The U.S. Senate race between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, and Republican challenger Sharron Angle is among the highest profile political races going into this November’s mid-term elections.
Angle has an established track record from her years in the Nevada Assembly as an uncompromising hard-line fiscal and social conservative. For that, the Reid re-election campaign has labeled her an extremist.
She’s an extremist because she believes Social Security is a troubled program doomed to failure under current federal fiscal practices, and that it either needs to be phased out or fixed and padlocked so that politicians cannot touch the trust fund that our payroll deductions go to fund. She’s an extremist because she believes that younger workers should be given a privatized choice with regard to their retirement and how best to fund their future supplemental security income.
She’s an extremist because she believes that the federalizing of public education under the U.S. Department of Education has hurt the quality of classroom education, and that most decisions should be kept at the local level.
There’s no question that Angle is a hard-liner on many issues, and that makes her appear extreme to those on the political left.
But let’s talk about the extremism of Harry Reid for a moment, shall we?
This is a guy who agrees with President Obama’s fiscal strategy of arbitrarily raising income taxes on people earning $250,000 or more, regardless of whether that income is tied up in small businesses or not.
This is a guy who supported federal bailouts and stimulus spending under both Presidents Bush and Obama, favoring expenditures into the trillions of dollars that have done little to improve the economy or end the recession. The national jobless rate remains at or near 10 percent despite the last stimulus bill passed a year and a half ago. Unemployment in Reid’s own state, in fact, is currently above 14 percent in spite of all of Reid’s so-called “help” to his state. This figure is among the highest in the nation.
Reid is the same guy who at one point earlier this year rather recklessly stated that the number of people who lost their jobs was down to only 36,000 for a given month, and that this was good news.
Moreover, Reid’s home state of Nevada continues to lead the nation in real estate foreclosure and loan default rates, personal and business bankruptcies, and declining median home prices, among many other economic statistics.
Furthermore, Harry Reid supports the status quo in Washington, D.C. The concept of “change” that Reid wholeheartedly stood behind in 2008 has proven to be little more than the campaign slogan many of us thought it would be. Nothing has changed in the nation’s capital with regard to the way the government is run or how politics is played. It is the same game; just with different players.
Reid wants to keep the U.S. Department of Education as-is in spite of solid evidence that federal control over public education has contributed to its decline in quality. Drop-out rates nationwide are higher than they’ve ever been; and in Reid’s home state of Nevada, in particular, drop-out rates are among the highest in the entire country. Graduation rates in Nevada are among the lowest nationwide, too. The number of K-12 students requiring remedial education is at an all-time high. And the number of high school graduates requiring remedial education in college is also at an all-time high.
The deterioration of education quality has coincided with the establishment of the U.S. Department of Education under President Jimmy Carter, and has gotten progressively worse in the years since. Coincidence, or perhaps explanation?
Harry Reid is an extremist in my opinion because he thinks that money solves all of our socio-economic and political problems. He throws federal pork at anything and everything, just so he can claim that he did something about it. He isn’t willing to do the real hard work, because that would require him to take some rather unpopular stands with many of his constituents.
Harry Reid is also the same man who said, rather prematurely and ill-timed, in the last year or two of the Bush Administration that the Iraq War was lost. He said this during a time in which our forces were struggling against the guerilla tactics of al-Qaeda and other insurgents. He said this at a time when morale was already at its lowest point during the entire “War On Terror.”
He’s fortunate that our servicemen and women were not listening to him, and that they continued to do their jobs to the best of their abilities; because if they had taken what he had said to heart, then I doubt even the troop surge of 2008 would have made much difference at all.
But the reality is that the troop surge strategy did work. We took out a number of high-profile targets, and helped bring more control into the region. This is because our troops believed in the mission, and believed that a change in strategy would work. They didn’t listen to the defeatist rhetoric of Sen. Harry Reid, who could have single-handedly lost the conflict for our fighting men and women.
Sharron Angle is the extremist in this race? I beg to differ.
I think what it comes down to is the individual voter. What may seem extreme to one person may seem reasonable to another. Harry Reid appears reasonable to the political left; but his views, his policy support and his very own words and actions appear extremist to others.
If the Reid Campaign is going to base this election on painting its opponent as an extremist, then it would do well to take a good hard look in the mirror at its own candidate. What’s good for the goose is also good for the gander. Depending upon who you talk to, Harry Reid may just be more extreme than Sharron Angle.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
One too many
I just read an Associated Press story about the drop in the number of children in foster care nationwide.
That's good news...sort of.
It's good that the numbers are declining. However, what isn't good is that there are still close to half a million children in foster care nationwide this year. The story reported a nine percent decrease around the country from 2008-09 to 2009-10, and an 11 percent drop in foster care populations in the state of California.
Good news, right?
Consider that there are still 60,000 children in foster care in California and 423,000 nationwide for federal fiscal year 2009-10. While the decreases are certainly significant, they are by no means a reason to celebrate.
As one who runs a volunteer foster care home, I can speak with some authority on this.
My wife and I just received our latest placement today; an infant seized by Child Protective Services because he was the victim of severe physical abuse. Suffering multiple broken bones throughout his fragile little body, this baby, born premature, could easily have succumbed to his injuries. Thank God he didn't, and thank God he is healing. However, he has suffered perhaps the cruelest of fates: To serve as a living, breathing example of what people in their anger and carelessness are capable of; a sad testament to, and a sorry reminder of just how cruel and heartless people can be.
This little boy's parents are both doing time for the crimes against him. God willing, they'll remain locked up for at least the next 18 years.
Our newest foster placement is just one example of what is wrong in our society, and that a return to traditional American values is not only right, but imperative. If the public doesn't embrace the traditional values of the American Revolution, the values that made this country great, then I fear we will continue down the slippery slope to social ruin.
We are nearly there now. Some may argue we're there already, but I'm trying to be optimistic.
I haven't the slightest clue what was going through the minds or coursing through the veins of this baby boy's parents, but I'm certain it wasn't love thy neighbor as thyself or do unto others as you would have done unto you.
We have reached a social crisis in this country, perpetuated by some ill-conceived notion that we are entitled to do our own thing regardless of the consequences, and to heck with anyone else. Self-centered narcissism has been a human trait as old as time and as far back as our origins. But here in the United States of America, it had a rebirth in the 1960s with the pleasure-seeking, me-first hedonists who lived to get high, fry on acid, and tell "The Man" where he could stick it.
Thanks to the free-loving, dope-worshipping generation of 50 years ago, several generations of like-minded individuals since have been spawned. Now, this self-centered, me-first mindset has permeated society to such a degree that it is no longer uncommon or unheard of for human beings to inflict unimaginable harm on the weakest, most vulnerable of the population. How many stories of child abuse are we subjected to on a weekly, even daily basis?
There are so many cases, so many incidents of abuse and neglect out there that it no longer astonishes us to read about them in the newspaper. We almost come to expect it the way we expect obituaries or sports scores.
We are a country that has turned its back on God, on His Ten Commandments, on the Beatitudes of Christ, and on Biblical principles. America has turned from God in the name of tolerance.
But take a good, hard look at the results of that tolerance: Pervasive and widespread drug abuse and addictions, because people have no God of their own, so they invent one to worship and foolishly cling to it as though it is going make all of their problems go away.
Relentless pursuit of pleasure, because serving others and attending to their needs first before our own is a waste of the one life we have to live. Consequently, America is suffering from its highest concentration of communicable diseases ever in its history; spread either through intravenous drug use or sexual contact.
Intolerance toward temperance and restraint. To advocate and insist that we practice self-control is to be intolerant of others, because we are trying to impose our morality on others.
Is it ironic, a coincidence, or perhaps justice that the degeneration of American society and the degradation of her traditional values was accelerated from a point in our history where millions of Americans in one voice declared their independence from God? When the Sixties generation gave God the "up yours" sign, that's when America's social fabric began to unravel at an alarming pace.
Today, people by and large do not practice restraint or temperance. They've been told by previous generations that it's okay to do your own thing however you want to do it, and regardless of anyone else; to heck with the consequences. Messages of doom and gloom have been ingrained into peoples' heads as they conclude that life is a hopeless mess, and all that's left for them is a pile of ashes upon which to weep. So, they turn to drugs, casual sex or any number of self-pleasing and self-promoting activities as their coping mechanisms, because life is already too fouled up to deal with; too far gone to do anything about anyway. Who should care whether a person fouls his or her life up further with drugs, sex, gambling or other potentially self-destructive behaviors?
Today's younger generations have taken the "me first" attitude of the Sixties to a whole new level: "Who cares?"
Yes, indeed.
Who cares?
Who cares that I screw my life up with drugs, sex or violence, then screw the life up of my children? It's not your problem; it's mine, so leave me the heck alone.
The trouble is that one person's problem can easily become a community's problem.
Child abuse, neglect, and endangerment; drug addictions, abandonment, exposure and exploitation. These all become society's problems, having stemmed from one or two peoples' personal problems.
Children in foster care are often the result of self-serving, hedonistic, licentious, negligent and careless behavior. We've only ourselves to blame.
It may sound as though I am blaming the Sixities generation for current child abuse incidents. I'm not. But I do hold that generation responsible and accountable for the destructive messages that it sent to succeeding generations; some of whom have interpreted and taken those messages to violent extremes, such as child abuse.
