The problem is not the cost of homes any longer. The heart of the problem lies in the fact that people can no longer afford homes. For most.. it doesn't matter what we do in financing. This program, and any other, will not help housing recover. The problem we face is now almost entirely linked to jobs and not just any jobs but higher paying jobs. People need the income to purchase without a lot of gimmicks. These proposals are, at best, are a temporary fix for a few.
The proposal isn't taking into account the reason people are not buying homes, or any kind of real estate. There are terrific bargains out there but if you don't have a job and your credit is ruined, how are you going to buy anything? Reducing the cost of purchasing doesn't fix the underlying problem. It doesn't offer you a job.
The way out of this depression is through re-building our economic base for all Americans. We have to create good paying jobs that will stabilize the lives of most Americans. In other words, we have to rebuild our manufacturing....we have to rebuild the country. This means that we have to get all those companies that have out sourced jobs and plants to bring them home again. The way that we do that is to have a crisis summit and lay on the table the dire situation we are in and that the burden most be shared by everyone. Sacrifice is the word. We can't provide all the perks these people have enjoyed and save the country.
We are at a time when this country will survive and remain strong, or others will take our place. We need all of the above plus a HUGE endeavor placed properly on education. The truth is we have failed miserably in educating our people. The educational system has to be completely over-hauled by those who realize it is not doing the job. Our educational system is a complete failure.
In short we need good paying jobs and a well educated citizen.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Politics and Religion
George,
You are right, he hasn't changed much, or even attempted the kind of changes we need. The fundamental problems still exist. He has managed to get a few things done but he certainly hasn't brought about a change in the cultural and political attitudes in Washington. He's a politician like all the rest. What we need is someone who is willing to be a patriot, in leu of another word, who is willing to put the country first and the hell with a second term, or politics.
Of course a lot of the blame falls on us because "we the people" have been so damned complacent that we have let it happen. We are the cause of jobs fleeing this country and the corruption in Washington because we haven't been involved. Now in the computer age we realized just how stupid we are. We don't research anything, or even get involved in what is happening in our local government.
People out there in cyper-space have been able to create a world that doesn't exist with false emails and religion. Pass this on and if you do it in 30 seconds you'll be enriched! They pass it on do because that's what God wants. How stupid is that? Or, snopes checked these out and the world will end next week....pass it along....don't check it out yourself pas it along.
If there is to be an Armageddon it's quite clear that we'll bring it on ourselves because we don't think. We seem to forget that we have been given the ability to think, reason and resolved difficult problems and more importantly the nature of the majority of the world's population is based on peace, The basis of most, if not all of the world's religions in love. God is Love..right?
We're all being played and we're dancing to the tune of unscrupulous people. The worst possible combination is the miss-use of religion and politics. If you can join those two together you can control a nation.
Think about it...God wanted to destroy New Orleans because of the sinners. No, God, if you believe in God doesn't want to bring misery and destruction upon his children.
I think the answer is that we need to maybe practice what has been preached to us all of our lives, tolerance and a desire to make peace. That's a religious tenant and common sense. We haven't a lot of time to wake up. It is time to be peace-makers first within this nation and then we can try to export that as much as possible.
We are worshipping the Golden Calf [big time] and our words are designed to destroy not to heal or find common ground. We are the problem and it is important that we listen carefully to those who propose CHANGE and a better life for us all, especially when they deem themselves the chosen ones, the patriots, and use religion to sanctify what they politically proclaim.
Our long lived political parties are corrupted and our newest endeavor is already infiltrated by special interests. Our only chance of bringing about real change and attacking corruption is to open the political discourse to everyone and not just the few chosen. We need to forget our once devotion to a political party and unite in solving our problems, otherwise we are doomed and we will have to face the fact that we are broken beyond saving.
Change must mean the end of corruption and those who brought us to this place need to be imprisoned. Their ill gotten gains stripped from them. We either are devoted to this nation or we are not. We must first serve the American people and protect them. If we are willing to dilute this nation of it's wealth by unscrupulous means for our own benefit then that is treason in my mind.
E. Hatton
You are right, he hasn't changed much, or even attempted the kind of changes we need. The fundamental problems still exist. He has managed to get a few things done but he certainly hasn't brought about a change in the cultural and political attitudes in Washington. He's a politician like all the rest. What we need is someone who is willing to be a patriot, in leu of another word, who is willing to put the country first and the hell with a second term, or politics.
Of course a lot of the blame falls on us because "we the people" have been so damned complacent that we have let it happen. We are the cause of jobs fleeing this country and the corruption in Washington because we haven't been involved. Now in the computer age we realized just how stupid we are. We don't research anything, or even get involved in what is happening in our local government.
People out there in cyper-space have been able to create a world that doesn't exist with false emails and religion. Pass this on and if you do it in 30 seconds you'll be enriched! They pass it on do because that's what God wants. How stupid is that? Or, snopes checked these out and the world will end next week....pass it along....don't check it out yourself pas it along.
If there is to be an Armageddon it's quite clear that we'll bring it on ourselves because we don't think. We seem to forget that we have been given the ability to think, reason and resolved difficult problems and more importantly the nature of the majority of the world's population is based on peace, The basis of most, if not all of the world's religions in love. God is Love..right?
We're all being played and we're dancing to the tune of unscrupulous people. The worst possible combination is the miss-use of religion and politics. If you can join those two together you can control a nation.
Think about it...God wanted to destroy New Orleans because of the sinners. No, God, if you believe in God doesn't want to bring misery and destruction upon his children.
I think the answer is that we need to maybe practice what has been preached to us all of our lives, tolerance and a desire to make peace. That's a religious tenant and common sense. We haven't a lot of time to wake up. It is time to be peace-makers first within this nation and then we can try to export that as much as possible.
We are worshipping the Golden Calf [big time] and our words are designed to destroy not to heal or find common ground. We are the problem and it is important that we listen carefully to those who propose CHANGE and a better life for us all, especially when they deem themselves the chosen ones, the patriots, and use religion to sanctify what they politically proclaim.
Our long lived political parties are corrupted and our newest endeavor is already infiltrated by special interests. Our only chance of bringing about real change and attacking corruption is to open the political discourse to everyone and not just the few chosen. We need to forget our once devotion to a political party and unite in solving our problems, otherwise we are doomed and we will have to face the fact that we are broken beyond saving.
Change must mean the end of corruption and those who brought us to this place need to be imprisoned. Their ill gotten gains stripped from them. We either are devoted to this nation or we are not. We must first serve the American people and protect them. If we are willing to dilute this nation of it's wealth by unscrupulous means for our own benefit then that is treason in my mind.
E. Hatton
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Republicans must now make a Hard Choice
We now have three strong parties, or perhaps only two. It depends on who takes over or the once fiscally responsible Republican Party.
Is there room for the grand old party and the Tea Party under the Republican tent? Not a chance! This November is going to be far more interesting than any of us ever thought.
Is there room for the grand old party and the Tea Party under the Republican tent? Not a chance! This November is going to be far more interesting than any of us ever thought.
Republican and Democratic Ideology
What we are witnessing is an all out battle between the Republicans ideology and Democratic ideology. The ideologies have become more important than examining the results to see if the ideologies work.
The Republican ideology is a belief in hard core capitalism because all business will supposedly prosper under completely free market capitalism, and a social safety net provided by government becomes unnecessary as all citizens benefit from the general prosperity.
The Democrat ideology is not socialist, but is a modified version of capitalism wherein totally free market capitalism needs to be monitored by government to make sure that powerful business interests do not hijack the society as they acquire greater and greater economic power, and become indifferent to the fact that prosperity is not actually shared by all, and that without a government managed social safety net, a great many people will suffer badly.
