Hat Tip to Ankle Biting Pundits for this one. To protect the WTC from liberal propoganda sign up here.

The NYTimes has an editorial out which codescendingly tells the families of the victims of 9-11 in the WTC that they are no longer welcomed in the 9-11 memorial effort. Why? Because they do not want the NYTimes’ partisan buddies to make a political statement against the US out of the 9-11 memorial.

For nearly four years now, the 9/11 families – those who lost immediate family members in that tragedy – have provided an inestimable service to this nation. They helped drive forward the inquiries of the Sept. 11 commission. They helped formulate any number of the projects being developed at ground zero. They have reminded us conscientiously of what was lost on that day.

But in the past few weeks, we’ve watched a handful of vocal family members, who may not represent a majority of 9/11 families, change the dynamic at the World Trade Center site for the worse. They have begun a movement to “take back the memorial,” which means, in essence, eventually purging ground zero of its cultural partners, including the International Freedom Center.

What has the NYTimes upset is the people who lost loved ones do not want their memories disparaged by leftward fringe politics. And so the NYTimes sees no more value in them – since their only value was apparently as political pawns anyway.

The World Trade Center site is of enormous importance to all New Yorkers, to all Americans and to people around the planet who have united to fight the insidious forces that led to 9/11.

The only problem is that the NYTimes, the Goerge Soroses, the liberal elite believe America and Conservatives are the ‘insidious forces’ that led to 9-11, and they planned to communicate that in their plans for the memorial. Look at how the NYTimes glosses over an obviously crude and uncaring piece of art that must have been quite despicable:

This protest resulted in a shocking response in late June from Gov. George Pataki. He openly joined the criticism of one of those institutions – the Drawing Center – for an exhibition that it sponsored, in another part of town, that contains controversial images of 9/11 and America’s role in the world.

I bet it was a controversial image the NYTimes and George Soros would love expanded and emphasized on the hallowed site of the WTC. Here is some indication of what these people see as art (verses their Walter Mitty fantasies)

It also followed Daily News disclosures that the other cultural institution planned for the site, the SoHo-based Drawing Center, had showcased art that attacked America’s war on terror, ridiculed the victims of terrorism and compared President Bush to terror mastermind Osama Bin Laden.

But back to the whiny NYTimes and their minority band of liberal complainers

Mr. Pataki’s job is to represent all those deeply interested parties. By attempting to appease one small, vocal group of protesters who are unlikely to be appeased anyway, he is abrogating the rights of everyone else.

Hmm. Kettle, meet Pot.

And a threat we should take them up on

There must be no mistake about this. If the Drawing Center is forced to withdraw from ground zero rather than accept the censorship of exhibitions that are yet to be imagined, no other respectable arts institution will take its place.

That’s OK with me. We don’t need some lunatic liberals trying to express their views on 9-11 for us. We can interpret the meaning of 9-11 just fine on our own.

What was offered as an open invitation to restore the artistic life of Lower Manhattan will have turned into an invitation to provide only the kind of cultural offerings that please a vocal group of people whose genuine grief has already taken on a sharply political edge. Those are unacceptable conditions that would undermine the very purpose of the arts.

Why does the NYTimes need to lie so poorly? They simply want a grand stage for their liberal fringe message to get out to the masses. And they are upset people who lost loved ones count more in the eyes of Americans than hyperventilating liberals on conspiracy binges.

If the International Freedom Center must continually bend over backward to placate a handful of angry family members, then all of its commitment to the conscience of that site, to what it can teach us about the character of freedom in the world, will have been compromised.

Translation: “We were looking forward to Bashing Bush and Conservatives and now we won’t be able to and its not fair [add a major pout]”

What we build at ground zero has to honor the memory of one terrible day in the history of America,

Translation: “And how George Bush brought that day upon us”

but it also has to belong to the future as well, a future as optimistic and forward-looking as we can imagine

Translation: “and allow us to promote liberal politicians and one day control the white house and congress and the courts – our uber fantasy”

It cannot be a place devoted entirely to death.

Translation: Who the hell knows? Its not planned to be a cemetary with tombstones. But it will be dominated by the memories of those who died there.

If ground zero is not a place of life and creativity, of true artistic and political freedom, then it will not be successful even as a place of grief.

So if you disagree with the NYTimes then you are not full of life and creativity. If you disagree with the NYTimes you are not truly artistic (which means you must be able to churn out anti-Bush pictures in photoshop). If you disagree with the NYTimes then you are against political freedom??? The Brits would call this holier than though attitude ‘awfully cheeky”.

The only grief I see is at the NYTimes because too many people disagree with them and they cannot express their hate of Bush and republicans. So sad.