The Beast is Out of the Cage

"Cordoba House"..."Park51"..."Islamic community center"..."Ground Zero Mosque."

However the property in lower Manhattan that has polarized America's electorate is characterized, one thing appears certain: virtually everyone in the country has an opinion on the subject, and most polls suggest the majority is opposed to its construction.

For the people forever linked to one another by the loss of their loved ones on September 11th, the notion of an Islamic cultural center - which hardly qualifies as a mosque by any traditional definition - being erected two blocks from where the Twin Towers stood - where their friends and family members were slain - profoundly impacts their emotions.

Though lamentable, it'd be ill advised to pass judgment on those among them whose grief has bred immense distrust of those who practice the very faith the attacks were committed in the name of.

Try to imagine walking a mile in their shoes, if you dare.

Only, their heartache has been exploited by politicians like conservative blowhards Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Rick Lazio of late.

Their opportunism is without shame, and they've been among the most prominent figures to denounce the project.

The most vociferous opponent, however, is a little recognized overzealous right-wing blogger named Pamela Geller.

As the executive director of an anti-Islamic advocacy group named Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA); she is the chief bugler sounding the charge against the center's development.

Based on the views expressed on her website, the very presence of any mosque or so-called Islamic center - not merely the one whose proposed construction in lower Manhattan is hotly contested - poses a grave threat to both the country's security and its constitutional liberties.

Gellar portrays Islam as a barbaric religion absent of any virtue.

She asserts her ideology by displaying content which includes graphic photos of human remains that were shot in the aftermath of suicide bombings committed in Pakistan, testimonials of heinous acts perpetrated against (non-Muslim) Sudanese civilians by the Arab Janjaweed militia, and stories about honor killings committed right here in the United States; all of which are coupled with selectively chosen passages from the holy Qu'ran that reference the more rhetorically violent aspects of its teachings.

Combined, they depict a terribly frightening and unflattering image of a faith whose tenets - the belief in a single all-knowing and powerful God, the sanctity of Jerusalem, and a final Day of Judgment - are philosophically indistinguishable from those of its fellow Abrahamic religions: Christianity and Judaism.

These and so many other truths matter little now because the narrative has long been seized by the purveyors of religious intolerance, fear-mongering, and xenophobia.

They would impress upon on us the idea that western society and culture is being imperiled by the world's one and a half billion Muslims, yet the phenomenon of radical Islamic extremism that we as Americans have become all too accustomed since 9/11 was virtually without precedent prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

Before being besmirched by his detractors, Park51 chief proponent Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf served with distinction as the spiritual leader of a Tribeca mosque located twelve blocks from Ground Zero, Masjid Al-Farah, since 1983.

Recently slandered as a "terrorist sympathizer," Rauf eulogized murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

The federal government has such admiration for his vision of a non-violent, tolerant, and inclusive Islam; many of his speaking engagements in the Middle East are financed by the U.S. State Department in a continuation of a message campaign first waged by the Bush administration to market a friendly image of America to the region's Muslim population.

The only gesture of compassion towards the families of 9/11 victims opponents of the mosque would be willing to accept is total acquiescence.

If this is to be the only resolution, then the real question is, as NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg asked recently, "...how big should the 'no mosque zone' be around the World Trade Center site?"

Muslims have been praying in the building located on the property of the proposed Islamic center for months now with hardly any acknowledgement of their presence.

Should they now be restricted from using the facility to practice their faith in order to appease the masses?

This is what some citizens are demanding in the city of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where the construction site for a mosque recently - and suspiciously - caught fire.

To commemorate the ninth anniversary of 9/11 this Saturday, a minister in Gainesville, Florida intends to burn copies of the holy Qu'ran.

A recently conducted Pew Research poll revealed that a 38% majority of Americans (compared to 30%) have an unfavorable view towards Islam; whereas, that same poll five years ago reflected a 41% (compared to 36%) favorable rating.

What has changed in that period of time?

Politics.