In more ways than one, today's generations are reaping the consequences of the seeds sown by the counterculture revolution from 45 years ago. The way that some adults today treat their children is a result of the self-centered messages propagated and pushed by that generation.
So, it is up to each one of us to fix the problem, one person and one family at a time.
Children deserve better. They deserve to know that there is a God who loves them. They deserve to know the truth about life: That it isn't about them, but about serving others. They deserve to be given a chance to right the wrongs of their parents and preceding generations.
When I look at the new infant in our home, I tear up, because one more child like him in foster care is really one too many. Sadly, there are thousands more with stories similar to his. So, even though the numbers are going down, in my humble opinion, the number of children currently in foster care is still unacceptably high.
One more abused child in the system is one too many.
That's good news...sort of.
It's good that the numbers are declining. However, what isn't good is that there are still close to half a million children in foster care nationwide this year. The story reported a nine percent decrease around the country from 2008-09 to 2009-10, and an 11 percent drop in foster care populations in the state of California.
Good news, right?
Consider that there are still 60,000 children in foster care in California and 423,000 nationwide for federal fiscal year 2009-10. While the decreases are certainly significant, they are by no means a reason to celebrate.
As one who runs a volunteer foster care home, I can speak with some authority on this.
My wife and I just received our latest placement today; an infant seized by Child Protective Services because he was the victim of severe physical abuse. Suffering multiple broken bones throughout his fragile little body, this baby, born premature, could easily have succumbed to his injuries. Thank God he didn't, and thank God he is healing. However, he has suffered perhaps the cruelest of fates: To serve as a living, breathing example of what people in their anger and carelessness are capable of; a sad testament to, and a sorry reminder of just how cruel and heartless people can be.
This little boy's parents are both doing time for the crimes against him. God willing, they'll remain locked up for at least the next 18 years.
Our newest foster placement is just one example of what is wrong in our society, and that a return to traditional American values is not only right, but imperative. If the public doesn't embrace the traditional values of the American Revolution, the values that made this country great, then I fear we will continue down the slippery slope to social ruin.
We are nearly there now. Some may argue we're there already, but I'm trying to be optimistic.
I haven't the slightest clue what was going through the minds or coursing through the veins of this baby boy's parents, but I'm certain it wasn't love thy neighbor as thyself or do unto others as you would have done unto you.
We have reached a social crisis in this country, perpetuated by some ill-conceived notion that we are entitled to do our own thing regardless of the consequences, and to heck with anyone else. Self-centered narcissism has been a human trait as old as time and as far back as our origins. But here in the United States of America, it had a rebirth in the 1960s with the pleasure-seeking, me-first hedonists who lived to get high, fry on acid, and tell "The Man" where he could stick it.
Thanks to the free-loving, dope-worshipping generation of 50 years ago, several generations of like-minded individuals since have been spawned. Now, this self-centered, me-first mindset has permeated society to such a degree that it is no longer uncommon or unheard of for human beings to inflict unimaginable harm on the weakest, most vulnerable of the population. How many stories of child abuse are we subjected to on a weekly, even daily basis?
There are so many cases, so many incidents of abuse and neglect out there that it no longer astonishes us to read about them in the newspaper. We almost come to expect it the way we expect obituaries or sports scores.
We are a country that has turned its back on God, on His Ten Commandments, on the Beatitudes of Christ, and on Biblical principles. America has turned from God in the name of tolerance.
But take a good, hard look at the results of that tolerance: Pervasive and widespread drug abuse and addictions, because people have no God of their own, so they invent one to worship and foolishly cling to it as though it is going make all of their problems go away.
Relentless pursuit of pleasure, because serving others and attending to their needs first before our own is a waste of the one life we have to live. Consequently, America is suffering from its highest concentration of communicable diseases ever in its history; spread either through intravenous drug use or sexual contact.
Intolerance toward temperance and restraint. To advocate and insist that we practice self-control is to be intolerant of others, because we are trying to impose our morality on others.
Is it ironic, a coincidence, or perhaps justice that the degeneration of American society and the degradation of her traditional values was accelerated from a point in our history where millions of Americans in one voice declared their independence from God? When the Sixties generation gave God the "up yours" sign, that's when America's social fabric began to unravel at an alarming pace.
Today, people by and large do not practice restraint or temperance. They've been told by previous generations that it's okay to do your own thing however you want to do it, and regardless of anyone else; to heck with the consequences. Messages of doom and gloom have been ingrained into peoples' heads as they conclude that life is a hopeless mess, and all that's left for them is a pile of ashes upon which to weep. So, they turn to drugs, casual sex or any number of self-pleasing and self-promoting activities as their coping mechanisms, because life is already too fouled up to deal with; too far gone to do anything about anyway. Who should care whether a person fouls his or her life up further with drugs, sex, gambling or other potentially self-destructive behaviors?
Today's younger generations have taken the "me first" attitude of the Sixties to a whole new level: "Who cares?"
Yes, indeed.
Who cares?
Who cares that I screw my life up with drugs, sex or violence, then screw the life up of my children? It's not your problem; it's mine, so leave me the heck alone.
The trouble is that one person's problem can easily become a community's problem.
Child abuse, neglect, and endangerment; drug addictions, abandonment, exposure and exploitation. These all become society's problems, having stemmed from one or two peoples' personal problems.
Children in foster care are often the result of self-serving, hedonistic, licentious, negligent and careless behavior. We've only ourselves to blame.
It may sound as though I am blaming the Sixities generation for current child abuse incidents. I'm not. But I do hold that generation responsible and accountable for the destructive messages that it sent to succeeding generations; some of whom have interpreted and taken those messages to violent extremes, such as child abuse.
In more ways than one, today's generations are reaping the consequences of the seeds sown by the counterculture revolution from 45 years ago. The way that some adults today treat their children is a result of the self-centered messages propagated and pushed by that generation.
So, it is up to each one of us to fix the problem, one person and one family at a time.
Children deserve better. They deserve to know that there is a God who loves them. They deserve to know the truth about life: That it isn't about them, but about serving others. They deserve to be given a chance to right the wrongs of their parents and preceding generations.
When I look at the new infant in our home, I tear up, because one more child like him in foster care is really one too many. Sadly, there are thousands more with stories similar to his. So, even though the numbers are going down, in my humble opinion, the number of children currently in foster care is still unacceptably high.
One more abused child in the system is one too many.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
No place for God in science
World renowned physicist, Dr. Stephen Hawking, has come out with a new theory about the origin of the universe: God had no part in it.
This is evidently a departure from earlier views that God didn't need to intervene in the creation of the universe, known as the "Big Bang" Theory. Now, the doctor states unequivocally that God did not create the universe. Period.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." he is quoted as saying. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing..."
One question, Dr. Hawking: If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then how could any law have existed at that time to substantiate your theory? The law of gravity exists as a result of the creation of the universe, our solar system and, ultimately, planet Earth. It evolved consequent to the evolution of the universe.
Besides, the "law" of gravity was established by man to explain why things that go up always come down. Of course, we know that the law of gravity does not apply in parts of the universe were gravity doesn't exist.
Gravity is the result of atomic forces relating to the Earth's atmosphere, the rotation on its axis, the orbit of the moon, and earth's orbit around the sun. Without all of those elements, gravity wouldn't exist here, and there would be no law.
I think what Dr. Hawking was trying to say is that the law of gravity is proof that spontaneous events occur in the universe.
No doubt.
But how can anything spontaneous--any event at all--happen out of nothing? There would have to have existed some forces to create the bang that created the universe; atomic or chemical forces, at least. But if there was absolutely nothing before the bang, then how can a spontaneous bang even occur?
Nothing is nothing, until it becomes something. And how does that happen? From creation, either man-made or natural.
Something had to have created the Big Bang, but what? If there was nothing before the bang, then nothing could have created it.
Except, perhaps, divine intelligence.
But we don't want to admit that the existence of God and His hand in the creation of all things is still a possibility. Sure, we cannot prove that God did create the universe. But we cannot disprove it, either.
Hawking's basis for his new epiphany is a series of new theories about the beginning of the universe.
What?
So, Hawking all but establishes that God had no part in the Big Bang based on some theories.
Hmmm.
The last time I checked, a "theory" is an unproven hypothesis. It is a question without answers yet.
That's what science really is, after all. It is the pursuit of answers to questions. It is a process, a method of obtaining answers to our questions.
Science is not the search for truth or fact; although, occasionally, truths and facts result from the application of science.
The law of gravity, to name one.
But Hawking's latest revelation about God's role in the creation of the universe is based upon a series of new theories. Essentially, then, his conclusion is based upon questions that haven't been answered.
My philosophy about God is rather simple: I don't know for a fact that He does exist, but I don't know for a fact that He doesn't. So, I have chosen to believe that He exists, that He is good and just, loving and merciful. I figure the existence of God will never be established in my lifetime or anyone else's. There are just some things we human beings are incapable of knowing as fact...until the One who created us wants to reveal Himself to us.
God is incomprehensible to us, because our knowledge and understanding are limited to our senses: What we see, hear, touch, smell and taste. God transcends our physical senses, so it is impossible to establish His existence as fact until He reveals Himself to our senses.
