Ground Zero has a new monument to replace the ones that Islamic jihadists destroyed on that clear Tuesday morning of September 11, 2001, and a spire has just been hoisted to signify the building's final height. CNN reports:
The spire brings the iconic building to a height of 1,776 feet -- an allusion to the year the United States declared its independence. It also makes the building the tallest in the Western Hemisphere and the third-tallest in the world.
The company developing the building in partnership with the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey confirmed the installation.
While the building still has significant construction before its scheduled 2014 opening, the installation brought cheers from New Yorkers, and from people around the country.
"NYC is back ... America is back!" Twitter userTheJeffSullivan posted to the social networking site.
Twitter user mattnewby04 called it a "very powerful moment to see the figurative rebuilding of NYC."
Only eleven and a half years later, eh? While I love the idea of an edifice taller than the World Trade Towers and appreciate the effort to imbue its height with American symbolism, you'll have to forgive me for not finding this a marvelous achievement. It's not necessarily that the building itself is underwhelming, it's more a matter of the timing. As Mark Steyn writes in After America:
The most eloquent statement about America in the 21st century is Ground Zero in the years after. 9/11 was something our enemies did to us. The hole in the ground a decade later is something we did to ourselves.
[...]
The Empire State Building, then the tallest in the world, was put up in 18 months during a depression – because the head of General Motors wanted to show the head of Chrysler that he could build something that went higher than the Chrysler Building. Three-quarters of a century later, the biggest thing either man's successor had created was a mountain of unsustainable losses – and both GM and Chrysler were now owned and controlled by government and unions.
[...]
In the decade after 9/11, China (which America still thinks of as a cheap assembly plant for your local KrappiMart) built the Three Gorges Dam, the largest electricity-generating plant in the world. Dubai, a mere sub-jurisdiction of the United Arab Emirates, put up the world's tallest building and built a Busby Berkeley geometric kaleidoscope of offshore artificial islands. Brazil, an emerging economic power, began diverting the Sao Francisco river to create some 400 miles of canals to irrigate its parched north-east. But the hyperpower can't put up a building.
Thirteen years after the towers fell, a new building will take its place. Even with all the symbolism meant by this construction and the pride Americans now seem to take in it, I fear that it's just too little, too late for it to mean a damn thing to the rest of the world which recognizes how far we've fallen from the zenith of American greatness.
Cleric Murgan Salem has some pretty dire revelations for America, seen in the video below.
There is much in this chilling clip that is revealing, and first and foremost is the obvious reminder that, even if the attack in Boston was not an act of Islamic jihad, jihadists see such attacks as a victory. Clearly, he sees the attack as too "amateurish" to have been the work of al-Qaeda and posits that it could have likely been an American who is dissatisfied with American policy, but nonetheless, the bombing sends a message that we Americans can be attacked anywhere, anytime, and by anyone.
Second, we notice that his appraisal of jihad runs in clear conflict with the standard leftist mantra about armed jihad being a fringe phenomenon, only embraced by those who follow the twisted perversion of Islam practiced by the late Osama bin Laden, for example. He assures the world that it is not bin Laden or al-Zawahiri that gave the world the notion that violent jihad is a religious imperative -- that honor belongs with Allah and the Quran. While many Muslims, particularly in the West, have evolved a more progressive view of jihad, the more archaic brand of jihad still courses in the veins of Islamic fundamentalism, pumped by various hearts like al Qaeda. Hence, Islamic fundamentalism remains a global scourge, not a fairy tale made up by right-wing conservatives.
Third, and I thought most interesting (considering the above mentioned items are not necessarily news to me, but reminders), we notice that he believes America to be finished. What is his reasoning, beyond the fact that Islamic fundamentalists will be emboldened and increasingly take the jihad to America's back yard? He cites America's bloated debt and Americans' increased dependence on welfare. In America, millions of the usefully dim refuse to see this as a problem, believing our unfathomable debt to be sustainable, and steadily increasing welfare dependence to be a good thing. In the Islamic world, fundamentalists cheer at our willingness to commit to economic self-atrophy, thereby assisting the jihadists who long for America's demise.
Barack Obama sought to improve relations with the Islamic world through dialogue, insisting that with the right leadership, the Islamic world would respect and accept a relationship peaceful relationship with America. But it appears that our president's candor and domestic policies have done little more than assure the Islamic world that we are weaker than ever, and ripe for destruction.
I'm sickened this morning. I awoke to news that the filmmaker, whose "film" was nothing more than a straw man in the calculated attacks made by Islamists in the past days, had been confiscated by the government for "questioning."
