Conservative Refocus

"To be or not to be," a phrase that has given us all a thoughtful pause, when considering our time above ground, seems now to have been replaced.  The modern twist on this classic bit of ponderous phrasing has now become "to burn or not to burn," or even better "to move or not to move."   These are the absurd questions that currently appear to have occupied The Civil Society's attention and energy with regard to the Ground Zero Mosque for what seems a fruitless eternity.

We now have pundits, the Mainstream Media and various Politicos pouring out of the woodwork like demented termites in order to, perhaps understandably, denounce the Reverend Terry Jones and chastise him for creating an atmosphere of danger to Americans and even our Soldiers due to his universally denounced  "outrageous intent" of staging a Quran burn-fest.

And yet, where are the Media denunciations of the individuals who have fomented this ideological rebellion?  Where are the Media-phites who should be intent on skewering the Ground Zero Imam and his "Business Associates?"  Are they not the ones who actually evolved the idea for placement of a Mosque on ground made sacred by our Fellow Countrymen's blood?  Why are they of the Ground Zero Mosque, in effect, given a pass for their perceived ideological transgression against the American People--as with Reverend Jones and his intent of ideological transgression against Muslims?

Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf, the prime instigator in this case, has seemingly painted this country into a corner by his irresponsible actions, and yet where is the withering criticism from the Mainstream Media for these actions or even from the President himself who has been quick to vilify others?

Rauf, rather than being lectured by the President and a vast assortment of the Media for his well publicized "staged event"--as with Jones--has been officially levitated to the point of representing the US in a foreign "tour of good will" campaign on behalf of the US State Department.  The man who touts himself as being a "Bridge Builder" has  now torn down far many more bridges than he might ever build as far as most Americans go, but we must assume this all to be "OK' since the ever present Messiah and the Media have seemingly approved of his actions.

An Innocuous Threat of Violence to the American People

Imam Rauf has now stated that to move the Mosque could result in a "violent backlash from strict adherents to his Religion of Peace." Rauf  even  further stated that he would never have conceived of the planned Mosque in this particular location had he known "what sort of pain this was going to cause." And yet, Rauf, being expert on what "his people" would do under certain given circumstances, must be generously given a pass for misunderstanding what "his other people would do"--those being Americans who are inflamed by his actions.

Perhaps we Americans are of lesser importance in the Imam's  mental hierarchy of priorities despite the fact that we are "his" countrymen.  Regardless, we are also reminded that the Imam had also written earlier,  in what seemed to be a  subtlyveiled criticism of Americans, the following:

"We have all been awed by how inflamed and emotional the issue of the proposed Community Center has become."

Rauf later wrote after his State Dept. sponsored mid-east trip, the following:

" The level of attention reflects the degree to which people care about the very American values under debate: recognition of the rights of others, tolerance and freedom of worship."

The right to worship, tolerance and freedom of worship, Imam Rauf, is not the issue, and you, Sir must know that.  The rights that we Americans hold so dear are not, indeed held so dearly in Islam's Mecca, which is the heartland of the Muslim faith of which you are an adherent.  In fact, Mecca does not allow anyone who is not of the Muslim faith into its environs.  So on a strict equality basis, how can anyone argue against the fact that Americans and those who believe in a certain sanctity regarding our heartland of Liberty's values and sacred grounds, do not also hold such right of ideological refusal as it regards a prospective ideological construction on or near "our" officially sanctioned sacred ground?

Americans do, for the most part, understand the fact that Muslims and the radical Islamic terrorists who violently murdered many of us on 9/11, are not one in the same.  And yet, the roots of the ideological values which you espouse in the building of the Mosque are not separate and apart as it regards either Islamism or Islam--which are both solidified by Sharia and common Islamic values.

Imam Rauf Actually Compares the US to Al Qaeda?

Did not Imam Rauf also say, " We tend to forget in the West that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than Al-Qaeda has on its hands of  innocent non-Muslim blood"

Or what about his later disturbing comment In an interview displayed on Hadiyul-Islam, where he stated the following:

"It is clear an Islamic state can be established in more than just a single form or mold. It can be established through a kingdom or a democracy.  The important issue is to establish the general fundamentals of Sharia that are required to govern."

In a 60 minute interview with Ed Bradley in 2001 and regarding US culpability in the 9/11 attack, Rauf stated the following:

"I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

So where is the Media outrage for these statements among a host of others?