And that will likely not be until we are standing before His Great White Throne on Judgment Day.
I, for one, have chosen to be ready for that day by believing in what I don't know for a fact, because I know that mankind could end up being wrong in his assumptions. He usually is.
This is evidently a departure from earlier views that God didn't need to intervene in the creation of the universe, known as the "Big Bang" Theory. Now, the doctor states unequivocally that God did not create the universe. Period.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." he is quoted as saying. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing..."
One question, Dr. Hawking: If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then how could any law have existed at that time to substantiate your theory? The law of gravity exists as a result of the creation of the universe, our solar system and, ultimately, planet Earth. It evolved consequent to the evolution of the universe.
Besides, the "law" of gravity was established by man to explain why things that go up always come down. Of course, we know that the law of gravity does not apply in parts of the universe were gravity doesn't exist.
Gravity is the result of atomic forces relating to the Earth's atmosphere, the rotation on its axis, the orbit of the moon, and earth's orbit around the sun. Without all of those elements, gravity wouldn't exist here, and there would be no law.
I think what Dr. Hawking was trying to say is that the law of gravity is proof that spontaneous events occur in the universe.
No doubt.
But how can anything spontaneous--any event at all--happen out of nothing? There would have to have existed some forces to create the bang that created the universe; atomic or chemical forces, at least. But if there was absolutely nothing before the bang, then how can a spontaneous bang even occur?
Nothing is nothing, until it becomes something. And how does that happen? From creation, either man-made or natural.
Something had to have created the Big Bang, but what? If there was nothing before the bang, then nothing could have created it.
Except, perhaps, divine intelligence.
But we don't want to admit that the existence of God and His hand in the creation of all things is still a possibility. Sure, we cannot prove that God did create the universe. But we cannot disprove it, either.
Hawking's basis for his new epiphany is a series of new theories about the beginning of the universe.
What?
So, Hawking all but establishes that God had no part in the Big Bang based on some theories.
Hmmm.
The last time I checked, a "theory" is an unproven hypothesis. It is a question without answers yet.
That's what science really is, after all. It is the pursuit of answers to questions. It is a process, a method of obtaining answers to our questions.
Science is not the search for truth or fact; although, occasionally, truths and facts result from the application of science.
The law of gravity, to name one.
But Hawking's latest revelation about God's role in the creation of the universe is based upon a series of new theories. Essentially, then, his conclusion is based upon questions that haven't been answered.
My philosophy about God is rather simple: I don't know for a fact that He does exist, but I don't know for a fact that He doesn't. So, I have chosen to believe that He exists, that He is good and just, loving and merciful. I figure the existence of God will never be established in my lifetime or anyone else's. There are just some things we human beings are incapable of knowing as fact...until the One who created us wants to reveal Himself to us.
God is incomprehensible to us, because our knowledge and understanding are limited to our senses: What we see, hear, touch, smell and taste. God transcends our physical senses, so it is impossible to establish His existence as fact until He reveals Himself to our senses.
And that will likely not be until we are standing before His Great White Throne on Judgment Day.
I, for one, have chosen to be ready for that day by believing in what I don't know for a fact, because I know that mankind could end up being wrong in his assumptions. He usually is.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Regarding Harry
I admit that I’ve been pretty hard on Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV. Part of it is because he represents my state; so naturally, I’m going to be more critical of him than most elsewhere around the country.
But critical as I am of him, I should also be fair when evaluating the current U.S. Senate Majority Leader.
My wife has always held him in high regard. She met him a couple of times when she was advocating for research funding of her chronic illness. He proved to be an effective ally in her fight to see that the condition that afflicts her not only received proper national recognition, but that it was also treated fairly by the feds in appropriations.
Sen. Reid had been a gentleman toward my wife, and for that I thank him for his decorum. He was very helpful to her cause, expressing a willingness to go the extra mile for her.
Of course, all of this was before Harry Reid became a Washington, D.C., power player. This was before he decided that being a career politician, party mouthpiece, and Beltway insider was more important than representing people and advocating for each of our petty individual causes and crusades.
I am convinced that Sen. Reid has been corrupted by the very political machine that he once claimed to stand against. He used to stand on his own and was more independent in his actions. He didn’t always side with his party, and his views were usually more blue-dog conservative and moderate.
But again, this was before Harry Reid began climbing the political ladder. Evidently, he wasn’t content just to be the senior U.S. Senator from Nevada. He wanted more, so he maneuvered himself into being selected as Senate Democrat Minority-Majority Whip and later Minority-Majority Leader.
To be honest, I don’t really know Reid’s motivation for seeking more powerful political positions; but I am certainly free to guess.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Reid thought he could better serve his state in the senate leadership. But as savvy as Reid has been through his years in Washington, D.C., I find it hard to believe he’d be that naïve.
A politician doesn’t enter party leadership to help his or her constituents. They do so, more often than not, either to help themselves or the party. The motivation is usually more personal and self-aggrandizing.
Why else did Reid work so hard over the past 24 years to get money for the people, enterprises and projects of his state? To please them? Apparently not, or else he wouldn’t have jumped so eagerly into national party leadership like he did.
Sure, he was maneuvering for votes; that’s part of the reason. But I believe the primary reason why Reid has been so good at bringing home the bacon for Nevada is because doing so has propelled his political career. His savvy efforts have ushered him into the national spotlight as the third most powerful politician in the country. I think his motivation is personal and self-aggrandizing; like the rest of us in pursuit of career advancement.
And like the rest of us, Reid has an ego to stroke. Serving his constituents was a means to that end.
He hasn’t secured billions of federal dollars for Nevada just because he cares about us, loves us, and wants to be our friend. He’s done it because it has helped him advance through the ranks of average Washington politicians to the elite.
Sen. Reid is now a member of that exclusive circle of influential power brokers whose single words can affect national policy.
When a politician is elevated to party leadership, the expectation from the party is that it will receive the lion’s share of that politician’s time and energy. The party becomes numero uno; not the constituents.
Case in point: In Reid’s first two years as Senate Majority Leader, he spent (not surprisingly) an inordinate amount of time attacking President Bush and his policies. As minority leader and party whip in the senate, his job was to attack the other party.
This should come as no surprise, because being an attack dog, a stooge and a mouthpiece are what party leadership is all about.
Reid didn’t receive national media attention for anything he did for his state, but for what he said or did on behalf of his party.
Harry Reid has changed…and not necessarily for the better, in my opinion.
Yes, he’s still very effective at bringing home the bacon, securing the pork for Nevada. You’ll get no dispute about that from me. Nobody has delivered or probably ever will deliver pork for Nevada like Harry Reid.
But I’ve said it before and I will say it again: There is much more to representing one’s state in Congress than sending money back home. First and foremost, Congressional U.S. Representatives and Senators must be advocates for their respective states and the people therein. They are to be the voices of the people they represent. That’s what representative democracy and our constitutional republic are all about.
But when an elected representative places the party above the people; seeks approval of party over approval of the electorate; and seeks advancement in party leadership rather than attending to the business they were elected to perform, they are no longer representatives. They are not statesmen anymore.
Rather disappointingly—but painfully true—they become career politicians who are all too often corrupted by a culture and a system that places greater importance on money, power and influence than on humanity and doing the right thing.
Harry Reid has traded in his statesmanship for salesmanship. He’d rather sell party rhetoric than the concerns of his constituents before Congress.
Reid has given up his service as a representative in favor of serving his political party and its powerful national interests. Because Reid chose party politics over the interests of the people of his state, he’s made it quite clear to me that he prefers to be a Washington power broker, who makes deals for money and influence, than a voice for the common Nevadan.
When a representative goes from statesman to politician, in my opinion, they aren’t worth a darn anymore. I don’t care how much pork they secure for my state. A diet rich in bacon, after all, is not very healthy.
I hope Harry Reid is reading this. I hope he takes notice. I hope he takes this criticism to heart. And I hope he realizes what a destructive choice he has made before it’s too late; because on November 3, 2010 it just may well be.
But critical as I am of him, I should also be fair when evaluating the current U.S. Senate Majority Leader.
My wife has always held him in high regard. She met him a couple of times when she was advocating for research funding of her chronic illness. He proved to be an effective ally in her fight to see that the condition that afflicts her not only received proper national recognition, but that it was also treated fairly by the feds in appropriations.
Sen. Reid had been a gentleman toward my wife, and for that I thank him for his decorum. He was very helpful to her cause, expressing a willingness to go the extra mile for her.
Of course, all of this was before Harry Reid became a Washington, D.C., power player. This was before he decided that being a career politician, party mouthpiece, and Beltway insider was more important than representing people and advocating for each of our petty individual causes and crusades.
I am convinced that Sen. Reid has been corrupted by the very political machine that he once claimed to stand against. He used to stand on his own and was more independent in his actions. He didn’t always side with his party, and his views were usually more blue-dog conservative and moderate.
But again, this was before Harry Reid began climbing the political ladder. Evidently, he wasn’t content just to be the senior U.S. Senator from Nevada. He wanted more, so he maneuvered himself into being selected as Senate Democrat Minority-Majority Whip and later Minority-Majority Leader.