Regardless of where your politics lie, there are certain things that are constant, and beyond any negotiation. Among those things is our natural right to free expression, which, if stripped or limited, is an act of tyranny. No more, no less. If we allow this, we cease to be America. Our contract we made with our government becomes null and void, as we, the people, who drew the terms of that contract, will have been wronged.
As I said, this is not negotiable. You can think it's a great thing that the filmmaker was arrested. Hell, the majority of Americans can think it's a good thing. But I will not accept mob rule in my country. The freedom to follow the mob or buck its will is my birthright, and it will not be taken from me, and I'll fight to see that it is not taken from you. And I will not apologize for being blessed to live in a nation where I am free to express a faith in God, a faith in government, or a faith in nothing with equal zeal.
Nothing can capture the absurdity of what we are witnessing. But Mark Steyn comes as close as can be hoped for here:
So, on a highly symbolic date, mobs storm American diplomatic facilities and drag the corpse of a U.S. ambassador through the streets. Then the president flies to Vegas for a fundraiser. No, no, a novelist would say; that’s too pat, too neat in its symbolic contrast. Make it Cleveland, or Des Moines.
The president is surrounded by delirious fanbois and fangurls screaming “We love you,” too drunk on his celebrity to understand this is the first photo-op in the aftermath of a national humiliation. No, no, a filmmaker would say; too crass, too blunt. Make them sober, middle-aged midwesterners, shocked at first, but then quiet and respectful.
When I was young, I devoted quite a bit of study to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. The reason for my fascination is now certainly clear, if it was even the slightest bit murky then. My efforts were to answer that one question that haunts us all in our attempts to deconstruct such depravity and horror: "How could this have happened?" How had one man created such an ideology of militant proselytism, and how could that one man mold a legion of followers ready to sacrifice themselves to meet its dark ends?
In the Western World today, Nazi Germany stands as the textbook example of fanaticism. For us, there is no more recognizable instance where the human tendency to follow has been more exploited to commit such crimes against humanity. But as I have argued before, it is not the only example.
On September 11, 2001, America was shaken when nineteen men hijacked four planes, and then used those planes as weapons, robbing thousands of our innocent brethren of their lives. Men, women, children; Jew, Christian, Muslim; black, white, brown- the hate exceeded all such boundaries we've come to know as potential dividers among men. The perpetrators' barrel billowed smoke, and the motive could not be any clearer. These attackers were devout Muslims, soldiers of Allah, and followers of his prophet Muhammad. And the America that I had grown up to love was worthy of the bitterest hate by such men- worthy of indiscriminate and large-scale murder.
And I had to know: "How could this have happened?" How had one man created such an ideology of militant proselytism, and how could that one man mold a legion of followers ready to sacrifice themselves to meet its dark ends?
However, I found the research to be quite a different process in this endeavor. Where every Tom, Dick, and Harry gladly offered their two cents to the fray to deconstruct the mind of Adolf Hitler, Muhammad's critics seemed far fewer. As I found, two distinct reasons exist for this. First, historical records are difficult to find regarding Muhammad's life, so the Quran and the Hadith (Islamic traditions) serve as the most reliable sources for the events of the prophet's life. Second, and most importantly, is the well-noted observation that Islam has a peculiar means of dealing with its critics, which tends to make otherwise outspoken naysayers quickly adhere to Mother's old adage: "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."
Luckily, Muhammad and his successors were not of the mind that there was any wrong in the actions of Allah's prophet and his new seventh century army of Muslims that ravaged Arabia, so they apparently didn't feel the need to airbrush the content we are left with. Complete among the texts of modern Islamic jurisprudence are tales of polygamy and pedophilia, pillage and plunder, torture and terror, misogyny and mendacity, and widescale murder and mayhem. Much of this has been highlighted in the works of certain bold critics such as Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, Andrew Bostom, and Pamela Geller to name just a few. (Particularly, Spencer's The Truth About Muhammad provides an extremely detailed description of Islam's ideal man.)
Yet despite these efforts, many Americans still don't know a thing about it. To be honest, few of us felt the need to care about such things before that clear September morning of 2001, despite the fact that violent, armed jihad had for years been a viable tactic for extremist Muslims worldwide. But now, knowing full-well the magnitude of damage a small number of extremists can cause, it is imperative that the roots of Islam be examined, as it is these very roots that sprout the toxic fruit of Islamic fundamentalism that we call "jihad."
