Some Facts about the Ground-Zero Mosque

The latest event everybody has their knickers in a bunch over is a group of Muslims who want to build a giant mosque and cultural center near ground-zero of the 9/11 attacks. If you want to spark up heated and emotional debates over something this is the way to do it. Everybody I know is pissed as Hell about this. Personally I decided to look into the matter a bit before making a comment and there are a couple of things I found. First:

.”This is a place which is 600 feet from where almost 3,000 people were torn to pieces by Islamic extremists,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother died in the attack on the Pentagon that day.

This is the first thing to note, it’s not being build at ground-zero just near it. Another thing to note is:

The 13-story mosque and cultural center will be built on the site of a four-story building that was a Burlington Coat Factory retail store until 9/11, when part of a plane’s landing gear crashed through the roof. The building, which will be razed, currently houses a mosque.

So the building that is being demolished to make room for this giant mosque housed… a mosque. This isn’t a new establishment, just a much larger version of what was already there. And then we have:

The New York City Mayor’s office says “It’s private property, and the area is zoned for uses that include this one.”

I bring up this point because most of the people I know who are pissed off about this are also huge believers in property rights and the right to do what you want on your own property. If you want the absolute right to do whatever you want on your property you should extend the same courtesy to others (otherwise it’s not a right it’s a privilege that you enjoy). Personally I think this is the biggest and most important point of this entire story.

But let’s ask an unbiased and neutral source about this:

Pamela Gellar, executive director of Stop Islamization of America, blasted the organization behind the plans, Cordoba Initiative, and its leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, saying the project is “an insulting flag of conquest of Islamic supremacism.”

Um… never mind.

Let me be fair and ask the man who heads the organization that is going to build this facility:

Though the Cordoba Initiative’s website calls part of the $100 million-plus project a mosque, its founder, Imam Rauf, says the project is not a mosque but a community center for all faiths that will include recreational facilities, a prayer space and a 500-seat theater that can be a part of the neighborhood’s trendy Tribeca Film Festival.

Rauf insists the effort is meant to help heal the wounds of 9/11, “We’ve approached the community because we want this to be an example of how we are cooperating with the members of the community, not only to provide services but also to build a new discourse on how Muslims and non-Muslims can cooperate together to push back against the voices of extremism.”

I’m sorry that seems way too much like political speak. Maybe a better idea would to be use that money to fund programs that could help fightback extremism and thus enhance the overall American perception of the religion. Heck I’m not the only one who thinks that:

But Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, says there are more productive ways to fight Islamic extremism.

“Even when they have the resources, they are using it for a place of worship, a cultural center for organizations,” he said. They are not using it for a counterterrorism research center.

“They are not using it to lead the war like Americans need to see us do and they are wasting our resources, not to mention that being close to the hallowed ground that is so sensitive in the souls of the families of 9/11. I think it is extremely poor judgment.”

I agree with that. It seems this is really a waste of resources as far as trying to increase the public perception of Islam in America. Likewise it won’t do anything to help fight extremism either (it’s akin to holding hands around a fire and singing in my opinion). And you can say it’s insensitive due to the fact anybody with a brain could see it would piss off a lot of people, but frankly I don’t give two shits about that.

The fact of the matter is there was already a mosque on the property in question which was shutdown after the 9/11 attacks. Further the property is privately held and hence the owner has the right to do whatever the Hell they want. If they want to build a giant monument of a middle finger with a sign that says “Fuck you New York!” that’s their right in my not so humble opinion.

This does seem like a poor move politically. It sure isn’t going to gain anybody points in popular opinion field. But they have a right to build it and what I think is irrelevant.

EDIT 2010-08-16 21:25: I forgot to add in a link to where I got my information. Sorry about that, it’s corrected now.

Stupid Threats

So Arizona passed a piece of legislation that has pissed a good chunk of the country off. Needless to say Los Angeles voted on a boycott of all goods and services coming from Arizona to make a point. Of course as Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce points out it seems that Los Angeles is insinsere in that threat [PDF]:

In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

Very well played Mr. Peirce.

Those of You in California

You guys better get your butts in gear. Through the NRA-ILA I just found out that AB 1934 just passed committee. AB 1934, if passed, will ban open carrying of unloaded handguns in the communist state of California.

It doesn’t surprise me that the bill is positively huge considering the only thing it’s supposed to accomplish is a ban on the open carrying of unloaded firearms.

This is normally where I’d say get on the horn with your representatives. Seeing as how that didn’t work so well when AB 962 was going through the political pipework I’m not sure what to say. I guess it’s still worth a try. But find out every representative who supports this bill and make sure they get voted out in November.

The Dangers of Legislating Behavior

Jay over at MArooned sums up why it’s dangerous to allow our politicians to legislate any behavior:

That’s the whole thing. It never ends. Once we let them dictate one behavior, there’s no stopping those who would use the power of the state, the men with guns, to force the people to bend to their whims and wants. Today cell phones, tomorrow iPods, next week it’s passengers and heating choices.

It’s a slippery slope. Once you’re sliding down the slope it’s practically impossible to stop until you hit the bottom. In this case Jay was talking about calls to ban all cellular phone use while driving because it’s said to distract drivers. As he pointed out the logical conclusion is to ban passengers since they provide distractions as well.

This logic can be applied to anything. For instance when our government regulated the ownership of machines gun and other such “scary” guns via the National Firearms Act is started us down a slippery slop. Now thanks for the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act the transfer of machine guns produced after an arbitrary date to civilian hands is completely illegal.

