moonbattery.gif


« Still More Hillary Photojournalism | Main | The €10 Tribute to the Greatness of America »


June 27, 2005

Resistance Growing to Ground Zero Desecration

More than a few relatives of 9/11 victims are outraged and disgusted by plans to build an "International Freedom Center museum" featuring anti-American propaganda at Ground Zero.

"I have no remains of my husband, and to me that's sacred ground," Rachel O'Brien was quoted by AP. Her husband Michael worked for Cantor Fitzgerald. "That's the last place he was, and I think that the whole area should be all about what happened on that day."

"I don't think that there should be anything else there but a memorial to those people," said Edmund Caviasco, whose daughter Jean De Palma died at the WTC.

Of course, there are those who disagree.

"9-11 should not be something you treat with kid gloves," said Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International — who is a principal adviser to the museum. "It should be something you debate, that you talk about, that we explore, that we use as a way to think about our position in the world."

Here's what Newsweek International thinks of our position in the world:

newsweek1.jpg

Zakaria is hardly the only representative of the far left involved in this "Freedom Center" abomination. The main instigator, Hollywood financier Tom Bernstein, has been president for Human Rights First for 12 years. This organization has actually sued our Secretary of Defense on behalf of terrorists.

If you agree that allowing people of this ilk to take over Ground Zero is absolutely unthinkable, head over to Take Back the Memorial and sign this petition:

To Governor George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation:
We, the undersigned, believe that the World Trade Center Memorial should stand as a solemn remembrance of those who died on September 11th, 2001, and not as a journey of history's "failures" or as a debate about domestic and foreign policy in the post-9/11 world. Political discussions have no place at the World Trade Center September 11th memorial, and the International Freedom Center honors no one by making excuses for the perpetrators of this heinous crime. The memorial should be about what happened that day, about the brave heroes who risked their lives so selflessly, and about the innocent lives that were lost... nothing more.
tbtmemorial2.jpg

Cross-posted at The Wide Awakes

Posted by Van Helsing at June 27, 2005 7:57 AM

Comments

As usual, the opposition to this is running around with their brains exploding. Noone is condoning what happened, or sponsoring terorrism here.It's not a "blame America monument". What happened there was not some isolated, happened in a vacuum thing. I think the history of these types of acts and the picture of the world leading up to it is very important.

We are now part of the rest of the world that has experienced foreign terorrism. I think it's possible to remember the lost and remember that it was more than just death. It was about the state our world was and is in today.

Everyone in the world doesn't like us; to believe so is past ethnocentricity. Are there valid reasons for that? Likely so. I am not saying we somehow deserved the attack by any means, but, I think this has provided us an opportunity to look at how we view ourselves relative to the rest of the world.

Posted by: Rob B. at June 27, 2005 8:58 AM

Hey Rob, "Noone" isn't a word, it's not even a time of day.



What's more, if it's so important that folks be reminded of how barbarous the US Imperialists have been in the world (which is all this INTERNATIONAL Freakdom Center is really about, c'mon!) then I know a great place for it: Right in mid-town, 5th Ave in the 50s, hell why not right in Rockefeller Plaza, near the heart of the Blame-America-First MSM.


The Freakazoid Elitist Left has about as much respect for Sacred Ground as does Michael Schiavo.

Posted by: The MaryHunter at June 27, 2005 9:43 AM

Rob B it would be akin to allowing at the Oklahoma City bombing memorial the supporters of Timothy McVeigh to set up.

Or allowing in Pearl Harbor a musuem defending Japanese conquests in China and the Pacific.

There are just some things that are gauche. That are beyond giving a different viewpoint. And if you fail to grasp this, then sir we are at loggerheads, at an impasse since it seems one of the parties is entrenched in a fantasy.

Posted by: Anna at June 27, 2005 10:45 AM

If the far left want to have their "America Had It Coming" museum, then they ought to be allowed to have it... just not at Ground Zero. Ground Zero should focus on memorializing the victims, and leave the politics elsewhere. (Unless they believe that the Arizona Memorial would be 'improved' by putting a Japanese Internment museum on its site.)

Let the lefties fund their museum themselves, too, by the way. Maybe the left can use Eminent Domain to force out a church or a VFW hall and take it over for their museum. That should make them happy.

Posted by: V the K at June 27, 2005 11:08 AM

WTF? Anna, now this is akin to making bin Laden a hero? And you call us moonbats.

Posted by: Rob B. at June 27, 2005 7:50 PM

It is not an "America had it coming", or any of the other anti-America labels you are placing on it. It has been designed to carry the message of freedom, hope, and unity in the face of horror.

Only one section of the building is set aside for the museum, as is a section for 9/11 remembrance. The goal of this, I believe, is to remind all of us, around the globe,of the beyond words display of a people reacting with love and selflessness following such a travesty. A message of hope is on display, for the entire world.

The fact that this happened to America is new, but struggles such as this have taken place around the world since the beginning of time. Isn't part of the point in Iraq, and elsewhere supposed to be one of an effort to fight terrorism for the betterment of mankind, not just for us? Why is it so difficult to see that this allows us to stand aside every other people that have had their way of life threatened by violence?

It is strange to me the difficulty in summoning support for having something such as the "rebel flag"; a flag that once stood firm for such ideals as pro-slavery, removed from government buildings, and the ease by which people react immediately with disdain for an event that changed our world

Posted by: Rob B. at June 27, 2005 8:29 PM

Thanks, Rob. Your endorsement of the "Freedom Center" allows me to rest my case against this insolent defilement of a site patriotic Americans regard as sacred. The site is for honoring the dead, not for wallowing in navel-gazing and moral relativism.

Posted by: Van Helsing at June 27, 2005 9:04 PM

Rob, the musuem discusing such diverse and divisive issues as slavery is above ground while the memorial dedicated to the almost 3000 human beings murdered is placed underground. I think the message is clear.

This is called editorializing an event instead of merely remembering or marking an event. Some progressive chaps tried that when the forward fuselage of Enola Gay went on display, they were beaten back by historians and veterans. It is hard to evince any sympathy for the world domination gambit of Japan that started with a premeditated provocation in Manchuria, reprisal raids after the Doolittle Raid that cost another 250,000 civilians on top of the 300,000+ civilians murdered at Nanking, use of Chinese civilians for biological warfare research, the tens of thousands of prisoners who built the Burmese railway, need I go on; but some chaps wanted to pontificate against evil America anyway for daring to use nuclear weapons and shortening a war that if the invasion of Japan had happened would have caused an estimated one million Allied casualties and possibly complete destruction of Japan and its population since to these chaps anything America does is wrong.

What IFC wants to erect is inappropriate for such a solemn setting. It would be akin to Wal-Mart building a super-centre atop First Manasas or Pep-Boys at Montecello.

And for your edification Rob, that rebel flag was the battle standard the CSA Army used in the field and not the national flag of the CSA. The CSA went with the Stars&Bars after their first battle standard was too often confused with the US flag[ which is natural since the first CSA battle flag resembled the original Betsy Ross flag].

Posted by: Anna at June 27, 2005 10:51 PM

FYI Fareed Zakaria is hardly left-wing and not a liberal. He supported the invasion of Iraq and thinks we should remain there.

you can check out his articles at www.fareezakaria.com

Posted by: Bowman at June 29, 2005 1:09 PM