And in examining those roots, some things are undeniable. Among these is the fact that Muhammad's primary source of income was earned by piracy and theft, plundering the caravans of tradesmen as if it were his divine right. He had many wives and countless lovers, and consummated the marriage with the child Aisha at the age of nine. He had his critics (often poets of Arabic tribes) murdered by his followers in the dead of night. And apart from ordering the stoning of adulterers, he ordered the beheading of hundreds of males in the Jewish Qurayza tribe upon their defeat at Muslim hands, which is but one instance of these mass executions.
Pertinent to note is that none of these claims are commonly refuted by scholars on either side of the argument. As such, Muhammad's defense primarily consists of condemnation for opposing critics- for having the audacity to look at these seventh century events through a modern Western lens. And, of course, this condemnation is laced with ample accusations of "Islamophobia."
But it must be asked, as Muhammad is the ideal man in Islam- the template for emulation by all good, righteous Muslims- should it be a wonder when an Islamic Iranian regime lowers the legal marrying age for women to nine? Or when Islamic villages religiously sanctify the stoning of adulterers? Or when men like Theo van Gogh are murdered for their criticism of Islam? Or when vast numbers of men and women are beheaded in the name of Allah and his prophet?
Submitted for the consideration of the readers of Political Palaver is the slideshow below, which details the information I discuss above, complete with sourcing identical to that I have found elsewhere in my study. Please note, if you choose to read these presented slides- know that there are extremely graphic images, and that the content is politically charged with a harsh tenor against Islam. Unmistakable is the Christian slant of the presentation, which in some cases goes beyond the necessary criticism in this author's opinion, as there are allegations that Muhammad was given to homoeroticism, incest, cross-dressing, and that he had suicidal tendencies. However, what cannot be denied is the heavily sourced nature of the content, cited directly from the holy texts of Islam and various critiques. In this regard, I will leave the merit of the slideshow to be assessed by each who may view it, who may then take from it what he may.
And please know that I do not mean to offer this as an indictment upon all Muslims, as I am fully aware that most contemporary Muslims practice their faith in a manner conducive to peaceful existence in Western culture. Most Muslims live their lives adhering to the Five Pillars of Islam and practicing in peace while rejecting the more misogynistic and violent aspects of the seventh-century iteration of the faith. And some of these Muslims are my friends. But as I have friends who are staunchly critical of my Christian faith (and considering Christian history is certainly not above scrutiny and condemnation), this is merely meant to be a critical analysis, albeit an extremely harsh one, of Islam's foundation, its model, and an explanation for the "why" of what we call Islamic "radicalism." There is merit in such efforts, and though such things may be unpleasant to think about, it does not mean that such considerations should be absent from constructive discussion. And to understand the enemy we face in Islamic fundamentalism, we must understand why some followers of the faith feel their murderous jihad to be divinely ordained.
And to try and understand that, one must try to understand Muhammad. Perhaps this slideshow will give added context to some, and for other Americans it may just be a start. And whether that start is an attempt to prove or disprove the assertions of the presentation, it will hopefully be of value.
Robert Spencer has made a living socking dingers off the weak rhetoric of Islamic apologists in Western culture. And if you missed it, his latest two were pretty impressive.
Barack Obama sent his national security advisor, Denis McDonough, to quell the fury of protesters who claim that the Congressional hearings on Islamic radicalism "unfairly single out Muslims as potential terrorists."
McDonough said to a Washington-area mosque: "Being religious is never un-American. Being religious is quintessentially American."
To which the venerable Robert Spencer replies on his website, JihadWatch.org:
Really? Being religious in any way? Then why was the Waco compound besieged and burned down? Why was Mormon polygamy outlawed? Jim Jones was a terrific fellow?
The U.S. has in the past identified ways in which being religious might be harmful to the national security. Now we face a threat from people who commit violence and explain and justify their actions by reference to the texts and teachings of a particular religion, and the White House is saying that any investigation of that is out of the question. Will this not have the effect of ensuring that the unexamined, unresisted behavior will continue?
McDonough served him up, so Robert smacked it 380 feet over the left field wall.
In a separate at-bat, Spencer expands upon the undeniable fact that the government is entirely selective about which religions it prosecutes or protects. He references that a 17 year old Islamic protester named Anam Chaudhry, who “pointedly wrapped herself in an American flag,” said "I'm not some sort of alien. I'm like everyone else... It's a shame that some people can't see that. But we come in peace."
