By Andrew McCleese
Part One – Propaganda and the Ground Zero Mosque
In the wake of the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy (articles which can be found here, here, and here) it may be time to look at this through a larger context of Islam and the Global War on Terror. I sometimes wonder if it has now officially morphed in to an all out war on Islam. Maintaining The Liberty Voice website is an gig I do for my desire to see a counter balance to the mainstream media echo chamber. Daily I get off work , drive home and listen to Sean Hannity yammering on and on about Sharia Law, “The Ground Zero Mosque” and Iran and nuclear weapons and linking all three together. For weeks and weeks this has been going on and seems to be his only topic of conversation, at least between the times of 4:30 – 5:00 EST. Since Sean Hannity wants to play connect the dots while skipping over a dot the size of the Nemesis star, I’ll take it upon myself to dispel some of the popular Neoconservative talking points in regards to the Cordoba House. I do encourage readers to check out the hyperlinks above for some specifics on the imagery being used by Neoconservative commentators. But first, lets play connect the dots using the quickly established conventional wisdom of talk radio and Fox News.
As many people now know thanks to Jon Stewart (which means few Fox News viewers or Hannity listeners, see here and here), the second largest shareholder ($2.5 billion) of Fox News’ parent company News Corp is Alwaleed bin Talal, a Saudi prince and funder behind the Kingdom Foundation. The Kingdom Foundation is often linked to terrorist groups by Fox News themselves and Alwaleed bin Talal was the prince famously rejected by Rudy Giuliani after 9-11 when attempting to donate $10 million dollars to New York while criticizing the U.S. for our Middle East policy. The Kingdom Foundation, in addition to funding terrorism according to Fox News, is also funding the Ground Zero Mosque. How on Earth is it possible that nobody at Fox News is reporting their own connection to the mosque?
There have been a few references to an unnamed “bad guy” or the “terror prince”, but they never seem to tell their audience this “bad guy” owns a good portion of Fox News. So at the same time this huge Matsu ball is hanging out there, Fox News commentators are up in arms about potential theoretical funding of the Codoba House by Ahmadinejad. This of course does not make much sense because their terror prince owner is already funding it without so much as a peep, so dispense with the theory for now and talk about what is actually happening! If one wanted to take Fox News’ logic and apply it to the actual facts about who is behind the mosque, one thereby can assume Fox supports terrorism, Fox is supporting repressive Whahabbist autocrats in the Middle East who stone their women and support pedophilia. May we also assume by Fox logic that perhaps the linkage of Iran to potential funding of Codoba House is all to further demonize an enemy of the Saudi Kingdom? After all, Sunni and Shia / Arabs and Persians have a fairly long history of distrust.
Also missing from any Fox News reporting on this is the fact that Imam Rauf is a member of the Counsel on Foreign Relations, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation (among other globalist) and was a Bush era partner for Middle East peace and Muslim outreach as part of his national security strategy. Suddenly, this man is possibly the greatest threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in America. So considering all this, is it possible Fox News is a globalist propaganda outlet whose main mission statement is to drum up war support and dehumanize the next enemy that stands in the way of the New World Order? Maybe they have their globalist stoolie ginning up controversy? The have a pretty fair track record in the run up to Iraq, such as O’Reilly repeatedly telling dissenters to “shut up” while he and others on the network helped to propagate supposedly bad intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. Recall Gordon Brown’s statement’s regarding Saddam Hussein here and here. The only problem with some Brown’s statements is there was no U.N. sanction for preemptive war or regime change. I take him at his word that preemptive war on manufactured pretexts are really about the “implementation of a new set of international rules” which are made up by the unaccountable oligarchs as they go along. Most of what Fox as well as other corporate media reported as fact in the run up to the Iraq invasion was at best grains of truth with a side of massive hyperbole.
