The Conservative Edge

Some people seem to think that we, as a country, would exhibit a high degree of nobility by allowing an Islamic mosque to be constructed at (or adjacent to) Ground Zero in New York. It is not just the mayor of New York who is spearheading the effort to gain permission for the mosque’s construction; even some prominent journalists are supportive of the idea.

For instance, Leonard Pitts, a syndicated columnist, recently suggested that building the mosque would be a great way to display our ideals of freedom. He wrote, “Are Muslims not Americans, too? Is that what we’re saying now? Yes, I fear terrorism. But I find I fear even more what my country has become in response to it…so yes, putting that building in that place might be painful and provocative, but it would also be a reminder of the very values the terrorists sought to kill. And we seem to need that reminder more every day. They want to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero? Let them.”

This whole notion that the mosque should not seem offensive reminds me of an observation someone once made about democracy, that someone convicted of a crime can “continue to go about among their fellows.” It may be that the person (or persons) representing those wanting to build the mosque did not actually commit the terrorist act against America. However, the fact remains that the religion giving permission to kill others in the name of God is the religion associated with the mosque. The values America represents—equality, freedom, justice—were not found in the hearts of those who murdered innocent people on September 11, 2001, nor are they found in those who continue to murder innocents all over the world. That is what Americans would remember if the mosque is ever built.

Surely we can honor the deaths of American citizens in a better way. Building a Muslim mosque will only display our tolerance for the intolerance terrorists have towards us. This would be similar to erecting a replica of The Turner Diaries at the federal building in Oklahoma City, so we can be more tolerant of people who despise government. It would be like building an FBI office at the site of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, so we can be more sympathetic to a government that fears armed citizens. It just doesn’t make sense; and oftentimes, common sense is more virtuous than high-minded classic liberal ideology.

Letting the mosque be built at Ground Zero would be like letting the fox stay in the henhouse. I am sure that the people who died in the Trade Center attacks would have given their lives in defense of our country. Tolerating the ideas of terrorism and radical intolerance of the American way of life does nothing to honor those who died. We should say “no” to the mosque and not feel guilty.

Today marks the anniversary of the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001. I watched some of the programs on the History Channel that chronicled both the events leading up to the attack, and the subsequent rescue and cleanup efforts. As I viewed the devastation, I thought that similar feelings must have gripped our nation after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. We were justified in reacting with full force against imperialist Japan; it seems that America should also be justified in retaliation against the terrorist regime responsible for attacking the Trade Center on two occasions.

But there are some who insist that the party responsible for flying two planes into the Trade Center buildings was none other than the United States government. The conspiracy theorists claim that the Bush administration contrived an elaborate plan to destroy the financial heart of America. This was supposedly done to allow the administration to enact surveillance laws that would enable the government to exert control over the American people, and also give cause for the invasion of Iraq.

But that theory is hard to accept. There are lots of folks who try to present evidence of flight number discrepancies, or suggest that undercover personnel planted explosives in the Trade Center. But it remains clear that terrorists wanted to destroy the symbols of American capitalism. The first attempt was in 1993, when a massive bomb was detonated underneath the Trade Center. Fortunately, the tower survived the blast, and the damage was quickly repaired. There have been no conspiracy theories developed to explain the first attack; why should we think it strange or unlikely that the same terrorist group would make a second strike to complete their mission of destruction?

Remember also that there is quite a difference in the way that Democratic and Republican administrations use force. Republican presidents have, generally, used military force against foreign regimes and countries. Ronald Reagan, for instance, invaded the island of Grenada to rescue American students who had been taken hostage. Reagan was also intent on standing up to Soviet aggression. The first George Bush built a coalition to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The second George Bush invaded Iraq to depose Saddam once and for all.

But Democratic presidents have been more forceful here at home. Bill Clinton blew the chance to apprehend Osama Bin Laden, and admitted as much in a television interview. Democrats always take a weak position of appeasement with foreign thugs. But domestically, Democrats turn into tigers when they get a chance to show off government’s power. The standoff at Waco, Texas in the early years of the Clinton administration was the most egregious and unlawful use of force ever exhibited by any occupant of the White House. Conspiracy theorists fret about Bush’s use of wiretaps, but he never sent tanks into an American city to kill American citizens the way that Clinton did at Waco.

Clinton could have ordered the FBI to quietly nab David Koresh, the leader of the Branch Davidians, at some local coffee shop or gas station. But because the Branch Davidians had stockpiled some weapons in anticipation of the Apocalypse, Clinton decided that a show of force was necessary. Any individual or group of people that bear arms are seen by Democrats and liberals as a threat to government authority. Clinton was determined that he would show the Davidians who was boss. He sent tanks and other armed personnel to confront, and ultimately destroy, the Davidians and their compound. A situation that could have been defused peacefully turned into a tragedy. And without Waco, there might not have been a bombing in Oklahoma City.

If conspiracy theorists want to see a real abuse of power by the government, they should focus on the tragedy at Waco. Meanwhile, I will continue to mourn the loss of American lives on September 11, 2001, and remember that it was the obsessive hatred of a terrorist organization that destroyed those two gleaming towers.

I read an interesting article this past week about the rise in the number of militia groups here in America. I’m not surprised that new groups are forming, although I am somewhat taken by the number of people estimated to be involved. Those numbers are likely to increase, perhaps in direct proportion to the federal government’s insatiable lust for power and control over all aspects of our lives.

Following is an excerpt from an Associated Press report published in Yahoo! news:

WASHINGTON – “Militia groups with gripes against the government are regrouping across the country and could grow rapidly, according to an organization that tracks such trends.

“The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says. Conspiracy theories about a secret Mexican plan to reclaim the Southwest are also growing amid the public debate about illegal immigration.

“Bart McEntire, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told SPLC researchers that this is the most growth he’s seen in more than a decade. “‘All it’s lacking is a spark,’ McEntire said in the report”.

I’m thinking about what could possibly be that “spark” that would set off another confrontation between the government and a group of supposedly dangerous citizens. Frankly, I’m surprised that more pressure hasn’t been put on some of the rising militia groups. I can only surmise that there is ample political pressure being applied to many of the liberals in Congress who would normally take a stronger stance against gun ownership. Many of the liberals realize that they can stay in office only by supporting law-abiding gun owners.

In 1993, the government’s (Democrats, in particular) hatred and suspicion of its own citizenry was revealed in the standoff at Waco, Texas. A “doomsday” cult, led by David Koresh, had built a defense compound, expecting some kind of apocalyptic end of the world. They did have a cache of arms, but they hadn’t used them aggressively. They were just preparing for the end. The Clinton administration, perhaps the most anti-gun administration in American history, ruthlessly destroyed the Koresh compound, killing many Americans in the process. It was a shameful and egregious expression of the liberal idea that no American should be armed. It’s unimaginable how the Clinton administration could murder those Americans, yet later allow Osama bin-Laden to be extradited to Afghanistan. As the AP report pointed out, “people…became convinced that the government would murder its own citizens to promote its liberal agenda.”

Right now, the Obama administration has been implementing other liberal initiatives. They have expressed their disdain for the tobacco, automobile, banking, financial, and health care industries through excessive taxation, regulation, and “reform.” When this health care legislation has been passed (which will allow federally-funded abortions and assisted suicides), then look for an all-out assault on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, and gun ownership. Then, we will likely see what “spark” sets off the next Waco-style tragedy.