The Imam has, in effect, damaged the relations between the Muslim world and we "Infidels" as a result of his ill-considered statements and actions, and this fact cannot be denied in any way, shape, or form.  The President and the Media have dutifully followed suit by shining a spotlight on these events and fomented dissension by flagging the flames in their pursuit of redress against Terry Jones, whose congregation of fifty people could fit on a school bus, for Heaven's sake.

When Wills Collide

All of this, while the American people grow increasingly irritated that both the President and the Media have once again "ideologically" sided against the collective spirit of We the People.

We all know and understand that the Imam has complete Constitutional right to build the Mosque wherever he pleases, and yet we view that action as unwise.  Sound familiar?  In other words, what exactly separates the irresponsible actions of the Reverend Terry Jones from the irresponsible actions of Imam Rauf when the actions of both result in the same end?

The reaction to the Reverend Jones' intent to burn Qurans has been, almost universally, critical from leaders of both the right and the left.  A few "supposedly" hardcore Conservatives have even bizarrely suggested that the President physically detain, perhaps even arrest the Reverend Jones.

Here at Conservative Refocus, while wishing none of this had happened in the first place, can agree on the fact that the burning of Qurans shows ill-respect and is unwise at best.  But we also feel the same way about the burning of the American flag, which we have had the unique displeasure of viewing repeatedly during this debacle--which has resulted in a number of Qurans being been burnt in retribution as of this writing in tandem with a reported attack on Christians by Islamists in Indonesia.

When I, personally, see a US Flag being burnt, I can admit to a measure of distaste being present.  And yet the free-market side of my personna always kicks in:  Now, in order to burn another flag, they are going to have to buy it first...a retributive "cha-ching."

Further,  I can just see the stammering embarrassment of the flag-burning offender, skulkingly padding into some foreign shop in order to purchase yet another US flag for burning, trying to explain his intent for the flag to a disapproving Islamic fundamentalist cashier.  This would, most likely, be akin to a staunch Conservative having to reluctantly purchase a life-size Obama poster at a crowded Tea Party Rally.

When the Intolerant Demand Tolerance

As a result, we, as Americans, seem now to be living in a world which demands tolerance from one set of peoples and avows if not even expects intolerance in another.  As it involves insulting or the degrading of another people or faith, we are, ostensibly, speaking of symbols or representations as it regards Bibles, Flags, Mosques or even Qurans.  The US Constitution sets forth under the Bill of Rights, that Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech.  Flag-burning and other such activities, including Qurans or Bibles or even Trees to those of the Pantheistic Sects, is an allowed practice within the United States with regard to Freedom of Speech.

This must be the be all and end all within this argument, no matter what other Conservatives or Liberals might surprisingly say to appease the sycophantic Mainstream Media.  We cannot pick and choose when we are to allow Freedom of Speech anymore than when we allow Freedom of Religion, and therein seems to lie the rub in this case.

The President, in keeping with his penchant for either stumbling into or creating universal havoc, has once again brought International attention into play regarding this matter when he waded into the turmoil of the building of the Mosque in the first place.  At the time, the President was an ardent defender of the rights of the Muslims to build a Mosque under freedom of Religion, despite public displeasure from Americans and "over-all" Islamic world approval.

Then when a US Citizen, in this case the Reverend Jones, wishes to exercise his right of Freedom of Speech within that same vein, in the burning of Qurans, the President has, yet again, sided against this same Freedom of Speech exercise in deference to those of the Muslim faith, and once again to the displeasure of a large number of Americans.

And yet the President wonders why an increasing number of Americans, and even his supporters, think of his religion as being Islam instead of Christianity?

Trying to Forget While Trying to Remember

At this, our remembrance for those who were lost on that terrible September day at the hands of extremist--who even now thirst for more blood--we are also asked to forget the extreme origins of that attack.  A certain number even expect us to suspend our cognitive ability to connect the events that we see being played out across the world every day against both us and our Soldiers for the last decade.  We are asked to, in essence, allow for a violent animosity against us for no other reason than our sacred belief in the Individual's right to self-determination, freedom of worship and Religion, and the God-given inalienable right of free will.

Our officially sanctioned response to those who would oppose our beliefs seems to have become one of appeasement rather than that of meaningful engagement.  All Americans would agree that the US is not in a war against Islam and yet, we are given pause when we stop to consider whether or not Islam might be at war with us.

Is not the seeming appeasement of a selected ideology, in the face of both terror and tyranny--regardless of origin--nothing more than impotent capitulation parading as hopeful procrastination?

Continually seeking "not to offend" while being indiscriminately "offended" is an abomination to our history and, inevitably, to our Liberty itself.

The Ground Zero Mosque was originally touted as officially opening on 9/11, by the way.

Barry Secrest