bill of Rights or religious freedom.

It never has been.

The moment the government keeps anyone from being a Muslim, please call me.

The second anyone is denied the right to follow Islam, let me know. It'll make for a fascinating article.

Rather, this is a matter of spectacular insensitivity on the part of the pro-mosque contingent - including our Commander-In-Chief.

Why is it that the feelings, emotions and sentiments of those supporting this mosque and cultural center are the only ones that matter here?

If this really is an issue of tolerance, why are the wishes of the 9/11 family members (as well as a majority of Americans opposed to its construction) not tolerated?

And let's keep in mind that there is not a Muslim community in lower Manhattan, save for street vendors and cab drivers. The goal in constructing this facility is to create a Muslim community in that portion of the city so that, in part, the 9/11 narrative can be changed.

On Saturday, Bammy tried to backtrack a bit, doing his best to have things both ways, saying:

I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.

You can't make it up.

Does he honestly expect us to believe that he was not endorsing the mosque and cultural center with his original remarks? That he was speaking in generalities? He specifically referred to the mosque in lower Manhattan in his comments on Friday, didn't he?

Come now, Mr. President.

Where in the Constitution is the expressed right to construct a house of worship anywhere anyone pleases?

What right is being infringed upon if construction is denied on that specific location? Aren't there over a hundred mosques in the city already?

Liberals are incredibly tedious, aren't they?

The real question is: Had America not been attacked on September 11, 2001, is there anyone who truly believes that this mosque and Islamic cultural center would still be built right there at the site of the old Burlington Coat Factory? (It might still be open had the building not been damaged by a wheel from one of the 9/11 hijacked planes).

And while many have not touched upon it, this is also an issue of national security.

The truth is, we would afford our enemies a sense of victory precisely because the mosque would go up within spitting distance of Ground Zero. The mayor said it himself … he supports this to show how tolerant we are. He, like so many on the Left, thinks this will impress the world - particularly Muslims - with American open-mindedness and acceptance.

What the Left doesn't comprehend - what they will never comprehend as long as they remain on the Left - is that our enemies don't see an olive branch. They see weakness.

Of course, after President Obama stepped away from his original statement about the mosque on Saturday, White House spokesman Bill Burton came out and said that Obama’s pullback was premature. The President, according to Burton, is “not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night.”

Why should he?

Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of Hamas

President Obama continues to be in wonderful company. Support for the mosque has just come in from Mahmoud al-Zahar, co-founder of the terrorist organization, Hamas – as if Saturday’s ringing endorsement from The Center for American Progress, a powerful leftist group, wasn’t enough.

Mahmoud al-Zahar said, "We have to build everywhere."

None of this is to be confused with yet another report from an “unnamed White House official” that the President made his support for the mosque public “purely on his own.”

Indeed, when the controversy was still a “local issue” – a position so drenched in stupidity as to be criminal – the President, at least, was out of the crosshairs of public sentiment.

Weak, but somewhat effective.

Now, with the Commander-In-Chief apparently taking it upon himself to let the world know that he endorses the construction of the mosque, stupidity (and downright ignorance) has been elevated to a new level at the expense of the citizenry he is charged to serve.

And no, he didn’t speak with Mike Bloomberg about this before hand either. It looks like Bammy did this all on his own.

Politically speaking, this is a disaster for The One.

Morally, he has hit rock bottom.

Tolerance is not caving into phantom visions of sugar-plum unity at the expense of the very real pain and suffering of 9/11 family members. Tolerance is not about crapping on Americans (like myself) who, to this day, feel the catastrophic effects of those attacks on our nation by people who did so in the name of that religion.

(I’ll keep repeating that until my fingertips explode)

It’s remarkably difficult to listen to rhetoric from proponents of the new Islamic cultural center about reaching out and building bridges when the moderate Muslims of the world who actually do renounce extremism remain silent and refuse to stand up loudly and proudly against terrorism with the rest of us.