In the post September 11th world, the politics of making Americans fearful of one another, their neighbors, and that which they do not understand have supplanted the culture wars (abortion, gay marriage) that were used to great effect in certain parts of the country during the late 20th Century.

Islam has become the new Red Scare, and the American people’s fear of this illusive serpent that’s surreptitiously coiling itself around our constitutional liberties has masked the truth about the motives of those who proclaim themselves to be the vanguards of freedom.

If we are to continue to claim the mantle of exceptionalism among nations, we must recapture our focus, and center it on things of actual significance: jobs, clean energy, education, innovation.

That is unless we should discover that we've always been less than so.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

In my previous post, I suggested that President Obama's intimation that the creation of a government controlled public-option would not be a sticking-point in the ongoing negotiations between the Senate Finance Committee's "gang-of-six" on a health care reform draft bill was a shrewd tactic designed to galvanize his liberal base of supporters.

According to an article published today in the Washington Post, the White House has been taken aback by the fury expressed by its allies in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, AFL-CIO, et al. at the notion that a public-option may be scuttled.

An article in today's copy of the New York Times states that the White House has determined what they had long suspected, and quite frankly, feared: The Republican Party has no desire to forge bipartisan health care reform legislation, and seeks to politically damage President Obama.

Its claim has been advanced in recent days by the public comments of both Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on the palatability of any compromise bill to Senate Republicans. Additionally, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently wrote a letter to PhRMA CEO, Billy Tauzin, advising him against abiding by the terms of the agreement to reduce prescription drug costs that was reached between the pharmaceutical lobby and the president.

Unfortunately, President Obama has equivocated on his support for a health insurance exchange that includes a public-option, and now there is criticism abound regarding a perceived lack of intestinal fortitude by him.

I firmly believe that the president believes strongly in the merits of a public-option; as opposed to a cooperative. However, he seems to be willing, as a matter of practicality, to make some concessions in his effort to advance long advocated health care reform.

As a supporter of his, I would be extremely disappointed if he were to sign a reform bill that did not include a public-option, but I am not prepared to concede the public-option to either health insurance providers, corporately funded conservative interest groups, centrist Democrats, or Republicans without a fight. If Americans want a public-option, then they must be willing to go outside of their homes, beat the streets, and fight for it; because no one is going to deliver health care reform to them on a silver platter.

"I need your help. Change is never easy – and it never starts in Washington. It starts with you. I need you to knock on doors, talk to your neighbors, and spread the facts."

- President Barack Obama (Belgrade, Montana - August 14, 2009)

Public Debate

This past weekend, President Obama and officials of his administration suggested that a federally administered "public-option" is not an integral component for health-care reform legislation. Today, many of the president's liberal supporters are dismayed, if not outraged, that the White House may be intimating a willingness to concede on the creation of what they argue is a vital cost-controlling mechanism for any revamped health-care system. Some have said that any legislation devoid of a public-option that is enacted would not constitute reform.

I do not share these sentiments.

Contrarily, I wonder if President Obama is attempting to galvanize his liberal base; spurring them to mobilize and challenge the scurrilous accusations leveled at him by his political opponents.

One can only hope.

This Ain't No Game

I am neither an economist nor a financial expert, but I can say with total certainty that our workforce, the beating heart of America's economy, is dying.

Whatever the arguments against President Obama's stimulus plan, some qualified; others not, the government must act. The people demand it.

It can be agreed that robust debate and good faith negotiation are essential requirements for the passage of any legislation that can truly be deemed effective.

However, the arguments that are cited, either in support or opposition of a measure, must be relevant to the issue being addressed. Moreover, they must be dictated by the facts that bear themselves out over time; be it through the gathering of data, or mere observation.

These are the facts:

1. We are in a national state-of-emergency.

2. The size of America's economy is literally shrinking.

3. Only the federal government has the resources that are necessary to stem the tide of the economic tsunami that is threatening to engulf the country.

4. Government spending will incur greater deficits, and thus greater national debt; but the solution must be comparable to the size of the problem. Half-measures will not mitigate the damage that has already been wrought; much less reverse the effect.