In short, the differences between Republican and Democratic ideologies is not so much about a belief in capitalism, but a belief in the need for a social safety net to protect citizens when capitalism results in a suffering ... and sometimes exploited ... economic underclass. Argue as you wish about specific policy proposals on how to best make capitalism work, the bottom line is that the argument is less about capitalism and more about government providing the social safety net.
The Republicans hate the social safety net believing it is not necessary and is an unfair forced reallocation of hard earned profits. The Democrats believe the social safety net is a compassionate necessity because uncontrolled capitalism generally results in the rich and powerful gathering more and more power and wealth while remaining indifferent to the grief of those who are not able to participate in the prosperity.
Dr. Krugman, in his editorial "Things Could Be Worse", speaks from the Democrat point of view. When comparing the US to Japan, he is merely reiterating his belief that pursuing the Republican ideology, especially at this moment of economic crisis when it might not be wise to adhere to hard core ideologies, could be a mistake that would lead the US into a future that is far worse than what befell Japan.
It is a shame that Republicans and some Democrats can be so hard wired to their ideologies that they can not let go of them in order to seek some compromise middle road based on the facts on the ground rather blindly adhering to ideological formulas. But, such is politics and the stubbornness of human nature. It is good that Dr. Krugman points out the risks present in this exceptional time of economic crisis, and suggests that wiser heads hopefully might prevail.
G.Ryan
The Republican ideology is a belief in hard core capitalism because all business will supposedly prosper under completely free market capitalism, and a social safety net provided by government becomes unnecessary as all citizens benefit from the general prosperity.
The Democrat ideology is not socialist, but is a modified version of capitalism wherein totally free market capitalism needs to be monitored by government to make sure that powerful business interests do not hijack the society as they acquire greater and greater economic power, and become indifferent to the fact that prosperity is not actually shared by all, and that without a government managed social safety net, a great many people will suffer badly.
In short, the differences between Republican and Democratic ideologies is not so much about a belief in capitalism, but a belief in the need for a social safety net to protect citizens when capitalism results in a suffering ... and sometimes exploited ... economic underclass. Argue as you wish about specific policy proposals on how to best make capitalism work, the bottom line is that the argument is less about capitalism and more about government providing the social safety net.
The Republicans hate the social safety net believing it is not necessary and is an unfair forced reallocation of hard earned profits. The Democrats believe the social safety net is a compassionate necessity because uncontrolled capitalism generally results in the rich and powerful gathering more and more power and wealth while remaining indifferent to the grief of those who are not able to participate in the prosperity.
Dr. Krugman, in his editorial "Things Could Be Worse", speaks from the Democrat point of view. When comparing the US to Japan, he is merely reiterating his belief that pursuing the Republican ideology, especially at this moment of economic crisis when it might not be wise to adhere to hard core ideologies, could be a mistake that would lead the US into a future that is far worse than what befell Japan.
It is a shame that Republicans and some Democrats can be so hard wired to their ideologies that they can not let go of them in order to seek some compromise middle road based on the facts on the ground rather blindly adhering to ideological formulas. But, such is politics and the stubbornness of human nature. It is good that Dr. Krugman points out the risks present in this exceptional time of economic crisis, and suggests that wiser heads hopefully might prevail.
G.Ryan
Monday, September 6, 2010
Thoughts
"These are times that trouble men's souls" - Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776
Although those familiar words were written in 1776, they have meaningful application in contemporary America as she struggles on the domestic and international scenes. Our nation suffers from an un-transparent, inexperienced president and an impotent Congress. As a result of their collective domestic and foreign failures, America's future, quite literally, swings in the wind.
These times do not offer us the luxury of continuing ideological battles between the two political parties at the peril of our national interests. These are times that demand intense planning, discussion and action. For too long, we have listened to the extreme conservatives who demanded less government when they should have been about the business of fixing the government that we have. For too long, we have listened to the extreme liberals who demanded that government fix everything when they, too, should have been about the business of fixing government.
The voting public must insist that these two political groups abide by higher standards of conduct. These times are much too turbulent, and the consequences too dire to allow for business as usual. The Republicans and Democrats must be told by the American people to reign in their extremist rhetoric and let them know that this November 2010 election is much too important for childish, schoolyard antics. Hopefully, the winning candidates will be the ones who take the high road - the ones who earn our votes, rather than the ones who engage in sleaze campaigning.
The stakes are too high. The consequences of inaction and triviality are frighteningly unimaginable. These are, for sure, critical times which try the souls of men and women - times which can make America victorious in its struggle or ensure its further decline. I would like to have every confidence that we will do the former ... but as a realist, not a pessimist, I do not.
G. Ryan
Although those familiar words were written in 1776, they have meaningful application in contemporary America as she struggles on the domestic and international scenes. Our nation suffers from an un-transparent, inexperienced president and an impotent Congress. As a result of their collective domestic and foreign failures, America's future, quite literally, swings in the wind.
These times do not offer us the luxury of continuing ideological battles between the two political parties at the peril of our national interests. These are times that demand intense planning, discussion and action. For too long, we have listened to the extreme conservatives who demanded less government when they should have been about the business of fixing the government that we have. For too long, we have listened to the extreme liberals who demanded that government fix everything when they, too, should have been about the business of fixing government.
The voting public must insist that these two political groups abide by higher standards of conduct. These times are much too turbulent, and the consequences too dire to allow for business as usual. The Republicans and Democrats must be told by the American people to reign in their extremist rhetoric and let them know that this November 2010 election is much too important for childish, schoolyard antics. Hopefully, the winning candidates will be the ones who take the high road - the ones who earn our votes, rather than the ones who engage in sleaze campaigning.
The stakes are too high. The consequences of inaction and triviality are frighteningly unimaginable. These are, for sure, critical times which try the souls of men and women - times which can make America victorious in its struggle or ensure its further decline. I would like to have every confidence that we will do the former ... but as a realist, not a pessimist, I do not.
G. Ryan
Friday, September 3, 2010
Iraq; Is it really over?
You might have thought the Iraq war was over after listening to President Obama on Tuesday.
Eager to unload the albatross he inherited, Obama proclaimed that the American combat mission had ended. "We have met our responsibility, ... Now it is time to turn the page."
Would that it were so easy. The Iraq struggle has not yet ended; it is only entering a new phase. We will be ensnared in the legacy of this war long after our combat troops leave.
Indeed, there was an oddly static quality to Obama's remarks on the Iraq war. He didn't talk of the past seven years of struggle or the flawed Bush administration policies that led to Iraq's near-implosion.
As for the future, he touched on plans for "long-term partnership" with Iraq and greater diplomatic involvement. But he did not explain what this will mean or promote the idea to the public.
The president knows Americans are weary of the Iraq war; polls show they don't think it was worth fighting. So his emphasis was on moving on.
I can understand Obama's reluctance to reopen partisan wounds over the Iraq issue; to the contrary, he stressed he had phoned President George W. Bush on the day of the speech, and repeatedly praised the service of our troops. But the past seven years of war can't be airbrushed away, even if many Americans would like that. We have to digest the meaning of this tragic encounter, which will continue to haunt us and Iraqis as well.
Ironically, some Republicans criticized Obama for not giving Bush credit for the troop surge that helped halt Iraq's sectarian fighting. But Obama could not have invoked the surge without revisiting the errors that led to the war's inception. Nor can the surge obscure the Bush White House's arrogant mismanagement of the postwar period, which caused hideous suffering for Iraqis and loss of life for our troops.
Yes, the surge - or, more correctly, the strategy of General David Petraeus and key officers - helped stop Iraq's civil war. But the Bush team's predictions about the war's strategic benefits for us and the region proved dangerously wrong.
Bush administration officials insisted that Saddam Hussein's fall would usher in a new era of democracy in the Middle East. Iran's theocracy would be the next domino to fall, and Arab-Israeli peace would follow.