This is not about legalities - about having the right to construct a mosque.

This is about what's right.

"I Was For It Before I Was Against It" Redux

John Kerry is infamous for his support of the troops: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” Just this week, Senator Harry Reid has been shown to be for limiting the citizenship claims of "anchor babies" before he was against it. And now, in the course of about forty eight hours, we have President Obama on both sides of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy.

In a textbook example of what not to do on the national political stage, Professor Obama, who had previously instructed his press secretary to defer Ground Zero mosque questions on the basis that it was a "local" issue for local officials to deal with, proceeds to nationalize the discussion with his Ramadan dinner pronouncement.

"Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances..." (emphasis mine)

He was clearly speaking specifically to the "Ground Zero" Mosque, not some general principle. Within 24 hours, he issued the following "clarification":

In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.

On her Facebook page, Sarah Palin, under the title "Legitimate Questions for the President" she writes:

Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive "cross-cultural engagement" and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite?

Referring to one of President's "voting present" moments, why shouldn't the President comment on the wisdom of building a mosque there? He commented on, perhaps, the one issue where there is no disagreement. They do have the right to build there. If it was a "teachable moment" to assert they had the "right" to build there, which virtually no one denies, , why not also comment on the wisdom of doing so, or the effect on the national psyche of having a mosque built so close to where three thousand people were killed at the hands of militant Muslims?

Isn't the definition of leadership "an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction"? If up to two thirds of the country are in error over this decision, what better place to provide guidance and direction than the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency? If he was going to comment at all, why not address the "wisdom" of the decision?

And because Obama is at his core, a political weasel, his carefully scripted remarks on Friday required a clarification on Saturday when he started to feel the heat. And then the White House issued a clarification on the clarification. That's leadership?

The President votes "Present".

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel

A Ground Zero Debacle

by guest blogger Andrew Roman
__________________________________

many are saying "no" to a Ground Zero mosque

Until a day or two ago it really hadn't gotten a whole lot of play outside of New York City.

Save for the conservative blogosphere and talk radio, it had gotten nearly as much coverage as the Attorney General's refusal to go after members of the new Black Panthers who intimidated white voters - practically nil.

The Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, said it was about diversity, tolerance and religious freedom - even though there are already over one hundred mosques throughout the five boroughs.

I'm not sure what it is about the lapsing of time that turns people's minds into wads of impacted pocket lint, but if absence makes the heart grow fonder, for some, time makes the mind grow more numb and incapable.

If anyone would have suggested on September 20, 2001 - the day President Bush delivered his magnificent speech before a joint session of Congress, nine days after the 9/11 attacks - that a mosque and Islamic cultural center would be constructed near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan before the completion of a replacement for the fallen twin towers, they'd have looked at that person like he or she had three heads. If anyone would have said that nine years later there would still be nothing scraping the sky from that location, but that there would, instead, be a new mosque opening up within spitting distance of the site, that person would have been smacked twice and asked for the name of the narcotic he or she had recently ingested.

And what if that same drug-dazed soothsayer also said that the new mosque and cultural center would open on, of all days, the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks? You'd probably ask that individual for some of what he or she was smoking because the notion would have been inconceivable.

In the name of diversity - a value almost as important as equality to today's leftist (as counterintuitive as that might sound) - the future has, indeed, arrived.

This is where the inconceivable comes to life.

Of all the locations in the entire city to choose for this project - of all the locations on which to open a mosque and Islamic cultural center - why there? Truly, the only relevant question is: Why on Earth is it necessary to trample upon the emotions of those who lost loved ones on 9/11 by doing this so close to the spot where radical Muslims brought down the twin towers?

And make no mistake about it, that's precisely what's being done.

Whether that seems reasonable or rational to outsiders looking in is completely irrelevant. It's the reality of the situation; and surely, in a city of 304 square miles, there must be other places to erect a mosque and Islamic cultural center.