It’s safe to assume that Robert expected the gist of what Anam had to say. He’s been in the game long enough to know that an Islamic apologist calling everyone else intolerant is the only pitch they can bring: high, inside heat meant to scare the batter enough to back out of the box altogether. But Spencer has learned to hit it with gusto. He just digs in, and responds:
Does Anam Chaudhry, wrapped up in her flag, really think that Congressional hearings about jihad activity in the U.S. actually threaten her? Why? If there were an armed group of Christian terrorists plotting violence in the U.S. and justifying them by reference to Bible texts, and a Congressmen held hearings about the radicalization of Christians, would non-radical Christians feel threatened? Should they feel threatened? Or might the claim that such hearings did indeed threaten non-radical Christians be an attempt at fearmongering by the radicals, designed to intimidate those holding the hearings into being too afraid of public pressure to accomplish anything useful?
450 feet over the center field fence. And I’m sure in his next at-bat, he’ll hit another homerun. It’s getting so that we don’t wonder if he will hit one off of these scrubs, we just wonder how far.
We’re witnessing some of the most amazing stuff ever. Robert Spencer should be a national icon, a hero for his work in exposing fundamental Islam. It’s clear, there’s just nothing that that fundamentalist Muslims or Islamic apologists can say that can stop his hellacious assault of logic and reason!
So why are all the cheers and accolades for his performance so muffled? It’s because so few of us are actually in the stadium watching the game. Millions of drones are sitting in awe next door, watching Obama’s grandiose, staged performance, complete with politically correct clowns and jugglers of the truth.
To those who would suggest a moral equivalency exists between Christianity and Islam, I challenge:
Once a man lived who witnessed a woman to be stoned for adultery. He admonished the blood frenzied crowd by saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Then consider the barbaric creatures, like those in this video, who routinely practice this form of murder for that very crime. They do so because the prophet wills it. As Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Majahid suggests, "Anyone who knows about Islam knows that stoning is in the Koran, and that it is Islamic law. There are people who call it inhuman - but in doing so they insult the Prophet."
"To test Muhammad, the rabbis sent to him a married man and a married Jewish woman who had committed adultery together. "If he condemns them to the tajah(whereby the criminals are lashed with a rope of date fibres dipped in resin)then obey him, for he is a prince. But if he condemns them to be stoned, he is a Prophet and be on your guard against him."23 The Holy Prophet ordered the pair to be stoned: the man bent over his mistress to protect her from the stones, but they were both killed."
If you can still believe a moral equivalency exists between the two faiths' foundational principles, I would assert that you are devoid of reason.
Fundamental Islamists continue showing that they lack even an ounce of human decency. A plot has just been exposed, revealing that Al Qaeda operatives surgically implanted explosives and detonators inside of two poor pooches, and placed them in crates to be loaded onto a flight to America.The idea was that they would be detonated mid-air, killing innocent men, women, and children. As a result, Allah would be appeased by the blood sacrifice, and then upon dying, the terrorists would go to their mythical paradise of wine, fine foods, and carnal orgies with young virgins.
Thankfully, it turns out that these soulless Al Qaeda nutjobs are not much good at anything beyond mindlessly killing themselves (a talent we wish they would practice alone), least of all surgical operation. So the pups died from the shoddy stitching prior to taking off, and the plot was thwarted.
While this does not scratch the surface of fundamental Islamic terrorists’ moral depravity (they have been known to recruit mentally-challenged women as unknowing suicide-bombers), it does provide another excellent example of how fundamental Islam uses our compassion against us. Animal rescue groups and American GIs often bring Middle Eastern dogs to our country in an effort to provide them a more humane lifestyle, and we can plainly see that Islamic terrorists attempted to exploit that fact.
This event is just another in what has been a series of clear reminders that there is a very real threat posed by fundamental Islam. Though many Americans choose to ignore this threat’s existence, and our president refuses to call it by its name, it does not change the fact that there are fundamentalist Muslims that seek to indiscriminately kill as many Americans as they possibly can. This is evidenced by the fact that hundreds of randomly chosen Americans have been targeted for death over the last year by Islamic terrorists. However, the attacks have been glossed over, because these Americans were granted an unintended stay of execution, owed to a careless bomb placement in Times Square, a poor tailoring job on a plane over Detroit, and a recently botched veterinary procedure at the Baghdad airport.
I shudder to think the consequences of our luck running out. But maybe that is what it will take for our media to spread the word that we are under attack. Because I find it frightening that an attempted terrorist attack that could have killed hundreds seems to be flying under the radar of the mainstream media outlets.
This blog is an outlet for thoughts and ideas about current events and politics. Feedback and comments are not only appreciated but encouraged. All that we ask is that the feedback is factual and correct to the best of your knowledge. Like us on Facebook to track updates!