To be honest, I don’t really know Reid’s motivation for seeking more powerful political positions; but I am certainly free to guess.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Reid thought he could better serve his state in the senate leadership. But as savvy as Reid has been through his years in Washington, D.C., I find it hard to believe he’d be that naïve.
A politician doesn’t enter party leadership to help his or her constituents. They do so, more often than not, either to help themselves or the party. The motivation is usually more personal and self-aggrandizing.
Why else did Reid work so hard over the past 24 years to get money for the people, enterprises and projects of his state? To please them? Apparently not, or else he wouldn’t have jumped so eagerly into national party leadership like he did.
Sure, he was maneuvering for votes; that’s part of the reason. But I believe the primary reason why Reid has been so good at bringing home the bacon for Nevada is because doing so has propelled his political career. His savvy efforts have ushered him into the national spotlight as the third most powerful politician in the country. I think his motivation is personal and self-aggrandizing; like the rest of us in pursuit of career advancement.
And like the rest of us, Reid has an ego to stroke. Serving his constituents was a means to that end.
He hasn’t secured billions of federal dollars for Nevada just because he cares about us, loves us, and wants to be our friend. He’s done it because it has helped him advance through the ranks of average Washington politicians to the elite.
Sen. Reid is now a member of that exclusive circle of influential power brokers whose single words can affect national policy.
When a politician is elevated to party leadership, the expectation from the party is that it will receive the lion’s share of that politician’s time and energy. The party becomes numero uno; not the constituents.
Case in point: In Reid’s first two years as Senate Majority Leader, he spent (not surprisingly) an inordinate amount of time attacking President Bush and his policies. As minority leader and party whip in the senate, his job was to attack the other party.
This should come as no surprise, because being an attack dog, a stooge and a mouthpiece are what party leadership is all about.
Reid didn’t receive national media attention for anything he did for his state, but for what he said or did on behalf of his party.
Harry Reid has changed…and not necessarily for the better, in my opinion.
Yes, he’s still very effective at bringing home the bacon, securing the pork for Nevada. You’ll get no dispute about that from me. Nobody has delivered or probably ever will deliver pork for Nevada like Harry Reid.
But I’ve said it before and I will say it again: There is much more to representing one’s state in Congress than sending money back home. First and foremost, Congressional U.S. Representatives and Senators must be advocates for their respective states and the people therein. They are to be the voices of the people they represent. That’s what representative democracy and our constitutional republic are all about.
But when an elected representative places the party above the people; seeks approval of party over approval of the electorate; and seeks advancement in party leadership rather than attending to the business they were elected to perform, they are no longer representatives. They are not statesmen anymore.
Rather disappointingly—but painfully true—they become career politicians who are all too often corrupted by a culture and a system that places greater importance on money, power and influence than on humanity and doing the right thing.
Harry Reid has traded in his statesmanship for salesmanship. He’d rather sell party rhetoric than the concerns of his constituents before Congress.
Reid has given up his service as a representative in favor of serving his political party and its powerful national interests. Because Reid chose party politics over the interests of the people of his state, he’s made it quite clear to me that he prefers to be a Washington power broker, who makes deals for money and influence, than a voice for the common Nevadan.
When a representative goes from statesman to politician, in my opinion, they aren’t worth a darn anymore. I don’t care how much pork they secure for my state. A diet rich in bacon, after all, is not very healthy.
I hope Harry Reid is reading this. I hope he takes notice. I hope he takes this criticism to heart. And I hope he realizes what a destructive choice he has made before it’s too late; because on November 3, 2010 it just may well be.
Who's afraid of the big, bad Beck?
Apparently a lot of little piggies on the political left.
Who would have thought that conservative radio talk show personality and author Glenn Beck would create such a stir among left-wing progressives that news stories debating the actual size of the crowd at his "Restoring Honor" event in Washington, D.C., last week actually became headliners?
Glenn Beck. One man, one voice.
And he causes the left such pain that he is actually considered "dangerous" to America, a threat to her freedom and her way of life.
That figures. Whenever anyone dares to challenge the political left, its headhunters are summoned en masse to start chopping.
The assaults against Glenn Beck are so asinine that all I can do is laugh. Getting angry seems inappropriate somehow, because the accusations are so baseless that it is comical to even think about them.
Glenn Beck the racist.
Oh, yes, this is usually the first accusation leveled at any conservative voice that speaks up and out against the political left. The very first thing lefties do when a guy like Beck speaks is to liken him to Adolphe Hitler.
Well, of course. Beck, like Hitler before him, is a white male. Also like Hitler, he's an effective speaker who inspires his audiences. Other than that, I fail to see any further similarities.
Listen more critically at the messages of the two, and you will find they are distinctly different.
Hitler advocated for a return to German national pride by blaming a scapegoat for his country's economic problems. Beck has consistently spoken about traditional American values on his radio program; the same message he conveyed at last week's rally.
What's wrong with wanting a return to the traditional values of the American Revolution? To regard certain unalienable rights--life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness--as God-given through grace, and not ordained by men. To value that all men (and women) are created equal under God and are deserving of His unalienable rights. To self-govern and self-regulate the way our nation's founding generation intended. To choose to do the right thing instead of the wrong thing without the government having to tell us what that right thing is. To treat others by God's Golden Rule--Do unto others as you would have done unto you. To love thy neighbor as thyself. To care for and about one another. To take responsibility and hold ourselves accountable for our own actions. To believe that hard work pays dividends and that things must be earned. To trust in the individual instead of the individual's government. To set the individual free to follow opportunity and pursue his happiness...Those are traditional American values. Those are the values Beck has spoken of consistently.
Those are not the values that Hitler spoke of. They are not the values of a tyrant, a demagogue and a racist. They are the values of an American citizen who believes his country has strayed dangerously away from them and toward the values of Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao and others who "inspired" their people to their own destruction.
The fact that Glenn Beck held this rally on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech in the exact same spot (on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial overlooking the National Mall) does not make him a racist. I know Al Sharpton wants us to believe it does. He wants us to believe that Beck did it to spite King and to insult the memory of America's most profound civil rights leader.
It never even enters the mind of the progressive leftist that perhaps Beck did it out of respect and reverence for MLK. That maybe, just maybe, Beck held the late Rev. King in such high esteem as to stage his own positive message of change on the anniversary of MLK's historic message of change.
No, no, that can't be it. It is impossible for a conservative, a right-winger, to revere MLK, because all conservatives are racist. The intent had to be sinister. It just had to. There is no other rhyme or reasonable explanation for it.
And so it goes. Glenn Beck is a racist because he organized his event to coincide with the memory of MLK. There's just no way the man could have done that to honor MLK. No way at all.
Beck is also a racist because, as the Associated Press reported, the crowd was vastly and predominantly white.
Naturally.
Any time a largely white crowd gathers, they can have only one thing on their mind: Racism. Makes perfect sense.
I am amused at how progressive leftists react toward conservatives. There is no attempt to debate, or even understand. No invitation to compete in the arena of ideas. No rules of engagement. No sportsmanship. Leftists approach conservatives with a cutthroat attitude: Kill or be killed.
There is no debate; understanding is for conservaives to practice and the left-wing to preach; the arena is closed to anyone right of center; the only rules that apply are the ones the left makes; and sportsmanship is only for conservatives to follow.
Leftists are predictable in their knee-jerk reactions toward conservatives. Everything is akin to a five-alarm fire. It's an emergency. A conservative as influential as Beck has become represents a clear and present danger to the left's political power, entrenched in Washington, D.C. for over half a century.
I remember when Rush Limbaugh crashed the left's party, going national with his talk show in 1988. He was summarily dismissed as a rabble-rowser, a racist and neo-Nazi, a chauvinist, a homophobe, and especially a blowhard.
Because he said things the left didn't want itself or anyone else to hear, he was not taken seriously. But after the 1994 Republican Revolution, the left couldn't ignore Limbaugh anymore. Every chance the left got, it took words out of context, ignored context, and focused on what it wanted to see and hear, so that the public would see and hear it, too. The left tried to sabotage Limbaugh by using his words against him.
But the trouble was that 20 million listeners completely disagreed when the left tried to paint Rush as a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot; an uncaring, mean-spirited Scrooge. Why? Because 20 million listeners actually listened to what Limbaugh really said and what he meant. Rush was always very good about qualifying his remarks; but the left didn't want anything he said qualified. What mattered is that he said it; therefore, he must be exactly what they tried to paint him as.
Funny, isn't it, that the left is trying to do the exact same thing to Glenn Beck that it tried to do to Limbaugh and failed? It is leveling the exact same accusations against Beck that it leveled against Rush.
What the left historically does is try to defeat its opponents through character assassination. Attack a person's character and you place their credibility in question. Do that and the debate suddenly shifts from the issues to the individual debating them.
It is classic evasive maneuvering.
Avoid debating the issues at all simply by attacking the debater.
Leftists are masters at this, because debating the issues is the last thing they want to do. When it comes to reason, rationale and right, conservatism just makes more sense to most people. Get into a rationale over the economy with a conservative and you might as well arm wrestle a Gorilla.