Instead, postwar chaos in Iraq soiled democracy's name in the region. Autocracy remains triumphant. Iraq is a democracy in name, yet five months after elections, its sectarian factions can't form a government.
Meantime, the elimination of Saddam Hussein left Iran the strongest power in the region, and its influence has grown steadily over the past seven years. The Mideast peace process froze, and it is being revived - barely - only this week.
Given U.S. failures in postwar Iraq, American competence and capacity are in question throughout the Middle East and beyond. Our influence in this critical region is waning, which hurts our ability to promote Mideast peace talks and deal with Iran.
In Iraq, we spent ... and wasted ... billions, yet Iraqi infrastructure remains broken. The most visible symptom of failure: Electricity is delivered only a few hours a day as temperatures hit 120 degrees.
Although violence is down, Iraq's educated middle class has been decimated. At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since we invaded, and millions more are still refugees. Iraqi women were once the most advanced in the region, but their position has grown much worse.
The American impulse, as reflected in Obama's speech, will be to move on, especially given our own economic problems and our commitment in Afghanistan. Yet - although Iraq is very much Bush's war, and its tragedies his responsibility - Obama can't turn the page. The next phase of Iraq's struggle will happen on his watch.
Iraq's future is uncertain, but we can still play an important role there, devoid of past illusions. We should commit wholeheartedly to the long-term civilian partnership we've signed on to, but which Congress may be reluctant to fund. If Iraqis want us to keep some troops there after 2011, we should do so to prevent a power vacuum that others will fill.
We have a strategic interest in ensuring Iraq doesn't sink back into chaos or dictatorship. But we also have a moral duty. We owe it to 4,400 dead U.S. troops and untold thousands of slain Iraqis to keep trying to make the country whole.
G. Ryan
Eager to unload the albatross he inherited, Obama proclaimed that the American combat mission had ended. "We have met our responsibility, ... Now it is time to turn the page."
Would that it were so easy. The Iraq struggle has not yet ended; it is only entering a new phase. We will be ensnared in the legacy of this war long after our combat troops leave.
Indeed, there was an oddly static quality to Obama's remarks on the Iraq war. He didn't talk of the past seven years of struggle or the flawed Bush administration policies that led to Iraq's near-implosion.
As for the future, he touched on plans for "long-term partnership" with Iraq and greater diplomatic involvement. But he did not explain what this will mean or promote the idea to the public.
The president knows Americans are weary of the Iraq war; polls show they don't think it was worth fighting. So his emphasis was on moving on.
I can understand Obama's reluctance to reopen partisan wounds over the Iraq issue; to the contrary, he stressed he had phoned President George W. Bush on the day of the speech, and repeatedly praised the service of our troops. But the past seven years of war can't be airbrushed away, even if many Americans would like that. We have to digest the meaning of this tragic encounter, which will continue to haunt us and Iraqis as well.
Ironically, some Republicans criticized Obama for not giving Bush credit for the troop surge that helped halt Iraq's sectarian fighting. But Obama could not have invoked the surge without revisiting the errors that led to the war's inception. Nor can the surge obscure the Bush White House's arrogant mismanagement of the postwar period, which caused hideous suffering for Iraqis and loss of life for our troops.
Yes, the surge - or, more correctly, the strategy of General David Petraeus and key officers - helped stop Iraq's civil war. But the Bush team's predictions about the war's strategic benefits for us and the region proved dangerously wrong.
Bush administration officials insisted that Saddam Hussein's fall would usher in a new era of democracy in the Middle East. Iran's theocracy would be the next domino to fall, and Arab-Israeli peace would follow.
Instead, postwar chaos in Iraq soiled democracy's name in the region. Autocracy remains triumphant. Iraq is a democracy in name, yet five months after elections, its sectarian factions can't form a government.
Meantime, the elimination of Saddam Hussein left Iran the strongest power in the region, and its influence has grown steadily over the past seven years. The Mideast peace process froze, and it is being revived - barely - only this week.
Given U.S. failures in postwar Iraq, American competence and capacity are in question throughout the Middle East and beyond. Our influence in this critical region is waning, which hurts our ability to promote Mideast peace talks and deal with Iran.
In Iraq, we spent ... and wasted ... billions, yet Iraqi infrastructure remains broken. The most visible symptom of failure: Electricity is delivered only a few hours a day as temperatures hit 120 degrees.
Although violence is down, Iraq's educated middle class has been decimated. At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since we invaded, and millions more are still refugees. Iraqi women were once the most advanced in the region, but their position has grown much worse.
The American impulse, as reflected in Obama's speech, will be to move on, especially given our own economic problems and our commitment in Afghanistan. Yet - although Iraq is very much Bush's war, and its tragedies his responsibility - Obama can't turn the page. The next phase of Iraq's struggle will happen on his watch.
Iraq's future is uncertain, but we can still play an important role there, devoid of past illusions. We should commit wholeheartedly to the long-term civilian partnership we've signed on to, but which Congress may be reluctant to fund. If Iraqis want us to keep some troops there after 2011, we should do so to prevent a power vacuum that others will fill.
We have a strategic interest in ensuring Iraq doesn't sink back into chaos or dictatorship. But we also have a moral duty. We owe it to 4,400 dead U.S. troops and untold thousands of slain Iraqis to keep trying to make the country whole.
G. Ryan
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Should Obama's Religion Matter?
Should Barack Obama's religion matter as U. S. President?
From the onset of his bid for President, Barack Obama was inundated with questions about his faith. The controversial sermons of President Obama’s former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the claims that Obama is a Muslim, at times, gained more attention and public scrutiny than his political ideology.
While Obama’s religion was a hot-button topic during the 2008 presidential campaign, one must wonder if his religious preference should matter now that he is President? To find the answer to this question, one must examine the laws and ideas on which the United States was founded.
The Requirements to Be a U.S. President: The Constitution of the United States only provides three specific requirements for someone to be President. One must be a natural-born U.S. citizen, either born in the U.S., or born abroad to parents who are both U.S. citizens. Also, one must be thirty-five years of age. Lastly, one must be a resident of the U.S. for fourteen years. Among these tenants there is no mention of a religious qualification.
The First Amendment: This constitutional amendment establishes two key points with regard to whether a President’s religious preference should matter.
First, the “Establishment Clause,” which prevents the Federal Government from establishing a national religion, or favoring one religion over another.
Second, the “Free Exercise Clause” which states that the government cannot infringe upon anyone’s right to believe in a religion. The government also cannot impede on one’s free practice of a religion, so long as its practices do not violate any other laws.
Article VI, Section III: In addition to the presidential requirements, and the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion, Article VI, Section III of the United States Constitution delves further into the topic of religion in politics. It states that no religious test will ever be used as a means of qualifying someone to hold a political office in the U.S.
Separation of Church and State: Many of the United States’ founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, wrote on the the idea of the separation of church and state. They called for a complete separation, wall, or line placed between religion and the government of the United States.
What Does This Mean?
Based on the founding principles of the United States and more importantly, its laws, the question as to whether Barack Obama’s religion should matter as President can be summed up in a word: NO. The Framers of the Constitution were very clear that religion and politics should not intermingle. The Federal Government does not require a President to have a particular religion, nor can it require any religious test as a requirement for office. The Constitution of the United States is also clear that individuals have freedom of religion, and that they have the freedom to practice their religion, so long as that practice does not break any other laws.
Many argue that the United States was founded upon Christian principles, therefore, the Commander in Chief should be a Christian. However, the Framers intentionally excluded religious requirements. The United States is founded on the principles of freedom and democracy, so requiring a President to practice a particular faith would mean imposing certain beliefs on others. These beliefs would also be reflected in laws and executive decisions, creating bias, and disaffecting those without the same beliefs.
