The Mosque Mask: Why Neo-Cons are as bad their espoused Progressive enemies

I have been invited to groups on facebook, drawn into conversations with seemingly less-mature “conservative” thinkers, and generally annoyed by sycophantic apparatchiks on talk radio like Sean Hannity concerning this seemingly-pressing “controversy.” You all know to that which I refer, the “Ground Zero” mosque.

On a recent drive home from the firm I heard the “friend” of every caller, that “Great American,” railing on how, because the Imam who heads said mosque “refuses to condemn Hezbollah” and advocates “Sharia law compatibility” within the U.S., of course the mosque should be blocked by governmental force from being constructed and the Imam and his ilk should be investigated by “the F.B.I. and the Department of Homeland Security.” He went on to state that when a person’s intellectual positions pose a direct threat to, or fundamentally oppose, the Constitution or “the American way of life,” a similar fate should befall any such “enemy of the state.

Pardon my French, but WHAT THE HELL?

It is not that I am surprised by the GOP stooge’s response in this matter. However, I am utterly disappointed by the numerous callers who poured onto the lines to rally behind Hannity.

Ironically enough, the next segment Hannity went on to resume his critique of “Big Government” and its myriad ills. How can one mind be so contradictory and not explode?

However, back to Hannity’s argument. He honestly stated that, because Homeland Security had a standing investigation directed at the Imam, and because Hezbolllah is a “known terrorist entity,” and, ostensibly, the Imam supported that entity, the Imam was now subject to “common sense” curtailing of fundamental constitutional rights.

In short, because Hannity does not agree with the Imam, Hannity is in favor of governmental persecution of the man simply because of his objectionable stance.

The following are two arguments which need to, and have not been, posed to pinhead non-thinkers like Hannity and his Neo-Con friends.

1.

Thought, and almost always words, are not crimes. Thinking and speaking is all that has been asserted to be the extent of the Imam’s “crimes.” Despite Hannity’s contention to the contrary, the Imam’s words are not tantamount to “yelling fire in a crowded theater.”

It is well-established legal concept that for one to have committed an inchoate crime, i.e. conspiracy toward or attempted sedition/treason in this case, one must make a substantial step or actually agree to commit such an act with others, in order for a crime to have been committed.

Said commission of crime is the only auspices upon which one can have his liberty to think and speak as he chooses curtailed. Simply put, the concept advanced by Hannity, et al. is the quintessential “slippery slope.”

Ironically, Hannity often rails against the much-feared “fairness doctrine,” and goes on and on about how such legislation would only stand as a thinly-veiled attempt by his detractors to “shut him up.” More often than not, he then wraps himself in the American Flag and speaks with a cracking voice about how political disagreement and debate stand at the bedrock of American society.

It seems as if, on this one issue and many others (can you say Patriot Act?), Neo-Cons and Progressives are on the same page. The only constant thread remaining amongst the two groups being BIG GOVERNMENT TRAMPLING UPON THE CONSTITUTION FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER!

2.

Has it been that long that Hannity and his ilk have forgotten their “outrage” at the same Department of Homeland Security lionized in this instance? Remember M.I.A.C.? It seems as if Mr. Hannity must, to remain consistent, approve of the censorship and labeling as “terrorists” Tea Party goers, libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and even returning veterans.

Should the Tea Parties be investigated for their links to right-wing “extremist” terrorist entities? Should their right to disagree and perhaps even to own property be curtailed, because some find them dangerous?

I am sure the much-maligned Progressives find the bulk of Hannity's political stances to pose just as substantial a threat to the American way of life.

That is precisely the reason one does not advocate the intervention of Big Brother into any disagreement. Unless of course, you are statist authoritarian piece of human refuse, as I wholly suspect you are.

So, what lesson are we to take from this whole distraction? If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas; and, if our Republic is to stand we need to watch with whom and for what reasons we advocate that which we do. If you got a problem, pick up a marker and poster board and tell someone, but don’t sell your eternal rights for the momentary thrill of frustrating your enemies