This should be kept in mind whenever legislation regulating what can be posted on the Internet comes up. Sure first they will say they need to protect the children but it will not stop until everything that isn’t government approved is banned (think China).

Once you allow the state to be your nanny there is no escaping the nanny state.

Minnesota Representative Paymar At it Yet Again

I just received an e-mail from the NRA-ILA stating everybody’s most hated state representative Michael Paymar is threatening to amend a unspecified bill with his anti-private property amendment:

With Minnesota’s 2010 legislative session coming to an end, anti-gun State Representative Michael Paymar (DFL-64B) intends to offer an amendment to a yet unknown bill, which would severely regulate the sale of firearms at gun shows in Minnesota. Representative Paymar has until the last minute on Monday, May 17 to attach this amendment, so it is important that you once again urge your Representative to block his continued anti-gun agenda.

His proposed amendment would force all private sales conducted at gun shows across Minnesota to go through a background check. Gun prohibitionists, such as Representative Paymar, falsely claim that many criminals get their guns from gun shows, but the most recent federal study puts the figure at only 0.7 percent. This effort is a stepping stone for anti-gun advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends.

Please contact your State Representative immediately and urge them to oppose Representative Paymar’s “Gun Show” amendment should it come up. To find contact information for your State Representative, please click here.

I will keep my eyes open and let you know the second he makes his move. Either way it would be a good idea to let your representatives know you won’t stand for any bill that threatens your property rights.

Obama Doesn’t Like Technology

This article perfectly portrays the meaning of double speak. Apparently Obama believes the following:

“What Jefferson recognized… that in the long run, their improbable experiment — called America — wouldn’t work if its citizens were uninformed, if its citizens were apathetic, if its citizens checked out, and left democracy to those who didn’t have the best interests of all the people at heart.

“It could only work if each of us stayed informed and engaged, if we held our government accountable, if we fulfilled the obligations of citizenship.”

I actually agree with Obama on something, namely this. I think part of the problem with America today is the apathy of its citizens and their lack of being informed. If you ask most Americans who their state representatives are they won’t be able to tell you. Of course if you ask a really important question like who won American Idol they can tell you right off of the spot.

One of the best things about technology is that is provides you with a constant 24/7 stream of news and information. There is no excuse to not being in the know these days. Thankfully Obama is bringing this to light and asking everybody to embrace this technology… oh wait:

“You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank all that high on the truth meter,” Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.

Like everything Obama says:

“With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation,” Obama said.

He bemoaned the fact that “some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction,” in the clamor of certain blogs and talk radio outlets.

So being in the know and having access to information is great unless that information doesn’t jive with what he thinks. For instance it’s just crazy to believe that people could be cooking the books on global warming climate is changing OMG!!!! climate change. It’s also crazy to think that GM used government money to pay back their loan from the government.

I love how Obama is all of the sudden an expert on technology that he admits to not knowing how to use. Seriously what a smug asshole.

Honduras Still Receiving Backlash for Enforcing Their Constititution

A while ago there was quite a stink over Honduras actually enforcing their Constitution and removing their then president from power. Well a lot of well respected neighboring states including Venezuela and our own government didn’t like the idea of a country actually obeying it’s own laws and threw up a stink.

Now they are threatening (promising?) to not attend the yearly European Union-Latin America summit if Honduras’s current president, Porfirio Lobo, attends. See they don’t recognize the legitimacy of Mr. Lobo’s seat because a potential dictator was removed lawfully to put Lobo in place. I love this:

An aide to Brazil’s President Lula, Marco Aurelio Garcia, said: “If Honduras attends, then at least 10 Latin American presidents will not go to Madrid, starting with the president of Brazil.”

I wonder what types of governments those 10 countries have. Probably something along the lines of what Venezuela has which is idealistically opposed to what the summit is apparently about:

But correspondents say its goals of development and democracy-building remain far off.

Yeah that’s not sounding like a threat so much as a promise.

No Miranda Rights For You

Dvorak Uncensored lead me to another reason for me to hate most of our politicians. Senator Lindsey Graham wants to deny reading Miranda rights to “suspect terrorists.” This another one of those bills that may look acceptable on paper until you look at what Senator Graham views as a terrorist:

“The homeland is part of the battlefield. So this idea that you get to America, the rules dramatically change, to the benefit of the suspect – the terrorist – makes no sense,” he said.

Yes the suspect is a terrorist. Note that wording. The suspect is not a potential terrorist, he or she is a terrorist. I’ve often argued that terrorism is akin to child molestation in this country in that you are guilty upon accusation. In either of the two cases you are pretty much screwed because even if you are found guilty the stain of the accusation is permanent and is as good as being found guilty. I will note another thing here:

Graham told POLITICO he is working on legislation that would redefine the so-called “public safety exemption” to Miranda warnings. Under current law, police can question a suspect to obtain admissible evidence without informing them of their rights if they believe that there is an “exigent danger” – like a ticking time bomb — that another crime is about to be committed.

If the suspected terrorist is an immediate threat Miranda rights can be ignore. So why do we need another law? Oh that’s right because you could avoid having to inform detainees of their rights simply by accusing them of terrorism.

Now truth be told you’re an idiot if you don’t know your rights. I’m not saying having to read Miranda rights is a good or bad thing here (personally I think they’re a good thing). What I’m saying is we shouldn’t be making exceptions like these to laws. It’s a slippery slope to say the least. The next thing that would be up I believe would be an exemption to a fast and speedy trial for suspected terrorists holding an American citizenship caught within the United States.

Likewise Mr. Graham’s attitude that suspected terrorists are automatically guilty is disturbing. Nobody who is making laws should have this attitude.