President Barack Obama is a self-professed Christian, but based on the laws and principles of the United States, it would not matter if he was a Muslim, Jew, or worshiped blades of grass. The President of the United States is elected by the people, to represent the people. He should be objective and unbiased in all of his decisions, and his religious preference should matter about as much as his choice of Oval Office carpet.
Just prior to the South Carolina primary, Barack Obama answered questions from a group of Evangelicals (January 23, 2008). One of the questions asked and answered was:
"You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?"
"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.
There is one thing that I want to mention that I think is important. Part of what we've been seeing during the course of this campaign is some scurrilous e-mails that have been sent out, denying my faith, talking about me being a Muslim, suggesting that I got sworn in at the U.S. Senate with a Quran in my hand or that I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. I think it's really important for your readers to know that I have been a member of the same church for almost 20 years, and I have never practiced Islam. I am respectful of the religion, but it's not my own. One of the things that's very important in this day and age is that we don't use religion as a political tool and certainly that we don't lie about religion as a way to score political points. I just thought it was important to get that in there to dispel rumors that have been over the Internet. We've done so repeatedly, but obviously it's a political tactic of somebody to try to provide this misinformation."
Don, unless someone of high repute can document in some form or fashion that Barack Obama is a "closet Muslim" and can prove that "once a Muslim, always a Muslim' "fits", in this instance anyway, the only legitimate criticism we can lay on him is that he is the most liberal Democrat to ever hold the hold of U.S. President.
The main problem, as I see it, is one of religious fatalism, ignorance, and narrow mindedness on the part of too many Christian zealots.
To use a well-worn quote that applies to both Barack Obama and to this issue: “Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold -- but so does a hard-boiled egg.”
Alexander Hamilton said: "The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right."
Don, if we are to judge President Obama, then we must judge him on his actions, not his intentions; on his deeds, not on his words.
by G. Ryan
From the onset of his bid for President, Barack Obama was inundated with questions about his faith. The controversial sermons of President Obama’s former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the claims that Obama is a Muslim, at times, gained more attention and public scrutiny than his political ideology.
While Obama’s religion was a hot-button topic during the 2008 presidential campaign, one must wonder if his religious preference should matter now that he is President? To find the answer to this question, one must examine the laws and ideas on which the United States was founded.
The Requirements to Be a U.S. President: The Constitution of the United States only provides three specific requirements for someone to be President. One must be a natural-born U.S. citizen, either born in the U.S., or born abroad to parents who are both U.S. citizens. Also, one must be thirty-five years of age. Lastly, one must be a resident of the U.S. for fourteen years. Among these tenants there is no mention of a religious qualification.
The First Amendment: This constitutional amendment establishes two key points with regard to whether a President’s religious preference should matter.
First, the “Establishment Clause,” which prevents the Federal Government from establishing a national religion, or favoring one religion over another.
Second, the “Free Exercise Clause” which states that the government cannot infringe upon anyone’s right to believe in a religion. The government also cannot impede on one’s free practice of a religion, so long as its practices do not violate any other laws.
Article VI, Section III: In addition to the presidential requirements, and the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion, Article VI, Section III of the United States Constitution delves further into the topic of religion in politics. It states that no religious test will ever be used as a means of qualifying someone to hold a political office in the U.S.
Separation of Church and State: Many of the United States’ founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, wrote on the the idea of the separation of church and state. They called for a complete separation, wall, or line placed between religion and the government of the United States.
What Does This Mean?
Based on the founding principles of the United States and more importantly, its laws, the question as to whether Barack Obama’s religion should matter as President can be summed up in a word: NO. The Framers of the Constitution were very clear that religion and politics should not intermingle. The Federal Government does not require a President to have a particular religion, nor can it require any religious test as a requirement for office. The Constitution of the United States is also clear that individuals have freedom of religion, and that they have the freedom to practice their religion, so long as that practice does not break any other laws.
Many argue that the United States was founded upon Christian principles, therefore, the Commander in Chief should be a Christian. However, the Framers intentionally excluded religious requirements. The United States is founded on the principles of freedom and democracy, so requiring a President to practice a particular faith would mean imposing certain beliefs on others. These beliefs would also be reflected in laws and executive decisions, creating bias, and disaffecting those without the same beliefs.
President Barack Obama is a self-professed Christian, but based on the laws and principles of the United States, it would not matter if he was a Muslim, Jew, or worshiped blades of grass. The President of the United States is elected by the people, to represent the people. He should be objective and unbiased in all of his decisions, and his religious preference should matter about as much as his choice of Oval Office carpet.
Just prior to the South Carolina primary, Barack Obama answered questions from a group of Evangelicals (January 23, 2008). One of the questions asked and answered was:
"You've talked about your experience walking down the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ, and kneeling beneath the cross, having your sins redeemed, and submitting to God's will. Would you describe that as a conversion? Do you consider yourself born again?"
"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.
There is one thing that I want to mention that I think is important. Part of what we've been seeing during the course of this campaign is some scurrilous e-mails that have been sent out, denying my faith, talking about me being a Muslim, suggesting that I got sworn in at the U.S. Senate with a Quran in my hand or that I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. I think it's really important for your readers to know that I have been a member of the same church for almost 20 years, and I have never practiced Islam. I am respectful of the religion, but it's not my own. One of the things that's very important in this day and age is that we don't use religion as a political tool and certainly that we don't lie about religion as a way to score political points. I just thought it was important to get that in there to dispel rumors that have been over the Internet. We've done so repeatedly, but obviously it's a political tactic of somebody to try to provide this misinformation."
Don, unless someone of high repute can document in some form or fashion that Barack Obama is a "closet Muslim" and can prove that "once a Muslim, always a Muslim' "fits", in this instance anyway, the only legitimate criticism we can lay on him is that he is the most liberal Democrat to ever hold the hold of U.S. President.
The main problem, as I see it, is one of religious fatalism, ignorance, and narrow mindedness on the part of too many Christian zealots.
To use a well-worn quote that applies to both Barack Obama and to this issue: “Remember, people will judge you by your actions, not your intentions. You may have a heart of gold -- but so does a hard-boiled egg.”
Alexander Hamilton said: "The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and, however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true to fact. The people are turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right."
Don, if we are to judge President Obama, then we must judge him on his actions, not his intentions; on his deeds, not on his words.
by G. Ryan
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Think about this!
When NASA began the launch of astronauts into space, they found out that the pens wouldn't work at zero gravity ... ink won't flow down to the writing surface. In order to solve this problem, they hired Andersen Consulting - Accenture today. It took them one decade and $12 million. They developed a pen that worked at zero gravity, upside down, underwater, in practically any surface including crystal and in a temperature range from below freezing to over 300 degrees C.
And what did Russians do?? The Russians used a pencil!!!
People need to learn to focus on solutions not on problems. If you look at what you do not have in life, you don't have anything. If you look at what you have in life, you have everything. Yet someone once said: "Focus on problem leads to inventions and focus on solution leads to discoveries."
G. Ryan
And what did Russians do?? The Russians used a pencil!!!
People need to learn to focus on solutions not on problems. If you look at what you do not have in life, you don't have anything. If you look at what you have in life, you have everything. Yet someone once said: "Focus on problem leads to inventions and focus on solution leads to discoveries."
G. Ryan
Monday, August 23, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Cultural Center and Mosque
My view by George Ryan
Not all Muslims are Jihadists, Terrorists, Fanatics, and "Death-to-America" ranters. I'll admit it is difficult to pick out those from the Muslim silent majority who SHOULD stand up and be counted, but that is not their way (and they don't want their relatives and other family members killed for doing it).
For thousands of families, Ground Zero in southern Manhattan is holy ground. Thousands lost someone they love in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, and hundreds of thousands know someone who was directly or indirectly scarred by the collapse of the World Trade Center. The emotional investment in Ground Zero cannot be overestimated.
That is precisely why Ground Zero must be open to the religious expression of all people whose lives were scarred by the tragedy: Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, and more. And Muslims.