5. If action is not taken soon, then our economy will collapse.

Please, don't take my word for it...

"The House stimulus plan will not reverse the current recession, but it will provide a vital boost to the flagging economy. Without stimulus, unemployment will rise well into the double digits by this time next year, and the economy will not return to full employment until 2014."

- Mark Zandi (Chief Economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com). "The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." Moody's Economy. January 21, 2009.

"We’re already closer to outright deflation than at any point since the Great Depression. In particular, the private sector is experiencing widespread wage cuts for the first time since the 1930s, and there will be much more of that if the economy continues to weaken.
As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself. As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on."

- Paul Krugman. "On the Edge." The New York Times. February 5, 2009.

"CBO anticipates that implementation of H.R. 1 would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years."

- Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. "H.R. 1, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." January 26, 2009.

"According to Gallup trends, the American public has been consistent in its reaction to the concept of a major economic stimulus package since the start of the new Congress in early January. A slight majority of Americans favor Congress passing such a plan...Moderate senators eager to contribute positively to the debate and to potentially influence the bill's provisions have made the case for a smaller version of Obama's package...However, at this point, the more talked-about $800 billion-plus plan receives slightly more public support than the smaller plan."

- Lydia Saad. "Public Support for Stimulus Package Unchanged at 52%." Gallup. February 5, 2009.

The oft-uttered refrain by the recovery plan's most vocal critics in Congress that economic stimulus must be "timely, targeted, and temporary" is mostly correct.

Nonetheless, the following should be noted:

"While there will be much more discussion about the size and mix of government spending increases and tax cuts to include, the House Democratic plan is a very good starting point. This is important, for while such debate is necessary it must be resolved quickly. Unless a stimulus plan is implemented beginning this spring, its effectiveness in lifting the economy will be significantly muted."

- Mark Zandi (Chief Economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com). "The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." Moody's Economy. January 21, 2009.

Stimulus now.

The Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama

President Barack Obama faces the most daunting challenges ever experienced by an American president in modern history. Our nation's armed forces have been stretched virtually beyond their capacity as they continue to prosecute two separate wars on two vastly different terrains. America's economy has been imperiled by a phenomenally crippling recession. The habitability of this planet is under increasing threat because of the radical changes to its climate. We are undoubtedly in the midst of a period lacking in certainty.

Barack Obama was not elected to the Oval Office with the expectation that he would work miracles. As he stated on the night of his election, "The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term...There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as president, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face."

In this era of immeasurable strife it is incumbent upon us to be patient with our government as it works diligently to resolve these conflicts.

It is also incumbent upon us to be demonstrative in the manner that we express our opinions on the myriad of issues that affect both our lives and livelihoods; especially when we take exception.

Americans should insist that their representatives in government act sensibly as they work alongside President Obama to address these concerns, and seek to work in concert with him whenever possible.

Liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, our fates are intertwined.

Ejector Seat

"To those who still believe in the myth of a maverick instead of the reality of a politician, I say, let’s compare Senator McCain to candidate McCain."

"Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain’s own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote."

"...John McCain should finish the debate with himself. And what’s more, Senator McCain, who once railed against the smears of Karl Rove when he was the target, has morphed into candidate McCain who is using the same “Rove” tactics and the same “Rove” staff to repeat the same old politics of fear and smear."

"So, the candidate who once promised a “contest of ideas,” now has nothing left but personal attacks. How insulting to suggest that those who question the mission, question the troops. How pathetic to suggest that those who question a failed policy doubt America itself. How desperate to tell the son of a single mother who chose community service over money and privilege that he doesn’t put America first."

---Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), August 27, 2008, Denver, CO


In 2000, during an interview on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, John McCain remarked, "I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."

John McCain, one of the finest men ever to serve in the U.S. Senate, has lost his moral bearings.

He lost his faith in the American people's ability to reason, and has transformed into the type of politician he once scorned: One who seeks to win regardless of cost.

The ugly truth is John McCain's presidential campaign is eerily reminiscent of George W. Bush's from 2000.