The left does not want to be humiliated any more than it already has by those throughout history who have plied the socialist trade only to fail miserably. So, debating opponents would be self-defeating. It is far easier and more gratifying to the hyenas on the left to just go below the belt and assault someone personally. It weakens them and their argument, turning them from formidable foe to easy prey.
Unfortunately, bringing Beck down is going to prove just as hard for the left as bringing down Limbaugh, an effort now 22 years in the making and still counting. Meanwhile, the listenership for both continues to rise. Go figure.
But try the left has and try it shall continue, because debating conservative voices is not an option. Going tete-a-tete over the issues won't work; and besides, the political left is afraid of guys like Beck and Limbaugh.
The political left is truly afraid of anyone willing to stand up to it and say that it is wrong. Why? Because the left knows it. But it would sooner eat its own crap that it dishes out to the rest of us than a slice of humble pie.
Case in point: Former President Bill Clinton in his first four-year term whined over national airwaves that Rush Limbaugh had three hours a day to say whatever he wants, and that he (Clinton) didn't have that.
Well, boo-hoo, Mr. President. Cry me a river. Rather than challenge Rush on the issues, Clinton, one of the most savvy left-wing politicians around, just whined. He couldn't spin his way out of Limbaugh's web of reason, so he avoided it like the plague.
Imagine the President of the United States, the most powerful single person on the planet, afraid of engaging a single other obscure individual in a debate of ideas. The President, who on a whim could have dozens of cameras on him at any moment, and dozens more microphones at his disposal, complained that one man had three hours a day to speak his mind.
I know the lefties on here probably don't think it's funny, but I sure do. A vast, powerful political machine like left-wing progressivism, entrenched for decades in the culture and infrastructure of Washington, D.C., afraid of the voice of one man.
After all of this, I realize why.
Because tens of millions of ears are listening to him. And what's more, they think he makes sense and they agree with him. He is articulating what they believe in their hearts, but have felt silenced and intimidated by a culture that seeks to punish conservatives simply for being who they are.
Now, that's scary if you're a left-wing progressive. Millions of conservatives suddenly inspired to stand up and shout, "no more." Not even the little piggy's brick house can stand up to that.
Who would have thought that conservative radio talk show personality and author Glenn Beck would create such a stir among left-wing progressives that news stories debating the actual size of the crowd at his "Restoring Honor" event in Washington, D.C., last week actually became headliners?
Glenn Beck. One man, one voice.
And he causes the left such pain that he is actually considered "dangerous" to America, a threat to her freedom and her way of life.
That figures. Whenever anyone dares to challenge the political left, its headhunters are summoned en masse to start chopping.
The assaults against Glenn Beck are so asinine that all I can do is laugh. Getting angry seems inappropriate somehow, because the accusations are so baseless that it is comical to even think about them.
Glenn Beck the racist.
Oh, yes, this is usually the first accusation leveled at any conservative voice that speaks up and out against the political left. The very first thing lefties do when a guy like Beck speaks is to liken him to Adolphe Hitler.
Well, of course. Beck, like Hitler before him, is a white male. Also like Hitler, he's an effective speaker who inspires his audiences. Other than that, I fail to see any further similarities.
Listen more critically at the messages of the two, and you will find they are distinctly different.
Hitler advocated for a return to German national pride by blaming a scapegoat for his country's economic problems. Beck has consistently spoken about traditional American values on his radio program; the same message he conveyed at last week's rally.
What's wrong with wanting a return to the traditional values of the American Revolution? To regard certain unalienable rights--life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness--as God-given through grace, and not ordained by men. To value that all men (and women) are created equal under God and are deserving of His unalienable rights. To self-govern and self-regulate the way our nation's founding generation intended. To choose to do the right thing instead of the wrong thing without the government having to tell us what that right thing is. To treat others by God's Golden Rule--Do unto others as you would have done unto you. To love thy neighbor as thyself. To care for and about one another. To take responsibility and hold ourselves accountable for our own actions. To believe that hard work pays dividends and that things must be earned. To trust in the individual instead of the individual's government. To set the individual free to follow opportunity and pursue his happiness...Those are traditional American values. Those are the values Beck has spoken of consistently.
Those are not the values that Hitler spoke of. They are not the values of a tyrant, a demagogue and a racist. They are the values of an American citizen who believes his country has strayed dangerously away from them and toward the values of Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao and others who "inspired" their people to their own destruction.
The fact that Glenn Beck held this rally on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech in the exact same spot (on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial overlooking the National Mall) does not make him a racist. I know Al Sharpton wants us to believe it does. He wants us to believe that Beck did it to spite King and to insult the memory of America's most profound civil rights leader.
It never even enters the mind of the progressive leftist that perhaps Beck did it out of respect and reverence for MLK. That maybe, just maybe, Beck held the late Rev. King in such high esteem as to stage his own positive message of change on the anniversary of MLK's historic message of change.
No, no, that can't be it. It is impossible for a conservative, a right-winger, to revere MLK, because all conservatives are racist. The intent had to be sinister. It just had to. There is no other rhyme or reasonable explanation for it.
And so it goes. Glenn Beck is a racist because he organized his event to coincide with the memory of MLK. There's just no way the man could have done that to honor MLK. No way at all.
Beck is also a racist because, as the Associated Press reported, the crowd was vastly and predominantly white.
Naturally.
Any time a largely white crowd gathers, they can have only one thing on their mind: Racism. Makes perfect sense.
I am amused at how progressive leftists react toward conservatives. There is no attempt to debate, or even understand. No invitation to compete in the arena of ideas. No rules of engagement. No sportsmanship. Leftists approach conservatives with a cutthroat attitude: Kill or be killed.
There is no debate; understanding is for conservaives to practice and the left-wing to preach; the arena is closed to anyone right of center; the only rules that apply are the ones the left makes; and sportsmanship is only for conservatives to follow.
Leftists are predictable in their knee-jerk reactions toward conservatives. Everything is akin to a five-alarm fire. It's an emergency. A conservative as influential as Beck has become represents a clear and present danger to the left's political power, entrenched in Washington, D.C. for over half a century.
I remember when Rush Limbaugh crashed the left's party, going national with his talk show in 1988. He was summarily dismissed as a rabble-rowser, a racist and neo-Nazi, a chauvinist, a homophobe, and especially a blowhard.
Because he said things the left didn't want itself or anyone else to hear, he was not taken seriously. But after the 1994 Republican Revolution, the left couldn't ignore Limbaugh anymore. Every chance the left got, it took words out of context, ignored context, and focused on what it wanted to see and hear, so that the public would see and hear it, too. The left tried to sabotage Limbaugh by using his words against him.
But the trouble was that 20 million listeners completely disagreed when the left tried to paint Rush as a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot; an uncaring, mean-spirited Scrooge. Why? Because 20 million listeners actually listened to what Limbaugh really said and what he meant. Rush was always very good about qualifying his remarks; but the left didn't want anything he said qualified. What mattered is that he said it; therefore, he must be exactly what they tried to paint him as.
Funny, isn't it, that the left is trying to do the exact same thing to Glenn Beck that it tried to do to Limbaugh and failed? It is leveling the exact same accusations against Beck that it leveled against Rush.
What the left historically does is try to defeat its opponents through character assassination. Attack a person's character and you place their credibility in question. Do that and the debate suddenly shifts from the issues to the individual debating them.
It is classic evasive maneuvering.
Avoid debating the issues at all simply by attacking the debater.
Leftists are masters at this, because debating the issues is the last thing they want to do. When it comes to reason, rationale and right, conservatism just makes more sense to most people. Get into a rationale over the economy with a conservative and you might as well arm wrestle a Gorilla.
The left does not want to be humiliated any more than it already has by those throughout history who have plied the socialist trade only to fail miserably. So, debating opponents would be self-defeating. It is far easier and more gratifying to the hyenas on the left to just go below the belt and assault someone personally. It weakens them and their argument, turning them from formidable foe to easy prey.
Unfortunately, bringing Beck down is going to prove just as hard for the left as bringing down Limbaugh, an effort now 22 years in the making and still counting. Meanwhile, the listenership for both continues to rise. Go figure.
But try the left has and try it shall continue, because debating conservative voices is not an option. Going tete-a-tete over the issues won't work; and besides, the political left is afraid of guys like Beck and Limbaugh.
The political left is truly afraid of anyone willing to stand up to it and say that it is wrong. Why? Because the left knows it. But it would sooner eat its own crap that it dishes out to the rest of us than a slice of humble pie.
Case in point: Former President Bill Clinton in his first four-year term whined over national airwaves that Rush Limbaugh had three hours a day to say whatever he wants, and that he (Clinton) didn't have that.
Well, boo-hoo, Mr. President. Cry me a river. Rather than challenge Rush on the issues, Clinton, one of the most savvy left-wing politicians around, just whined. He couldn't spin his way out of Limbaugh's web of reason, so he avoided it like the plague.
Imagine the President of the United States, the most powerful single person on the planet, afraid of engaging a single other obscure individual in a debate of ideas. The President, who on a whim could have dozens of cameras on him at any moment, and dozens more microphones at his disposal, complained that one man had three hours a day to speak his mind.
I know the lefties on here probably don't think it's funny, but I sure do. A vast, powerful political machine like left-wing progressivism, entrenched for decades in the culture and infrastructure of Washington, D.C., afraid of the voice of one man.