No one knows how many Muslims died on 9/11, but they number in the hundreds. One was Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New York City police cadet, emergency medical technician and medical student. When Salman disappeared on September 11, law enforcement officials who knew of his Islamic faith sought him out among his family to question him about the attacks. His family lived with the onus of suspicion for six months until Salman’s body was identified. He was found near the North Tower with his EMT bag beside him, situated where he could help people in need.
The point of this now famous story is simple. Not every Muslim at Ground Zero was a terrorist, and not every Muslim was a hero. The vast majority were like thousands of others on September 11: victims of one of the most heinous events of our times.
But for the family of Salman Hamdani and millions of innocent Muslims, the tragedy has been exacerbated by the fact that so many of the rest of us have formed our opinions about them out of prejudice and ignorance of the Muslim faith.
It is that narrow-minded intolerance that has led to the outcry against the building of Cordoba House and Mosque near Ground Zero. It is the same ignorance that has led many to the outrageous conclusion that all Muslims advocate hatred and violence against non-Muslims. It is the same ignorance that has led to hate crime and systematic discrimination against Muslims, and to calls to burn the Qur’an.
They want to build Cordoba House as a living monument to mark the tragedy of 9/11 through a community center dedicated to learning, compassion, and respect for all people. The alternative to that is to engage in a bigotry that will scar our generation in the same way as bigotry scarred our forebears.
Three-hundred years ago, European settlers came to these shores with a determination to conquer and settle at the expense of millions of indigenous peoples who were regarded as sub-human savages. Today, we can’t look back on that history without painful contrition.
One-hundred and fifty years ago, white Americans subjugated black Africans in a cruel slavery that was justified with Bible proof-texts and a belief that blacks were inferior to whites. Today, we look back on that history with agonized disbelief.
Sixty years ago, in a time of war and great fear, tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans were deprived of their property and forced into detention camps because our grandparents feared everyone of Japanese ancestry. Today that decision is universally regarded as an unconscionable mistake and a blot on American history.
Today, millions of Muslims are subjected to thoughtless generalizations, open discrimination and outright hostility because of the actions of a tiny minority whose violent acts defy the teachings of Mohammed.
How will we explain our ignorance and our compliance to our grandchildren?
It’s time to turn away from ignorance and hatred. It is tearing this nation apart.
As I wrote in an earlier message, I've read several PRO and CON points of view on the Cordoba House Project. While I personally feel it is a bit insensitive to build an Islamic Cultural Center within the 9/11 destruction zone, they have a right to build there. However, my MAJOR issue with all this right now is that political and mob rule mentality mishandling of this issue has reached the point of asinine. This project could have ... and SHOULD have ... been handled much better and smarter than it was. Christian fanaticism on this issue has reached a point of stupidity and narrow-mindedness. Until cooler heads prevail and the political beings and mob rule mentality fade away, EVERYONE directly involved in this project should lay low before irreparable repercussions occur and serious and sustained animosity amongst Muslims and non-Muslims results. New York City can handle this issue without outside intervention.
Not all Muslims are Jihadists, Terrorists, Fanatics, and "Death-to-America" ranters. I'll admit it is difficult to pick out those from the Muslim silent majority who SHOULD stand up and be counted, but that is not their way (and they don't want their relatives and other family members killed for doing it).
For thousands of families, Ground Zero in southern Manhattan is holy ground. Thousands lost someone they love in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, and hundreds of thousands know someone who was directly or indirectly scarred by the collapse of the World Trade Center. The emotional investment in Ground Zero cannot be overestimated.
That is precisely why Ground Zero must be open to the religious expression of all people whose lives were scarred by the tragedy: Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, and more. And Muslims.
No one knows how many Muslims died on 9/11, but they number in the hundreds. One was Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New York City police cadet, emergency medical technician and medical student. When Salman disappeared on September 11, law enforcement officials who knew of his Islamic faith sought him out among his family to question him about the attacks. His family lived with the onus of suspicion for six months until Salman’s body was identified. He was found near the North Tower with his EMT bag beside him, situated where he could help people in need.
The point of this now famous story is simple. Not every Muslim at Ground Zero was a terrorist, and not every Muslim was a hero. The vast majority were like thousands of others on September 11: victims of one of the most heinous events of our times.
But for the family of Salman Hamdani and millions of innocent Muslims, the tragedy has been exacerbated by the fact that so many of the rest of us have formed our opinions about them out of prejudice and ignorance of the Muslim faith.
It is that narrow-minded intolerance that has led to the outcry against the building of Cordoba House and Mosque near Ground Zero. It is the same ignorance that has led many to the outrageous conclusion that all Muslims advocate hatred and violence against non-Muslims. It is the same ignorance that has led to hate crime and systematic discrimination against Muslims, and to calls to burn the Qur’an.
They want to build Cordoba House as a living monument to mark the tragedy of 9/11 through a community center dedicated to learning, compassion, and respect for all people. The alternative to that is to engage in a bigotry that will scar our generation in the same way as bigotry scarred our forebears.
Three-hundred years ago, European settlers came to these shores with a determination to conquer and settle at the expense of millions of indigenous peoples who were regarded as sub-human savages. Today, we can’t look back on that history without painful contrition.
One-hundred and fifty years ago, white Americans subjugated black Africans in a cruel slavery that was justified with Bible proof-texts and a belief that blacks were inferior to whites. Today, we look back on that history with agonized disbelief.
Sixty years ago, in a time of war and great fear, tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans were deprived of their property and forced into detention camps because our grandparents feared everyone of Japanese ancestry. Today that decision is universally regarded as an unconscionable mistake and a blot on American history.
Today, millions of Muslims are subjected to thoughtless generalizations, open discrimination and outright hostility because of the actions of a tiny minority whose violent acts defy the teachings of Mohammed.
How will we explain our ignorance and our compliance to our grandchildren?
It’s time to turn away from ignorance and hatred. It is tearing this nation apart.
As I wrote in an earlier message, I've read several PRO and CON points of view on the Cordoba House Project. While I personally feel it is a bit insensitive to build an Islamic Cultural Center within the 9/11 destruction zone, they have a right to build there. However, my MAJOR issue with all this right now is that political and mob rule mentality mishandling of this issue has reached the point of asinine. This project could have ... and SHOULD have ... been handled much better and smarter than it was. Christian fanaticism on this issue has reached a point of stupidity and narrow-mindedness. Until cooler heads prevail and the political beings and mob rule mentality fade away, EVERYONE directly involved in this project should lay low before irreparable repercussions occur and serious and sustained animosity amongst Muslims and non-Muslims results. New York City can handle this issue without outside intervention.
Mosque in N.Y.C.
by George Ryan
I watched and listened to the demonstrators today in downtown Manhattan, New York City declaring "No Ground Zero Mega-Mosque and No Sharia Law and Jihad Mosques in America!" Why did they demonstrate? To push back against those attempting to impose Sharia Islam, stealth jihad or terror on our nation.
Who were the organizers?
The Coalition to Honor Ground Zero and the Blue Collar Corner;
The Bravest; 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America;
Women United International;
Stop Sharia Now;
ACT! For America and ACT! Manhattan;
Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam;
Congress on Racial Equality,
Proclaim Justice to the Nations,
Center for Security Policy,
Dr. Herbert London of the Hudson Institute, and many other organizations and leaders. .
What came out of the mouths of the anti-Cordoba House Project demonstrators was fierce, hateful, and scary, at least to me!
Because this issue has been so poorly handled - politicized beyond any reasonable limits of common sense, reason, and compromise, demonstrated against by emotional, irrational, well intentioned but unthinking people in terms of the ramifications of their action ... I fear that regardless of what I personally feel and have expressed on this issue, we have created a monster that will not die quietly nor will its impact be negligible. This, combined with our departure from Iraq and claiming that all is well (which it most assuredly is not now nor will be later), will all culminate in the rising up of a Phoenix, which will consume us.