The same company Bush hired to generate the damaging robocalls that successfully derailed McCain's 2000 presidential campaign (which McCain, himself, denounced as "hate calls") now works on McCain's behalf; to defame Obama's character.

Worse, McCain has employed the services of former Bush administration aides Steve Schmidt, Nicole Wallace, and Randy Scheunemann.

McCain repeatedly asserts that he has long demonstrated he possesses both the experience and judgment required of a potential commander in chief. Yet, his past comments regarding the office of vice-president, along with his appointment of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, belies this very argument.

When asked by the late Tim Russert during a 2000 interview on NBC's Meet the Press about possibly serving as George Bush's VP, McCain said, "The vice president has two duties. One is to inquire daily as to the health of the president, and the other is to attend the funerals of third world dictators. And neither of those do I find an enjoyable exercise."

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, during his appearance earlier this month on Meet the Press, said the following about Palin, "She's a very distinguished woman, and she's to be admired. But at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president."

For the past two weeks, the worst transgression of John McCain's presidential campaign has been his decision to elevate Samuel Joseph 'Joe-the-Plumber' Wurzelbacher to national prominence. Since the final presidential debate, both McCain and Palin have invoked Wurzelbacher's name in their every stump speech as if it is some type of battle cry for middle income Americans to rally around.

The ugly American Wurzelbacher said during a CNN interview, "Social Security is a joke. I have parents; I don't need another set of parents called the government. You know, let me take my money and invest it how I please. Social Security I've never believed in, don't like it. I hate that it's forced on me."

After appearing at a McCain rally yesterday, a McCain supporter asked him if he agreed that, "a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel." In response, Wurzelbacher said, "I'll go ahead and agree with you on that."

These are the depths that McCain has sunken to.

Rather than compete with Obama on the issues and wage a battle of ideas, he has chosen to resort to demagoguery to score cheap political points.

In his desperation to win the presidency, one last time; McCain has abandoned his own moral code.

For these reasons, John S. McCain does not deserve to be President of the United States of America.

Tough Interview or GOP Hit Job?

Last Thursday, WFTV-Channel 9 (Orlando, FL) news anchor Barbara West conducted a brief interview with Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden.

During that interview Ms. West asked Biden a series of pointed questions about Barack Obama's ties to ACORN, Marxist tenets, and Biden's own recent comments during a fundraiser about the likelihood of a "generated" international crisis purposely designed to test the resolve of a would-be President Barack Obama.

A clearly flabbergasted Biden asked Ms. West "Are you joking? Is this a real question?" after she compared Obama's remark about spreading the wealth during his conversation with Samuel 'Joe-the-Plumber' Wurzelbacher to the philosophy of Karl Marx.

At the conclusion of the interview the Obama-Biden campaign cancelled the station's previously scheduled interview with Biden's wife, Jill.

Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida Communications Director for the Obama campaign, wrote a letter to WFTV stating that their access to the campaign would be denied for its duration.

In response, WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, "Mr. Biden didn't like the questions. We choose not to ask softball questions."

In a Friday evening telephone interview with the Orlando Sentinel, Ms. West said, "I have a great deal of respect for him [Biden]. I have a great deal of respect for Sen. Obama. We are given four minutes of a satellite window for these interviews. Four precious minutes. I got right down to it and, yes, I think I asked him some pointed questions. These are questions that are rolling about right now and questions that need to be asked. I don't think I was rude or inconsiderate to him. I think I was probing and maybe tough."

If you had seen only the Biden interview, then you would probably be inclined to take the arguments of both Ms. West and Mr. Jordan at face value.

However, if you were to juxtapose that interview with this previous interview Ms. West conducted with Republican presidential candidate John McCain, you might feel differently about the objectivity of the Biden interview.

Do you notice how most of the questions that she poses to McCain concern Obama's campaign, and not his own?

I don't quite agree with the Obama campaign's decision to excommunicate WFTV. The sanction should be limited to Ms. West, if no one else.

In any case, it's worth noting that Ms. West's husband is Wade West; a Republican media consultant.

Just the facts.