After all of this, I realize why.
Because tens of millions of ears are listening to him. And what's more, they think he makes sense and they agree with him. He is articulating what they believe in their hearts, but have felt silenced and intimidated by a culture that seeks to punish conservatives simply for being who they are.
Now, that's scary if you're a left-wing progressive. Millions of conservatives suddenly inspired to stand up and shout, "no more." Not even the little piggy's brick house can stand up to that.
Monday, August 16, 2010
So you want to build a mosque…
…two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.
Not smart.
Any reasonable person with an ounce of common sense—not to mention a conscience—ought to be asking why. What could possibly motivate American Islamic leaders to want to build a Muslim holy place so close to what has become hallowed ground in the United States of America? Moreover, what possible advantage is there in digging up painful memories and inflaming angst, anger and resentment all over again?
President Barack Obama is quite correct about Islam’s Constitutional right to freedom of religion. He’s also right about the attainment of private property. No reasonable person should be disputing the Constitutional rights of American Muslims to practice their religion, assemble freely and be secure in their property.
But, in my opinion, the issue is not whether Islam can establish a mosque two blocks from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The rights of American Muslims are as plain and self-evident as those of all other Americans. As long as local zoning and building codes are not in violation, there is nothing legally to prevent the mosque from being built.
The real issue to me is whether or not the mosque should be built. We ought to know that it can be built. But just because we can do something doesn’t necessarily mean we should. And just because something is legal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right, either.
Would it be right for the Catholic Church to build a church near the site of Aztec, Mayan or Incan ruins? Such places have special spiritual significance for the descendants of these extinct people, and I’ve no doubt that there is resentment among native Central and South Americans toward the Spanish Inquisition that occurred in the New World during the 16th Century. Deliberate efforts to force native Central and South American civilizations to conform and convert to Catholicism helped to all but wipe them out.
Would it be right for a Neo-Nazi group to build a compound near a Jewish Synagogue, or near the site of one of many infamous European death camps? Considering that the German Nazis of the mid-20th Century were responsible for the deaths of millions of European Jews, I think such an endeavor would be in extremely poor taste.
Likewise, the religion represented by the 19 fanatical hijackers who killed 3,000 Americans should think twice before building a holy site so close to where so many people perished in the name of Allah and Islam.
I must, therefore, question the wisdom and the motivation of the American Muslim community in selecting this site for a new mosque and cultural center.
The wisdom, or lack thereof, of this endeavor is as plain as the nose on my face.
The motivation, however, is not so clear.
What constructive purpose could erecting an Islamic Mosque two blocks from where the twin World Trade Center towers collapsed nine years ago possibly have?
Many Americans are justified in asking this question and opposing the project.
We know about the rights. But this is not really about rights as much as it is about right versus wrong.
While it is true that the 9/11 culprits represented an extreme, fundamental minority of Islamic believers, the fact is that the attacks were carried out in the name of Islam. As such, the horrific results reflect on Islam.
Personally, I don’t believe that all Muslims agree with or support the actions of fanatical al-Qaeda. But precious few have also come out and publicly condemned the numerous Islamic terrorist attacks committed worldwide before and since 9/11/01. Rather, Islam both here in America and around the world has remained largely silent on the activities of its extreme elements.
Why?
If al-Qaeda and other fanatical fundamentalists claiming to act on behalf of Allah and Islam do not represent the religion, then why haven’t more Muslim leaders come out in public opposition to them? Why didn’t we hear a public condemnation from American and international Imams immediately following the 9/11 attacks? It has taken a good many years for Islamic religious leaders to finally come out and say what should have been said years ago. Many others, however, have remained strangely silent on condemnation, and yet are quick to separate themselves from the actions of the Islamic terrorists.
It seems to me that too many Muslims both here in America and around the world are just plain reluctant to condemn their extremist brethren. They talk out of both sides of their mouths. On one side, they try to separate themselves from the destruction caused by Muslim terrorists; but then, on the other side they refuse to speak against those who acted in the name of Islam.
Well, if al-Qaeda fanatics do not speak for the Muslim community at large, why does Islam continue to harbor them? Why not ostracize them from the faith if what they do and say is not consistent or representative of Islam?
The inconsistency and, dare I say, hypocrisy of Islam with regard to its extremist elements is a credibility issue with the rest of us.
Why should we believe that the American Islamic community pushing for this mosque and community cultural center two blocks from the World Trade Center site is anything other than peaceful innocence?
There are many Americans who rightly feel that building a mosque so close to where their loved ones perished is akin to rubbing their noses in it and pouring salt onto the wound. And let’s be honest here: American Islam has done little to separate itself from those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Simply saying that they don’t believe as the fundamentalists do is not good enough. If American Muslims aren’t willing to come out and publicly condemn al-Qaeda and other extremist elements, then their words are empty…and cheap.
Show the rest of America that the monsters who savagely murdered 3,000 people aren’t your religious brethren by standing by your words.
Otherwise, how can we really believe you when you say that your mosque will promote peace and shall honor those who perished in the World Trade Center nine years ago?
Indeed, how do we really know that your Islamic center isn’t going to eventually include a Madrassa, like the publicly-funded school in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where fundamentalism is not only taught, but is also part of the core curriculum?
What assurances do we have that your Imams who preach at this mosque aren’t going to preach fundamentalism; the kind that inflamed and impassioned the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001?
The answer is none, because Islam has not been willing to publicly condemn or separate itself even from its most extreme elements. Muslims worldwide talk a good game when it comes to denying any support for the violence perpetrated by fundamentalist followers. But they haven’t proven to me that they can play one.
At the end of the day, when all is said and done, Muslims by and large tend to regard these misguided extremists still as brethren. And their silence speaks louder than their words.
I oppose the construction of a mosque so close to the World Trade Center site because I see it as more than a coincidence. It is deliberate irony.
American Islam thinks that it can improve its image by building a mosque that honors the 9/11 victims and serves as a “memorial” of such. But Muslim leaders had to have known that building their religious center two blocks from the impetus of the international War On Terror would inflame anger among the non-Muslim population. They had to have known this. How could they not? Are they really so naïve and ignorant as to believe that the deaths of 3,000 people nine years ago has cooled off enough that few would even care?
That’s like saying World War II happened so long ago that Americans shouldn’t care anymore if Japan wants to build a monument to the pilots lost during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Or, Jews shouldn’t be concerned if Germans want to build a memorial to Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich.
This is not at all about Constitutional rights. It has everything to do with what is right and what is wrong.
I go back to my premise about essential liberty: Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Essential liberty is about choosing to do the right thing in spite of having the freedom to choose the wrong thing.
If American Muslims wish to demonstrate that they are worthy of essential liberty, then they ought to practice it by choosing to do the right thing rather than insist on doing the wrong thing here.
Building a mosque in close proximity to the World Trade Center site is not only in very poor taste, but it is just plain wrong, because it deeply offends non-Muslim Americans; especially those who lost loved ones at the hands of fanatics claiming to act on the side of Islam.
To American Islam, I’d like to respectfully ask that you reconsider relocating your planned mosque elsewhere in New York City; at least where it can’t and won’t be associated or linked with the World Trade Center. It is only the right thing to do.
Not smart.
Any reasonable person with an ounce of common sense—not to mention a conscience—ought to be asking why. What could possibly motivate American Islamic leaders to want to build a Muslim holy place so close to what has become hallowed ground in the United States of America? Moreover, what possible advantage is there in digging up painful memories and inflaming angst, anger and resentment all over again?
President Barack Obama is quite correct about Islam’s Constitutional right to freedom of religion. He’s also right about the attainment of private property. No reasonable person should be disputing the Constitutional rights of American Muslims to practice their religion, assemble freely and be secure in their property.
But, in my opinion, the issue is not whether Islam can establish a mosque two blocks from the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The rights of American Muslims are as plain and self-evident as those of all other Americans. As long as local zoning and building codes are not in violation, there is nothing legally to prevent the mosque from being built.
The real issue to me is whether or not the mosque should be built. We ought to know that it can be built. But just because we can do something doesn’t necessarily mean we should. And just because something is legal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right, either.
Would it be right for the Catholic Church to build a church near the site of Aztec, Mayan or Incan ruins? Such places have special spiritual significance for the descendants of these extinct people, and I’ve no doubt that there is resentment among native Central and South Americans toward the Spanish Inquisition that occurred in the New World during the 16th Century. Deliberate efforts to force native Central and South American civilizations to conform and convert to Catholicism helped to all but wipe them out.
Would it be right for a Neo-Nazi group to build a compound near a Jewish Synagogue, or near the site of one of many infamous European death camps? Considering that the German Nazis of the mid-20th Century were responsible for the deaths of millions of European Jews, I think such an endeavor would be in extremely poor taste.
Likewise, the religion represented by the 19 fanatical hijackers who killed 3,000 Americans should think twice before building a holy site so close to where so many people perished in the name of Allah and Islam.
I must, therefore, question the wisdom and the motivation of the American Muslim community in selecting this site for a new mosque and cultural center.
The wisdom, or lack thereof, of this endeavor is as plain as the nose on my face.
The motivation, however, is not so clear.