We as Americans have reverted back to the era of McCarthyism when we made blanket accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence and the rule of law. This period in our history was characterized by heightened fears of communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, McCarthyism soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political (or religious) adversaries.
We have replaced those heightened fears of communism and its influence on our American way of life with Islamophobia. This term seems to date back to the late 1980s, but came into common usage after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. In 1997, the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims," stating that it also refers to the practice of discriminating against Muslims by excluding them from the economic, social, and public life of the nation. It includes the perception that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion. Steps were taken toward official acceptance of the term in January 2001 at the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance, where Islamophobia was recognized as a form of intolerance alongside Xenophobia and Antisemitism.
During the post–World War II era of McCarthyism, many thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment, destruction of their careers, and even imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.
Is our issue really about the Muslim cultural center proposed near Ground Zero in New York? About being sensitive to "hallowed ground"? I don't think so. The cultural center was merely an excuse to let loose the hate that has always been there. Bigotry is spreading and people are spewing hate so calmly and freely that it is scary. People, powerful people -- those who have influence over others; those with followers: Newt, Hannity, O'Riley, Beck, Palin -- these are people with millions of followers. There are leaders emerging, leaders who are gathering these fearful and hate-filled masses and using powerful words to control them. Sound familiar?
Enter the new Reich.
Allow me to elaborate by painting a grim but completely plausible scenario. Imagine an America where Sarah Palin's comments about mosques and profiling were not challenged. An America where no one questioned Newt as he continued to draw no distinction between al-Qaida and Muslims in general. An America where people from the media, like Rush and Hannity, controlled our minds through TV and radio, constantly filling us with hatred towards Muslims.
Imagine then, if every inhumane, torturous act against Muslims were justified because they wanted to build places of worship like everyone else. Imagine Hannity agreeing with and cheering his listeners when they suggest bombing mosques was acceptable, jokingly, of course. Imagine Rush pushing to bomb Mecca to send a message. Now imagine this. Muslims wearing armbands so that they stand out; Muslims in internment camps to keep the "good" God-fearing people safe; their blood cheaper than water, and their lives worthless. Bomb them, kill them, they deserve it.
September 11, 2001, a horrendous crime perpetrated by one small group, is blamed on 1.5 billion Muslims. Millions die because Rush, Beck and Hannity encouraged it, because Sarah was OK with it, because Congress turned a blind eye. This is all possible. It starts with allowing one simple act of profiling, or protesting a mosque. This is how groups are isolated. One act leads to another and then another; baby steps toward mass execution.
It is frightening to be a Muslim in America these days. No one will care if they are murdered. At most, they will be a headline for a day. I can just hear Newt say, "It is unfortunate that young man was killed. I did not ask for that." Oh, but he did. We all did. Fear has murdered our common sense. Emotions have given birth to a bigot in our homes. Yes, I just generalized. Who doesn't these days?
The terrorists use God to justify their cause. I know that is just a fabrication of their minds ... do you? If we look in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan we see that al-Qaida has killed more Muslims than any other group to date. America, it is our turn! If we continue to feed the hate in our minds, it is not naïve to think that the murder of Muslims in this country cannot also occur. There is no employer like God and if you convince yourself that God is with you, you become powerful and fearless. This is what makes the terrorists who they are.
No matter what the reason, the cause or trigger, history does repeat itself. It will once again, if we don't wake up, if we continue to ignore it. Media personalities sell us fear and hate in return for advertising dollars. They encourage outrageous ideas and will promote anything so long as it creates more news.
We need to challenge the media, we need to be fearless of terrorists, we need to fight on both fronts, and we must remember one very important thing: Goodness is not a Christian trait, a Jewish trait or even a Muslim trait. It is a human trait. We are all in this fight together. The terrorists must not win. The new Reich must not take root.
(Portions of these comments came as a result of editorials in The Hartford Courant, Sunday, August 22, 2010).
Now read the following editorial from The Hartford Courant and ask yourselves, "Is this how we wish to portray ourselves to the rest of the world?"
For those of us with a military background, did we fight in World War II, Korea, Southeast Asia, and now Iraq and Afghanistan, so we could have a country of bigots and Caucasian, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant Americans with the mentality of the KKK and the Skinheads? I sure as hell didn't ... but the America I see now and saw today in those demonstrations tells me what is coming down the road is ugly, nasty, and as close to Armageddon as we can be without the Second Coming!
Un-American Intolerance Rears Head
Islamophobia A troubling look inside American hearts and minds
August 22, 2010
The controversy over the so-called Ground Zero mosque in New York City should be a tempest in a teapot, an emotional squall easily dispersed by the logic of our Constitution and our traditions of tolerance.
But no. Demagogues, with the help of weak-kneed leaders who stand up only partway for the principle of religious freedom, are fanning the flames of fear and religious bigotry. The fire is spreading.
Earlier this month, for example, as the month long Ramadan observance by Muslims began, a group of Christians from Texas protested outside a Bridgeport mosque, insulting Islam and urging local Muslims to convert to Christianity. Police were called. Muslims understandably viewed the protests as threatening.
Such insults are growing. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in all seriousness proposed that no mosques be built here until churches and synagogues are allowed in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. How shameful and embarrassing for Mr. Gingrich to suggest that the United States, a democracy founded on the principle of religious freedom, should act like a closed, intolerant, family-run theocracy.
Such loony proposals dominate the news. The Ground Zero mosque and the religious hatred it has engendered have become a giant distraction, needlessly pulling the nation's focus from issues that are more deserving of our attention and more important to our future.
The Mosque
The match that lit this conflagration was the approval by local boards, after contentious debate, of a developer's application to build an Islamic cultural center, sports facility and worship space some two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, the place Americans call Ground Zero.
That's where the twin towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001, with the loss of 3,000 lives, by Islamic fanatics — but not by Islam, a religion that, as practiced by more than a billion and a half adherents, would not countenance such a hideous crime.
New York is where the nerves are still most exposed, emotions are rawest and memories of 9/11 still most painfully sear.
But New Yorkers seem to be working through the issue. There are other mosques in the vicinity, as well as churches and synagogues, and they fit into the neighborhood. So will the proposed Islamic cultural center.
The problem now is the storm of Islamophobia racing from coast to coast. It's being stoked by folks who normally would be waving a copy of the Constitution if the topic had anything to do with the Second or Tenth amendments. But they pretend, in this case, that there is no First Amendment with its bedrock guarantee of free exercise of religion.
President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to be on the right side last week when they cited the First Amendment as the reason to allow the developer to proceed with the Ground Zero Mosque. But they temporized later by saying, in effect, "They have the right to build, but maybe it isn't such a good idea." In the face of a dangerously bad idea like religious intolerance, stronger leadership than that is required.
Demagoguery
This episode is deeply distressing. The whipping up of hatred against Muslims is McCarthyism, pure and simple. And it works. Some 70 percent of Americans, a poll shows, oppose the Ground Zero mosque.
Such sentiment reveals a fearful people, too easily moved by demagogues and insufficiently faithful to our founding ideals as expressed in the Constitution. That in itself is frightening.
Is it right to hate all Muslims and blame Islam for the crimes of a few warped terrorists? Of course not. Is the Constitution meant to protect only people just like us, like the majority? No. Are we more secure if we are intolerant? No.
Americans have to remember who we are and how we became a model for the rest of the world.
I watched and listened to the demonstrators today in downtown Manhattan, New York City declaring "No Ground Zero Mega-Mosque and No Sharia Law and Jihad Mosques in America!" Why did they demonstrate? To push back against those attempting to impose Sharia Islam, stealth jihad or terror on our nation.
Who were the organizers?