Fox News has also been very helpful in changing the mission of the wars along the way as well. Initially of course it was all about Bin Laden, imminent threats (shored up by Anthrax mailing from U.S. Army scientist who later commits suicide) and defeating Al Qaeda. Along the way it has become about Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, spreading democracy in the Middle East, stopping the spread of Sharia Law (which is awfully similar to the Domino Theory about the spread of Communism), educating children, and women wearing burkas or voting or being stoned 10,000 miles away for adultery. All these are horrific but are not justification for drone bombings of civilians, Special Forces operations in 75 countries, targeted killings or as they used to be called assassinations (even of U.S. citizens without Due Process), undeclared and seemingly endless war, deficits and mostly, the sacrifice of the Constitution and all our personal liberties to combat these apparently national, existential threats.
So one can chose to believe that Fox News is completely oblivious on all fronts as to who they are linked to and their reporting is genuine on the mosque or maybe this is a completely manufactured outrage by repeating slogans. The first slogan of course is “mosque at Ground Zero” when it is actually two and a half blocks away and resembles nothing of a mosque. There are no golden domes or spiral minarets. This mosque is 13 floors and only the top two floors are devoted to prayer, the other floors contain things like a culinary school, art museum, swimming pool and basketball court, all open to the public. This is hardly the image drawn when people repeat over and over “Ground Zero Mosque” or “Mosque at Ground Zero”. The use of the word “at” in and of itself is deceptive. The Codoba House is near Ground Zero. Besides what this structure is, it is the right of every American to build whatever zoning laws will allow on their private property and it is their right to practice their faith wherever it is legal to do so. I think Ted Olson, the most famous 9-11 victim widower, said it best:
“Well it may not make me hap– popular with some people, but I think, probably, the president was right about this. I do believe that people of all religions have a right to build edifices, or structures, or places of religious worship or study where the community allows them to do it under zoning laws and that sort of thing, and that we don’t want to turn an act of hate against us by extremists into an act of intolerance for people of religious faith. And I don’t think it should be a political issue. It shouldn’t be a Republican or Democratic issue, either. I believe Gov. Christie from New Jersey said it well, that this should not be in that political, partisan marketplace.”
One needs to ask themselves is there now Muslim free zones in America? What does this mean for your religion, your race or your ethnicity? How can one defend the principles of liberty only for certain groups while ignoring them for others? The whole idea of having a Constitution is to provide blind justice, you are not convicted for the crimes of your father or in this case, you religion. The Constitution is not there to allow for an angry mob to decide one group can not exercise their rights, in fact, the Constitution was designed to protect the liberties of the minority from the majority. There are no Constitutional grounds to oppose this private property deal, on a lot that sat vacant since 9-11 with no takers mind you.
With all this being said, Constitutionalist who oppose the Codoba House usually do it on emotion alone. As a person once described as having a “high emotional motor” myself, I won’t fault anyone for that. Many people, even in the Neoconservative media have relented on any angle resembling defamation of our beloved Bill of Rights, and have moved more toward the sensitivity aspect. Ted Olson certainly doesn’t speak for all 9-11 victim families, but neither does Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. It would be great if sensible people could agree that the location selection for the Codoba House is legal, Constitutional but in poor taste and not use it as a national media jumping off point for a larger assault on 1.3 billion people’s religion. The fact that this could be a firestorm of controversy while everywhere you look fascists in government and the corporatocracy are robbing and slowly enslaving the people makes me worry about our priorities or if enough people actually understand the intersection of Islam and the collapse of our nation and the destruction of freedom we are seeing. The problem is that these repeated arguments and slogans against this Codoba House are not so much arguments as they are tactics. These tactics are starting to resemble the tactics used in the run up to Iraq. These tactics are based on a specious argument that often surfaces when discussing anything related to the Global War on Terror or Islam. I won’t attempt to coin a term here, but I will just say that this specific argument always revolve around two basic premises. They are as follows:
Since these are broad premises and segue into other even larger topics concerning the overall sacrifice of liberty for the hope of security, I hope you will check back for Part Two – Islam at the Gates and the end of the Republic.