What constructive purpose could erecting an Islamic Mosque two blocks from where the twin World Trade Center towers collapsed nine years ago possibly have?
Many Americans are justified in asking this question and opposing the project.
We know about the rights. But this is not really about rights as much as it is about right versus wrong.
While it is true that the 9/11 culprits represented an extreme, fundamental minority of Islamic believers, the fact is that the attacks were carried out in the name of Islam. As such, the horrific results reflect on Islam.
Personally, I don’t believe that all Muslims agree with or support the actions of fanatical al-Qaeda. But precious few have also come out and publicly condemned the numerous Islamic terrorist attacks committed worldwide before and since 9/11/01. Rather, Islam both here in America and around the world has remained largely silent on the activities of its extreme elements.
Why?
If al-Qaeda and other fanatical fundamentalists claiming to act on behalf of Allah and Islam do not represent the religion, then why haven’t more Muslim leaders come out in public opposition to them? Why didn’t we hear a public condemnation from American and international Imams immediately following the 9/11 attacks? It has taken a good many years for Islamic religious leaders to finally come out and say what should have been said years ago. Many others, however, have remained strangely silent on condemnation, and yet are quick to separate themselves from the actions of the Islamic terrorists.
It seems to me that too many Muslims both here in America and around the world are just plain reluctant to condemn their extremist brethren. They talk out of both sides of their mouths. On one side, they try to separate themselves from the destruction caused by Muslim terrorists; but then, on the other side they refuse to speak against those who acted in the name of Islam.
Well, if al-Qaeda fanatics do not speak for the Muslim community at large, why does Islam continue to harbor them? Why not ostracize them from the faith if what they do and say is not consistent or representative of Islam?
The inconsistency and, dare I say, hypocrisy of Islam with regard to its extremist elements is a credibility issue with the rest of us.
Why should we believe that the American Islamic community pushing for this mosque and community cultural center two blocks from the World Trade Center site is anything other than peaceful innocence?
There are many Americans who rightly feel that building a mosque so close to where their loved ones perished is akin to rubbing their noses in it and pouring salt onto the wound. And let’s be honest here: American Islam has done little to separate itself from those who carried out the 9/11 attacks. Simply saying that they don’t believe as the fundamentalists do is not good enough. If American Muslims aren’t willing to come out and publicly condemn al-Qaeda and other extremist elements, then their words are empty…and cheap.
Show the rest of America that the monsters who savagely murdered 3,000 people aren’t your religious brethren by standing by your words.
Otherwise, how can we really believe you when you say that your mosque will promote peace and shall honor those who perished in the World Trade Center nine years ago?
Indeed, how do we really know that your Islamic center isn’t going to eventually include a Madrassa, like the publicly-funded school in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where fundamentalism is not only taught, but is also part of the core curriculum?
What assurances do we have that your Imams who preach at this mosque aren’t going to preach fundamentalism; the kind that inflamed and impassioned the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001?
The answer is none, because Islam has not been willing to publicly condemn or separate itself even from its most extreme elements. Muslims worldwide talk a good game when it comes to denying any support for the violence perpetrated by fundamentalist followers. But they haven’t proven to me that they can play one.
At the end of the day, when all is said and done, Muslims by and large tend to regard these misguided extremists still as brethren. And their silence speaks louder than their words.
I oppose the construction of a mosque so close to the World Trade Center site because I see it as more than a coincidence. It is deliberate irony.
American Islam thinks that it can improve its image by building a mosque that honors the 9/11 victims and serves as a “memorial” of such. But Muslim leaders had to have known that building their religious center two blocks from the impetus of the international War On Terror would inflame anger among the non-Muslim population. They had to have known this. How could they not? Are they really so naïve and ignorant as to believe that the deaths of 3,000 people nine years ago has cooled off enough that few would even care?
That’s like saying World War II happened so long ago that Americans shouldn’t care anymore if Japan wants to build a monument to the pilots lost during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Or, Jews shouldn’t be concerned if Germans want to build a memorial to Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich.
This is not at all about Constitutional rights. It has everything to do with what is right and what is wrong.
I go back to my premise about essential liberty: Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Essential liberty is about choosing to do the right thing in spite of having the freedom to choose the wrong thing.
If American Muslims wish to demonstrate that they are worthy of essential liberty, then they ought to practice it by choosing to do the right thing rather than insist on doing the wrong thing here.
Building a mosque in close proximity to the World Trade Center site is not only in very poor taste, but it is just plain wrong, because it deeply offends non-Muslim Americans; especially those who lost loved ones at the hands of fanatics claiming to act on the side of Islam.
To American Islam, I’d like to respectfully ask that you reconsider relocating your planned mosque elsewhere in New York City; at least where it can’t and won’t be associated or linked with the World Trade Center. It is only the right thing to do.
Economy the wrong angle for Sharron
I support Sharron Angle’s candidacy for U.S. Senate, but I question the wisdom of her attacks on incumbent Harry Reid. I also question her focus.
Most of her campaign ads blame Reid for Nevada’s poor economy. Her campaign blames Reid for the loss of real estate values. And the Angle campaign blames Reid for Nevada’s high unemployment.
I’m not saying that these attacks aren’t without merit; but they aren’t entirely accurate, either.
Reid alone isn’t to blame for our economy, job losses or real estate values. All of those things came as a consequence to the recession, the worst one in decades. The plain reality is that we all are to blame to some degree for the mess that our state, and our nation, is in.
The individual is to blame for reckless abuse of credit and borrowing. We are to blame for the mess we have put our own households in. I’m as guilty as the next person of buying things with credit cards.
The American public is to blame for its complacency and apathy in the political and economic process. When times are good, the public doesn’t seem to care that its actions now may have consequences later. The public has turned a blind eye on Washington, D.C., letting elected representatives do whatever they want. We’ve allowed politicians like Harry Reid to become entrenched in power, surrounded by influence and fueled by money. We are to blame for becoming so sick of politics that we just don’t want to hear about it anymore. We would rather live in blissful ignorance than know the truth and feel powerless. That is our fault exclusively.
Where Harry Reid has responsibility in this recession is his support of legislation and policies that either led to, exacerbated or perpetuated economic anemia. He is supposed to promote and provide for the general welfare of the United States; meaning as a representative, he should be supporting policies and laws that will foster and encourage growth and prosperity for all.
Instead, he has supported policies and laws that are counterproductive to the economy. For example, he supported the establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac federal home loan programs. And he supported their management, which eventually became mismanagement by Reid’s own colleagues and close political allies in Washington.
It was the federal government’s insistence on providing affordable loans to low income consumers that helped lead to the mortgage catastrophe that started the recession in the first place. The mortgage industry was strongly encouraged with tax incentives, and even required in some cases, to offer products that low income consumers could afford. Nobody had any objections to the interest-only products with expiration dates offered on the market; that is, not until the real estate balloon popped. Then all of a sudden, it was the fault of greedy sub-prime lenders out to make a fast buck. Somehow, the government’s role got swept under the rug, and with it, the responsibility of our lawmakers in promoting policies that led to the real estate collapse.
Reid as Senate Majority Leader is arguably the third most powerful politician in Washington, D.C. And yet, in the three and a half years since ascending to that position, the economy in Nevada has only worsened; in spite of all the “help” that the Reid Campaign claims he sent us.
Where is the bail-out money for the numerous casinos that have closed their doors over the years? Is City Center more deserving than Fitzgerald’s?
If Senator Reid is so effective in securing pork for his state—and it’s true that he is—then why hasn’t he secured more to help more Nevada businesses from going under and to save more jobs?
I ask this question as the devil’s advocate; not because I believe the feds should be bailing private industry out. I don’t believe in doing that at all. But it has been Harry Reid who claims that no one, not even the individual like you and me, can do more for Nevada than he can. That’s his campaign slogan this year, after all.
It has been Harry Reid who has supported corporate bail-outs and throwing money at every economic problem that Nevada and the nation have faced.
And yet, despite hundreds of billions—trillions, in fact—of dollars in bail-out cash being spent to infuse the economy, the national jobless rate remains near 10 percent, consumer spending remains anemic, and venture capital investments are still on shaky ground; investors still very weary of recovery.
Huge national corporations representing their industries have had to file bankruptcy despite being bailed out by the government. In the case of the Big Three Detroit automobile manufacturers, they were bailed out twice, and still had to file bankruptcy. Vast amounts of public tax dollars and borrowed deficit wasted, and Harry Reid has been there in support of these actions.
As skilled as he is at bringing home the bacon to Nevada, he has not been able to bring home enough to lower the nearly 14 percent statewide unemployment rate to a significant degree. He has not been able to bring significant relief to the real estate market by reducing the number of foreclosures. He has not been able to bring significant relief to small, medium and large businesses struggling to stay afloat and keep their doors open. And he has not been able to bring more education dollars to his state, which is among the nation’s worst in drop-out rates, graduation rates, and test scores.
If you listen to all of the education experts these days, more money means higher quality education. Well, if that’s so, then show us the money, Harry. Where’s the beef—er, pork?
If Harry Reid is so good for Nevada, then why is his state leading the nation in many negative socio-economic categories, despite his position of power as U.S. Senate Majority Leader? If federal funding is the solution to so many of our ills, then why hasn’t Sen. Reid been able to lead Capitol Hill in the amount of pork secured for his state to help ease unemployment, save jobs, improve education, bail-out homeowners facing foreclosure, and so on?