The Coalition to Honor Ground Zero and the Blue Collar Corner;
The Bravest; 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America;
Women United International;
Stop Sharia Now;
ACT! For America and ACT! Manhattan;
Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam;
Congress on Racial Equality,
Proclaim Justice to the Nations,
Center for Security Policy,
Dr. Herbert London of the Hudson Institute, and many other organizations and leaders. .
What came out of the mouths of the anti-Cordoba House Project demonstrators was fierce, hateful, and scary, at least to me!
Because this issue has been so poorly handled - politicized beyond any reasonable limits of common sense, reason, and compromise, demonstrated against by emotional, irrational, well intentioned but unthinking people in terms of the ramifications of their action ... I fear that regardless of what I personally feel and have expressed on this issue, we have created a monster that will not die quietly nor will its impact be negligible. This, combined with our departure from Iraq and claiming that all is well (which it most assuredly is not now nor will be later), will all culminate in the rising up of a Phoenix, which will consume us.
We as Americans have reverted back to the era of McCarthyism when we made blanket accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence and the rule of law. This period in our history was characterized by heightened fears of communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, McCarthyism soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political (or religious) adversaries.
We have replaced those heightened fears of communism and its influence on our American way of life with Islamophobia. This term seems to date back to the late 1980s, but came into common usage after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. In 1997, the British Runnymede Trust defined Islamophobia as the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, to the fear and dislike of all Muslims," stating that it also refers to the practice of discriminating against Muslims by excluding them from the economic, social, and public life of the nation. It includes the perception that Islam has no values in common with other cultures, is inferior to the West and is a violent political ideology rather than a religion. Steps were taken toward official acceptance of the term in January 2001 at the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance, where Islamophobia was recognized as a form of intolerance alongside Xenophobia and Antisemitism.
During the post–World War II era of McCarthyism, many thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment, destruction of their careers, and even imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.
Is our issue really about the Muslim cultural center proposed near Ground Zero in New York? About being sensitive to "hallowed ground"? I don't think so. The cultural center was merely an excuse to let loose the hate that has always been there. Bigotry is spreading and people are spewing hate so calmly and freely that it is scary. People, powerful people -- those who have influence over others; those with followers: Newt, Hannity, O'Riley, Beck, Palin -- these are people with millions of followers. There are leaders emerging, leaders who are gathering these fearful and hate-filled masses and using powerful words to control them. Sound familiar?
Enter the new Reich.
Allow me to elaborate by painting a grim but completely plausible scenario. Imagine an America where Sarah Palin's comments about mosques and profiling were not challenged. An America where no one questioned Newt as he continued to draw no distinction between al-Qaida and Muslims in general. An America where people from the media, like Rush and Hannity, controlled our minds through TV and radio, constantly filling us with hatred towards Muslims.
Imagine then, if every inhumane, torturous act against Muslims were justified because they wanted to build places of worship like everyone else. Imagine Hannity agreeing with and cheering his listeners when they suggest bombing mosques was acceptable, jokingly, of course. Imagine Rush pushing to bomb Mecca to send a message. Now imagine this. Muslims wearing armbands so that they stand out; Muslims in internment camps to keep the "good" God-fearing people safe; their blood cheaper than water, and their lives worthless. Bomb them, kill them, they deserve it.
September 11, 2001, a horrendous crime perpetrated by one small group, is blamed on 1.5 billion Muslims. Millions die because Rush, Beck and Hannity encouraged it, because Sarah was OK with it, because Congress turned a blind eye. This is all possible. It starts with allowing one simple act of profiling, or protesting a mosque. This is how groups are isolated. One act leads to another and then another; baby steps toward mass execution.
It is frightening to be a Muslim in America these days. No one will care if they are murdered. At most, they will be a headline for a day. I can just hear Newt say, "It is unfortunate that young man was killed. I did not ask for that." Oh, but he did. We all did. Fear has murdered our common sense. Emotions have given birth to a bigot in our homes. Yes, I just generalized. Who doesn't these days?
The terrorists use God to justify their cause. I know that is just a fabrication of their minds ... do you? If we look in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan we see that al-Qaida has killed more Muslims than any other group to date. America, it is our turn! If we continue to feed the hate in our minds, it is not naïve to think that the murder of Muslims in this country cannot also occur. There is no employer like God and if you convince yourself that God is with you, you become powerful and fearless. This is what makes the terrorists who they are.
No matter what the reason, the cause or trigger, history does repeat itself. It will once again, if we don't wake up, if we continue to ignore it. Media personalities sell us fear and hate in return for advertising dollars. They encourage outrageous ideas and will promote anything so long as it creates more news.
We need to challenge the media, we need to be fearless of terrorists, we need to fight on both fronts, and we must remember one very important thing: Goodness is not a Christian trait, a Jewish trait or even a Muslim trait. It is a human trait. We are all in this fight together. The terrorists must not win. The new Reich must not take root.
(Portions of these comments came as a result of editorials in The Hartford Courant, Sunday, August 22, 2010).
Now read the following editorial from The Hartford Courant and ask yourselves, "Is this how we wish to portray ourselves to the rest of the world?"
For those of us with a military background, did we fight in World War II, Korea, Southeast Asia, and now Iraq and Afghanistan, so we could have a country of bigots and Caucasian, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant Americans with the mentality of the KKK and the Skinheads? I sure as hell didn't ... but the America I see now and saw today in those demonstrations tells me what is coming down the road is ugly, nasty, and as close to Armageddon as we can be without the Second Coming!
Un-American Intolerance Rears Head
Islamophobia A troubling look inside American hearts and minds
August 22, 2010
The controversy over the so-called Ground Zero mosque in New York City should be a tempest in a teapot, an emotional squall easily dispersed by the logic of our Constitution and our traditions of tolerance.
But no. Demagogues, with the help of weak-kneed leaders who stand up only partway for the principle of religious freedom, are fanning the flames of fear and religious bigotry. The fire is spreading.
Earlier this month, for example, as the month long Ramadan observance by Muslims began, a group of Christians from Texas protested outside a Bridgeport mosque, insulting Islam and urging local Muslims to convert to Christianity. Police were called. Muslims understandably viewed the protests as threatening.
Such insults are growing. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in all seriousness proposed that no mosques be built here until churches and synagogues are allowed in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. How shameful and embarrassing for Mr. Gingrich to suggest that the United States, a democracy founded on the principle of religious freedom, should act like a closed, intolerant, family-run theocracy.
Such loony proposals dominate the news. The Ground Zero mosque and the religious hatred it has engendered have become a giant distraction, needlessly pulling the nation's focus from issues that are more deserving of our attention and more important to our future.
The Mosque
The match that lit this conflagration was the approval by local boards, after contentious debate, of a developer's application to build an Islamic cultural center, sports facility and worship space some two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, the place Americans call Ground Zero.
That's where the twin towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001, with the loss of 3,000 lives, by Islamic fanatics — but not by Islam, a religion that, as practiced by more than a billion and a half adherents, would not countenance such a hideous crime.
New York is where the nerves are still most exposed, emotions are rawest and memories of 9/11 still most painfully sear.
But New Yorkers seem to be working through the issue. There are other mosques in the vicinity, as well as churches and synagogues, and they fit into the neighborhood. So will the proposed Islamic cultural center.
The problem now is the storm of Islamophobia racing from coast to coast. It's being stoked by folks who normally would be waving a copy of the Constitution if the topic had anything to do with the Second or Tenth amendments. But they pretend, in this case, that there is no First Amendment with its bedrock guarantee of free exercise of religion.
President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to be on the right side last week when they cited the First Amendment as the reason to allow the developer to proceed with the Ground Zero Mosque. But they temporized later by saying, in effect, "They have the right to build, but maybe it isn't such a good idea." In the face of a dangerously bad idea like religious intolerance, stronger leadership than that is required.
