The New Monument at Ground Zero, A Decade Late

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.

William Sullivan

Egyptian Salafi Cleric Weighs in on the Boston Bombing

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.

William Sullivan

The Mystery of Rick Perry and Jihad

Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller (who could be called Islamophobes or anti-jihadists, depending on your persepective) have been very critical of Rick Perry's association with the Aga Khan Foundation, which "represents Ismaili Muslims, who follow a moderate, peaceful interpretation of Islam." Rick Perry had made a deal with the Aga Khan to "help Texas teachers create classroom lesson plans about Islam." Online conservative magazine American Thinker, where I often contribute, has been host to a series of arguments surrounding this issue. First, Pamela Geller wrote an indictment of Perry for his associations. Then, Aymenn Jawadd al-Tamimi responded with an article titled "Smearing Perry on Jihad."  Geller responded in kind with an article titled, "Smearing Geller on Perry."  The exchange was rather interesting, but perhaps even more notable is the chord struck with readers, as the subject opened a rift between the magazine's conservative commenters: some found it a divisive distraction by a jihad-junkie, while others found it to be a relevant topic of conversation.

I was among the latter.

Then, Robert Spencer authored his own piece indicting not only Perry's associations with men like Grover Norquist, but particularly challenged blogger David Stein in his piece titled "Rick Perry's Jihad Problem."   Spencer asserted that David Stein's blog is obscure and that he is spreading falsehoods.  Stein retorts this morning with a scathing attack against Spencer titled "Rick Perry and Sharia, and Robert Spencer," touting his credentials and again defending Perry's actions as innocent and not tantamount to a subversive effort to introduce Sharia to Texas schools.

It would appear that Stein was misrepresented, as he appears to have more credibility than Spencer gives him. And I could not follow into a rabbit hole where Rick Perry is willfully enabling any "stealth jihad" efforts.  But there is a question that I would ask the readers of Political Palaver to consider, however.

From the article:

“In 2008, Perry inked a deal with the Aga Khan Foundation to create the Muslim Histories and Culture Project (MHCP), the goal of which was to help Texas teachers create classroom lesson plans about Islam.”

Is this so incredibly innocent, as Stein suggests? Is this not a cause for alarm? Imagine the outcry if there was to be a detailed lesson plan built on the premise of educating children of the tenets of Christianity. “Separation of church and state!” they’d cry. Yet when educating our youth about misunderstood Islam, why is this all okay? Stein argues that it is voluntary… and from the educators’ perspective, sure, maybe it is. But for parents and children, it is not at all voluntary. I remember quite a ruckus being raised because a Sugarland, TX school had thought it prudent to hold an “Islam 101” mandatory seminar to educate all its students about Islam. Of course, it would be the PC approved version of Islam- no misogynistic overtones, no torturous penalties for infidelity, no divine call to jihad, etc.

I still take issue with this, and the fact that Perry has helped to enable it, as all Americans should. Providing our children with whitewashed PC history is not education- it’s indoctrination. Islam should be discussed as Christianity is discussed in classrooms: A guy named Jesus of Nazareth lived, was crucified by the Romans, and after His followers suffered hundreds of years of political persecution, the religion came to be a mainstay in the historical landscape. Islam should be taught appropriately- Muhammad lived, raised armies to conquer Arabia, and within 100 years his followers spread the faith by the sword- conquering, subjugating, and/or converting other cultures, making it a mainstay in the historical landscape.

So sure, let's talk about how Christianity helped shape the Inquisition, or Manifest Destiny that negatively impacted Native Americans.  But if we are to be honest in educating our children, shouldn’t we be discussing, at the very least, how Islam helps to shape modern jihad, rather than lying to them by denying the association?

William Sullivan

**Authors' note:  I expressed this opinion more succinctly on the website.  If offered a rebuttal, I will provide updates.

America's Necessary Obligations

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7424726.html

Krauthammer hits it out of the park again. Despite blatant liberal hypocrisy (whats new?) on the issue, America has an obligation not only to its citizens but to the world to follow Krauthammers advice. Democracy and freedom unfortunately are not synonyms. Lets hope that the very likely possibility of Islamists ending up in control of Egypt does not come to pass. But since the Obama administration doesn't even have the fortitude to draw a line in the sand with Islamic fundamentalism in the U.S. backed Afghanistan government, it would seem foolish to hold your breath on Egypt.