I ask only because I personally haven’t seen where Reid’s influence has been a benefit to the state of Nevada during the recession.
Frankly, Sharron Angle’s campaign should be asking the same questions, instead of simply blaming Reid for the economy.
She is just asking to be humiliated because Reid secures pork for political purposes. The more he brings home to Nevada, the more feathers he can put in his election cap and point to when people ask, “What have you done for me lately?”
Pork is buying votes. It is bribery of the electorate. Reid knows this, so he’s going to exploit it for all it’s worth.
Angle should avoid falling into the trap, because eventually, the Reid Campaign will counter her claims that he has hurt the economy by showing the money that Reid has brought home. It is called empirical evidence, and it is difficult to refute.
Instead of outright blaming Reid for Nevada’s economic woes, the Angle Campaign should be focusing on Reid’s overall ineffectiveness as Senate Majority Leader with regard to Nevada’s economy and its dubious national distinction.
Angle ought to be focusing more on Reid the career politician, and Reid the wheeler-dealer, because that is the root of the angst these days. People are fed up with political demagogues who have feathered comfortable nests for themselves on Capitol Hill and established for themselves castles and kingdoms within the Beltway. People want citizen legislators who will be responsive to them and not patronize them.
They don’t want someone who has made a career for himself by buying support with government pork. They don’t want someone who thinks so lowly of them that he believes his constituents will vote for him just because of what he claims to have done on their behalf.
Harry Reid doesn’t listen as well these days to the voices of his constituents. He listens better to the jingle of cash.
If Sharron Angle is going to win in November, then she would do much better to focus on Reid’s obsession with money; his ineffectiveness as Senate Majority Leader toward his state’s problems; his distinction as a party mouthpiece, attack dog and, frankly, political thug; his rise to the top of national politics because of greater loyalty to his party than to the people he represents; and his corruption as a career politician rather than statesman and advocate for his state.
Those are the things that will hit Harry Reid square in the jaw and below the belt. They are the things that will make him buckle over. They are blows to his popular façade, because they are true.
But if Angle continues to simply blame Harry Reid for the economy, then she is going to lose. It isn’t hitting Harry where it hurts, but rather playing right into his hands.
Right now, he’s bluffing her with a lot of rhetoric; and if Angle isn’t careful, she’ll fold to a losing hand.
Most of her campaign ads blame Reid for Nevada’s poor economy. Her campaign blames Reid for the loss of real estate values. And the Angle campaign blames Reid for Nevada’s high unemployment.
I’m not saying that these attacks aren’t without merit; but they aren’t entirely accurate, either.
Reid alone isn’t to blame for our economy, job losses or real estate values. All of those things came as a consequence to the recession, the worst one in decades. The plain reality is that we all are to blame to some degree for the mess that our state, and our nation, is in.
The individual is to blame for reckless abuse of credit and borrowing. We are to blame for the mess we have put our own households in. I’m as guilty as the next person of buying things with credit cards.
The American public is to blame for its complacency and apathy in the political and economic process. When times are good, the public doesn’t seem to care that its actions now may have consequences later. The public has turned a blind eye on Washington, D.C., letting elected representatives do whatever they want. We’ve allowed politicians like Harry Reid to become entrenched in power, surrounded by influence and fueled by money. We are to blame for becoming so sick of politics that we just don’t want to hear about it anymore. We would rather live in blissful ignorance than know the truth and feel powerless. That is our fault exclusively.
Where Harry Reid has responsibility in this recession is his support of legislation and policies that either led to, exacerbated or perpetuated economic anemia. He is supposed to promote and provide for the general welfare of the United States; meaning as a representative, he should be supporting policies and laws that will foster and encourage growth and prosperity for all.
Instead, he has supported policies and laws that are counterproductive to the economy. For example, he supported the establishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac federal home loan programs. And he supported their management, which eventually became mismanagement by Reid’s own colleagues and close political allies in Washington.
It was the federal government’s insistence on providing affordable loans to low income consumers that helped lead to the mortgage catastrophe that started the recession in the first place. The mortgage industry was strongly encouraged with tax incentives, and even required in some cases, to offer products that low income consumers could afford. Nobody had any objections to the interest-only products with expiration dates offered on the market; that is, not until the real estate balloon popped. Then all of a sudden, it was the fault of greedy sub-prime lenders out to make a fast buck. Somehow, the government’s role got swept under the rug, and with it, the responsibility of our lawmakers in promoting policies that led to the real estate collapse.
Reid as Senate Majority Leader is arguably the third most powerful politician in Washington, D.C. And yet, in the three and a half years since ascending to that position, the economy in Nevada has only worsened; in spite of all the “help” that the Reid Campaign claims he sent us.
Where is the bail-out money for the numerous casinos that have closed their doors over the years? Is City Center more deserving than Fitzgerald’s?
If Senator Reid is so effective in securing pork for his state—and it’s true that he is—then why hasn’t he secured more to help more Nevada businesses from going under and to save more jobs?
I ask this question as the devil’s advocate; not because I believe the feds should be bailing private industry out. I don’t believe in doing that at all. But it has been Harry Reid who claims that no one, not even the individual like you and me, can do more for Nevada than he can. That’s his campaign slogan this year, after all.
It has been Harry Reid who has supported corporate bail-outs and throwing money at every economic problem that Nevada and the nation have faced.
And yet, despite hundreds of billions—trillions, in fact—of dollars in bail-out cash being spent to infuse the economy, the national jobless rate remains near 10 percent, consumer spending remains anemic, and venture capital investments are still on shaky ground; investors still very weary of recovery.
Huge national corporations representing their industries have had to file bankruptcy despite being bailed out by the government. In the case of the Big Three Detroit automobile manufacturers, they were bailed out twice, and still had to file bankruptcy. Vast amounts of public tax dollars and borrowed deficit wasted, and Harry Reid has been there in support of these actions.
As skilled as he is at bringing home the bacon to Nevada, he has not been able to bring home enough to lower the nearly 14 percent statewide unemployment rate to a significant degree. He has not been able to bring significant relief to the real estate market by reducing the number of foreclosures. He has not been able to bring significant relief to small, medium and large businesses struggling to stay afloat and keep their doors open. And he has not been able to bring more education dollars to his state, which is among the nation’s worst in drop-out rates, graduation rates, and test scores.
If you listen to all of the education experts these days, more money means higher quality education. Well, if that’s so, then show us the money, Harry. Where’s the beef—er, pork?
If Harry Reid is so good for Nevada, then why is his state leading the nation in many negative socio-economic categories, despite his position of power as U.S. Senate Majority Leader? If federal funding is the solution to so many of our ills, then why hasn’t Sen. Reid been able to lead Capitol Hill in the amount of pork secured for his state to help ease unemployment, save jobs, improve education, bail-out homeowners facing foreclosure, and so on?
I ask only because I personally haven’t seen where Reid’s influence has been a benefit to the state of Nevada during the recession.
Frankly, Sharron Angle’s campaign should be asking the same questions, instead of simply blaming Reid for the economy.
She is just asking to be humiliated because Reid secures pork for political purposes. The more he brings home to Nevada, the more feathers he can put in his election cap and point to when people ask, “What have you done for me lately?”
Pork is buying votes. It is bribery of the electorate. Reid knows this, so he’s going to exploit it for all it’s worth.
Angle should avoid falling into the trap, because eventually, the Reid Campaign will counter her claims that he has hurt the economy by showing the money that Reid has brought home. It is called empirical evidence, and it is difficult to refute.
Instead of outright blaming Reid for Nevada’s economic woes, the Angle Campaign should be focusing on Reid’s overall ineffectiveness as Senate Majority Leader with regard to Nevada’s economy and its dubious national distinction.
Angle ought to be focusing more on Reid the career politician, and Reid the wheeler-dealer, because that is the root of the angst these days. People are fed up with political demagogues who have feathered comfortable nests for themselves on Capitol Hill and established for themselves castles and kingdoms within the Beltway. People want citizen legislators who will be responsive to them and not patronize them.
They don’t want someone who has made a career for himself by buying support with government pork. They don’t want someone who thinks so lowly of them that he believes his constituents will vote for him just because of what he claims to have done on their behalf.
Harry Reid doesn’t listen as well these days to the voices of his constituents. He listens better to the jingle of cash.
If Sharron Angle is going to win in November, then she would do much better to focus on Reid’s obsession with money; his ineffectiveness as Senate Majority Leader toward his state’s problems; his distinction as a party mouthpiece, attack dog and, frankly, political thug; his rise to the top of national politics because of greater loyalty to his party than to the people he represents; and his corruption as a career politician rather than statesman and advocate for his state.
Those are the things that will hit Harry Reid square in the jaw and below the belt. They are the things that will make him buckle over. They are blows to his popular façade, because they are true.
But if Angle continues to simply blame Harry Reid for the economy, then she is going to lose. It isn’t hitting Harry where it hurts, but rather playing right into his hands.
Right now, he’s bluffing her with a lot of rhetoric; and if Angle isn’t careful, she’ll fold to a losing hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