Certainly, anyone associated with this project - the American Society for Muslim Advancement, for example - had to have had the foresight to know how people would react to such a thing. Opposition to this positively dreadful idea cannot come as a shock to proponents. Why would supporters of this thing be willing to needlessly inflict pain upon those who witnessed their loved ones murdered by radical practitioners of the "religion of peace?"

And, as if the knife wasn't twisted in far enough, is the tenth anniversary of the slaughter of nearly three thousand innocents the right day to celebrate the opening of an Islamic cultural center in the very neighborhood where the dust of the dead blanketed everything?

Do these people understand the concept of common decency?

That's precisely what Sarah Palin asked when she now famously tweeted on this topic over the weekend:

"Peace-seeking Muslims, pls understand, Ground Zero mosque is UNNECESSARY provocation; it stabs hearts. Pls reject it in interest of healing."

After telling Palin to mind her own business, an aide to Mayor Bloomberg, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, tweeted back:

"Whose hearts? Racist hearts?"

Not that Muslims are a race, mind you - or that libs in general can mount any sort of argument that does not resort to labeling opponents as intolerant haters - but it was nice that someone so close to the Mayor could offer such a detailed and thoughtful counter.

Why would people who claim to want to "bridge the gap" between people of all faiths willingly and knowingly do so at Ground Zero, of all places, when they must know how sensitive a matter this is to so many Americans?

Lower Manhattan has no significance to Muslims - except to those who would honor the "martyrs" who took down the towers almost nine years ago - but it has an enormous amount of relevance to the surviving family members of the dead of 9/11, as well as this nation.

This isn't about property rights.

The location, while not officially designated a mosque, already serves as an overflow prayer space for the Al Farah mosque on West Broadway.

This is about the insensitivity of those who claim to be patriotic Muslim Americans choosing not to support, or be willing to understand, the objections of their fellow Americans on this issue.

Remember, the entire nation was attacked on September 11, 2001. All of America's people were targeted on that fateful day, including Muslim Americans. Having Muslim Americans stand by their fellow countrymen in recognition of that fact would speak volumes. So would the proposal of a cultural center exhibit that would promote Islam as a true "religion of peace" by openly condemning the 9/11 attacks and showing fellow Americans (and the world) what "bridging gaps" is supposed to be about.

Of course, that will happen the moment the moon falls from the sky and bounces down Broadway.

No one wants to keep Muslims from worshipping freely in America. That would be UNAmerican. And yes, of course, there are patriotic Muslims. I proudly served along side many in the Navy.

That isn't the point.

The area in and around Ground Zero is not the place for a new mosque and cultural center - not now; and not if the feelings of the surviving 9/11 family members matter at least as much as those Muslims who want to see this project through to fruition.

The fact is ... practitioners of Islam murdered nearly three thousand innocent human beings in lower Manahttan on that fateful September morning in the name of Islam. It is not unreasonable to suggest that building a facility that celebrates Islam just steps from the spot where so many lost their lives in the name of that religion is a bad idea.

This has absolutely nothing to do with tolerance - or acceptance - of Muslims.

And speaking of tolerance, I would also ask: Where is the tolerance for the 9/11 family members?

Why are their objections dismissed?

Today, almost seventy years after the attacks on Pearl Harbor - and given the fact that Japan is not only a strong ally of the United States, but that Japanese-Americans are among the most patriotic - it still would not be appropriate (as has been pointed out by many) to open a Japanese cultural center anywhere near the resting place of the USS Arizona.

The only reason to do this in the time and manner being proposed is to either incite trouble or invite appeasement.

So far, mission accomplished.

And here's the kicker ...

The building that would be used for the new mosque and cultural center was the home of an outlet of the Burlington Coat Factory - a building that has been abandoned since the landing gear of one of the airplanes that slammed into the World Trade Center on 9/11 came crashing through the roof.

Incidentally, the minute the Congrergation B'Nai Israel synagogue opens in downtown Mecca, I'll be happy to endorse the opening of a new Ground Zero mosque.