Demagoguery
This episode is deeply distressing. The whipping up of hatred against Muslims is McCarthyism, pure and simple. And it works. Some 70 percent of Americans, a poll shows, oppose the Ground Zero mosque.
Such sentiment reveals a fearful people, too easily moved by demagogues and insufficiently faithful to our founding ideals as expressed in the Constitution. That in itself is frightening.
Is it right to hate all Muslims and blame Islam for the crimes of a few warped terrorists? Of course not. Is the Constitution meant to protect only people just like us, like the majority? No. Are we more secure if we are intolerant? No.
Americans have to remember who we are and how we became a model for the rest of the world.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Parking on the Beach.
Of course we have to continue parking on the beach unless you want a major tax increase. New Smyrna lacks land to build parking garages. So, parents have to look after their kids or park in the areas where there are no vehicles. The same applies for adults.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Insurance Firms defrauded Military families.
Read about this at CNN July 30, 2010
What do they say, it was all legal." Maybe not moral but legal. Read the article an form your own opinion. I have to wonder just how heartless can we become?
What do they say, it was all legal." Maybe not moral but legal. Read the article an form your own opinion. I have to wonder just how heartless can we become?
Where's the Fed headed?
Bernake backed off his first view which was to raise interest rates if you remember. I'm in agreement with that, however, we are almost certainly faced with inflation or deflation. I don't see any other possibility. We're going to have one or the other.
We have a stagnant economy with no place to go unless we create some avenues [employment opportunities] which means jobs. The big question is how do we do that now that we've dismantled almost every entity that created jobs and employed people?
This is going to take some real brain power in Washington to try to re-create what we have lost, given away, and dismantled. We need the full cooperation of the banks, the people, the corporations and most of all....the damn cooperation of our do nothing representatives that have been useless for decades. The real weight on a recovery is those bastards in Washington who are running for office 100% of the time while the country is declining now by the hour.
In the meantime they've also managed to separate the people into various camps. So, we need to come together as a people for the good of the country. Wish I wasn't so old. This is a real calling to us all.
If we put our effort into investing in business and re-creating new businesses we may have slight inflation but that's could be a good sign and manageable. The phrase is "managing inflation". On the other hand deflation could really spiral out of control and break the back of the country....so, in my view those are our choices.
This is a time that will be mentioned, in detail, in our history. This is a make it or break it time. We're in a deflationary period now, do we want it to get worse? Everyday well know companies are closing the doors. We cannot continue down this path, we have to take drastic measures and that might mean getting our priorities straight first!
If the Bush tax cuts are renewed and we do not bring troops home those two things will be our first mistakes.
We have a stagnant economy with no place to go unless we create some avenues [employment opportunities] which means jobs. The big question is how do we do that now that we've dismantled almost every entity that created jobs and employed people?
This is going to take some real brain power in Washington to try to re-create what we have lost, given away, and dismantled. We need the full cooperation of the banks, the people, the corporations and most of all....the damn cooperation of our do nothing representatives that have been useless for decades. The real weight on a recovery is those bastards in Washington who are running for office 100% of the time while the country is declining now by the hour.
In the meantime they've also managed to separate the people into various camps. So, we need to come together as a people for the good of the country. Wish I wasn't so old. This is a real calling to us all.
If we put our effort into investing in business and re-creating new businesses we may have slight inflation but that's could be a good sign and manageable. The phrase is "managing inflation". On the other hand deflation could really spiral out of control and break the back of the country....so, in my view those are our choices.
This is a time that will be mentioned, in detail, in our history. This is a make it or break it time. We're in a deflationary period now, do we want it to get worse? Everyday well know companies are closing the doors. We cannot continue down this path, we have to take drastic measures and that might mean getting our priorities straight first!
If the Bush tax cuts are renewed and we do not bring troops home those two things will be our first mistakes.
Where's America Heading?
Unless we forget about politics and start representing our own interests, as Americans, we won't be able to stop the trend. It's unfortunate but most of us don't really know, or have seen, how much suffering is going on in this country and the politicians, all of them, have done quite a job of reflecting all the negatives. We simply don't know the reality and unfortunately we don't seem to realize that we're ALL going to be affected. We're at a point where this nation could go to hell in a hurry and forever.
The American people have really been fed a bunch of crap and too many of us have bought into it. This begs the question, why should men and women fight for a country where their families are suffering at home, some homeless, some without jobs, while we're pouring money into rebuilding other countries, most of them corrupt. Would you spend money you don't have while your family is homeless or doesn't have anything to eat?
It seems to me that it is not only our kids that are not getting an education but all of us as well. Most haven't realized that our government no longer represents us and our damn representatives need to serve a limited time and then go HOME!
We're all fighting each other over policy that hasn't been working for decades regardless of which party is in office. We have a billionaire and a multi-millionaire buying offices now in Florida. One a Democrat and the other a Republican. One has spent over 21 MILLION dollars of his own money...and that's the only reason we even know who in the hell he is..the other owes, supposedly, 1.87 million to a country where he anchored his huge yacht and damaged a coral reef.
So this is what we've become ...a nation where after having made your millions you buy a political office. Is it important...yes, it is because the right person, the one who likely cares cannot run for office any longer.
You may all get pissed off but I'd bring our troops home not only from the Middle East but from other places as well limiting our forces to strictly a killer forces. In other words small but deadly as hell. Then I'd make it crystal clear...you attack us in any manner and we'll exterminate you bastards. Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. However, no more financial help we're not your Daddy anymore. We need to take care of our own first..
The American people have really been fed a bunch of crap and too many of us have bought into it. This begs the question, why should men and women fight for a country where their families are suffering at home, some homeless, some without jobs, while we're pouring money into rebuilding other countries, most of them corrupt. Would you spend money you don't have while your family is homeless or doesn't have anything to eat?
It seems to me that it is not only our kids that are not getting an education but all of us as well. Most haven't realized that our government no longer represents us and our damn representatives need to serve a limited time and then go HOME!
We're all fighting each other over policy that hasn't been working for decades regardless of which party is in office. We have a billionaire and a multi-millionaire buying offices now in Florida. One a Democrat and the other a Republican. One has spent over 21 MILLION dollars of his own money...and that's the only reason we even know who in the hell he is..the other owes, supposedly, 1.87 million to a country where he anchored his huge yacht and damaged a coral reef.
So this is what we've become ...a nation where after having made your millions you buy a political office. Is it important...yes, it is because the right person, the one who likely cares cannot run for office any longer.
You may all get pissed off but I'd bring our troops home not only from the Middle East but from other places as well limiting our forces to strictly a killer forces. In other words small but deadly as hell. Then I'd make it crystal clear...you attack us in any manner and we'll exterminate you bastards. Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. However, no more financial help we're not your Daddy anymore. We need to take care of our own first..
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Well, I'm back.
You know I've been busy with so many different things. I'm happy to link up in New Smyrna Beach my old stomping grounds. Yeah, I am a real Red Neck so I like my cup of coffee first thing in the morning.
There's a lot to talk about. Obama looked like he might bring about some change but I think a lot of us are a little disappointed. I happen to be on the Conservative side of politics but I'm just as unhappy with them. It seems that the Republicans have no ideas and the Democrats no guts!
What a mess we have in Washington. Chew on that for awhile while I gather my thoughts for my kind of people, the locals that is. Who knows maybe the snowbirds will chirp in, you never know.
There's a lot to talk about. Obama looked like he might bring about some change but I think a lot of us are a little disappointed. I happen to be on the Conservative side of politics but I'm just as unhappy with them. It seems that the Republicans have no ideas and the Democrats no guts!
What a mess we have in Washington. Chew on that for awhile while I gather my thoughts for my kind of people, the locals that is. Who knows maybe the snowbirds will chirp in, you never know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
