Can I Wear My Shoes Now?

Can I wear my Shoes Now? (5/4/2011)

Sunday night I was on my way home from Atlanta tuned in to CNN when I heard the President planned an unprecedented press conference around 10:40pm. My wife and I speculated on possibilities, “what could be so important?” Jokingly I offered maybe Osama bin Laden was dead, but that certainly was not worth a late night press conference. Of course, if your poll numbers have fallen to historic lows and your re-election campaign was prematurely announced weeks ago then this could be the much needed booster shot.

I argue, “who cares?” Eight or nine years ago the death of Osama bin Laden may have had material impact. For nearly 10 years we have been given the boogeyman of threat, Bin Laden and his minions trying to harm us. Of course, Orwell would not have given up his government boogeyman, Emmanuel Goldstein, because he was the necessary fuel for the government machine. Bin Laden, like Goldstein, is a necessary enemy of the state; serving to distract, unit e and focus the people away from the true issues. Bush brought as bin Laden, a desperate politically troubled president has eliminated him. Reminding us how important it is not to piss off our enemies, the United States is treating Osama bin Laden's body in "accordance with Islamic practice," a White House official says. If this man was our enemy I assert his body be publicly hung in Times Square and treated to a ticker tape parade, unless of course, no body exists and this is a diversion.

So, the real question the next time I board an airplane is, “can I wear my shoes now?” If Bin Laden is dead I assume this means we can pull out of Afghanistan this week and bring our troops home since we spent billions of dollars chasing this idiot through caves, not unlike Bill Murray and the “Caddyshack” gopher. Sadly, the media was quick to report ramped up security efforts, more scanning, and began fear-mongering possible Al Qaeda retaliation attacks. Give me a break, Goldstein (I mean bin Laden) is dead and now the threat level is pushed to imminent. I expect more money will have to be spent to assure Al Qaeda terrorism is minimized. I expect much focus on the White House this week, defining our President as a world-wide hero who saved humanity from an evil man, with the media acting like teen-age girls at a “Teen Beat” cover shoot. Osama bin Laden is dead; can I wear my shoes now?

Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy (03/30/2011)

I consider hypocrisy to be the most appalling and disgusting action someone can take. I believe examples abound like politicians campaigning for family values then engaging in affairs, organized religious leaders looking away from rape by their clergy, preachers wrapped in wealth, or global warming followers driving jets and SUVs. Many on the right are struggling with the hypocrisy of the press; their basis of accusations of liberal bias against the mainstream media. Out of fairness, our media has never been held accountable for any reporting, no matter how inaccurate. With the Libyan conflict though it appears a “wink-wink” of approval has been made to the current administration.

In December 2007, Senator Obama said: “[the] president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Shortly thereafter Senator Obama was supported by Senator Joe Biden who pledged to start impeachment proceedings against President Bush if Iran were attacked without congressional approval. Ironically, we find ourselves with the hypocrisy of our President and Vice President doing exactly what they accused Bush of doing. On March 19, 2011 President Obama stated, “Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world.”

Hypocritically the question must be raised as to how Obama could make such a statement, and ignore his prior assertions of Presidential authority. Over the last several weeks uprisings have occurred throughout the Middle East, starting with the self-immolation of a fruit stand worker in Tunisia. Each of the middle-eastern governments has turned on its citizens: Tripoli, Yemen, Bahrain, Libya, and of course our oil-rich ally Saudi Arabia. While the President had psychic-like success with his NCAA basketball picks his reason to start a war with a meaningless dictator remains a mystery. Whether or not I agree with Mohammar Qhaddaffi, Libya is a sovereign nation entitled to manage her affairs, or the same principles shall apply to China, Korea, Venezuela, and most of the middle-east. Protected by our media it is easy to see the quick dismissal of the hypocrisy of the situation, as a lover will always look away. “Hypocrisy is a fashionable vice, and all fashionable vices pass for virtue,” – Moliere (1622-1673).

Burn Qurans

I am disappointed this afternoon, Thursday the 9th of September, after reading reports that Pastor Terry Jones has announced his church will not burn the Quran on Saturday, September 11th, the ninth anniversary of the day America was attacked by Muslim extremists. Last week I wrote in support of the project in New York, building a mosque at Ground Zero. Constitutionally the right to build the Mosque is guaranteed; however distasteful. Similarly, Pastor Jones’ right to burn the Quran is guaranteed; again, however distasteful. I would hope our military could defend itself, but that appears questionable based on public comments.

What truly concerns me is the world’s willingness to cow tow to the Muslim extremists and threats. Are we to believe the world’s largest superpower, the USA, and our western allies cannot defend citizens against threats from religious zealots who have become a political movement set on killing all who disagree with them? President Kennedy’s Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, said “appeasing the aggressor only makes him more aggressive.” Repeatedly, this political movement, called Islam, has attacked innocent civilians worldwide: December 1992 in Yemen, 1993 WTC in New York, 1998 Kenya and Tanzania US Embassies killing 200 and injuring 5000, October 2000 USS Cole, 2000 Rizal Day Bombings in the Philippines, WTC 9/11/2001, 2007 Algiers Bombing, 2008 Danish Embassy, and the 2009 Little Rock Arkansas Recruitment building. Additionally, although not tied directly to Al-Qaeda, the Ft. Hood Massacre, failed 2009 Northwest Airlines bombing, and the failed Times Square bombing were also in “the name of Allah.”

Our President offers apologies to the nations of the world that oppress their mothers, daughters, and wives. The same nations with state established religion, censorship, and political oppression. He finds reasons to coddle our enemies, fails to retaliate, and explains we will withdraw troops to satisfy the demands of the petroleum-based kingdoms harboring the Jihadists who hate us. Our enemy issues “fatwa” for denigrating their political idols and writings, Muhammad, Allah and the Quran. Just check with Solomon Rushdie and the creators of South Park. Pastor Jones is considered by many a red-neck racist extremist; maybe he is a guy with the cojones to stand up to our enemy. Most saddening is General Patreaus’ concern for troop safety which makes me wonder who is winning the war. It appears 2,983 died on 9/11/2001 in vain and there can only be one conclusion: we must all live in fear of Islam.

Obama is Right

This is probably the most concerning column I have written, not because I agree with the President but because the issue is sensitive, to both sides. Currently, whether to build Park51 (a.k.a. Ground Zero Mosque) is driving passionate public debates. Hesitantly, President Obama voiced his opinion two weeks ago when he said the right to build the project was constitutionally protected. The following day he made further comments stating while constitutionally protected, it may be in bad taste. I must agree with both of his comments. While it may be in bad taste, I do not believe it is a community center designed to protect, or possibly sympathize to Islamic terrorists as has been asserted by some in the media. Ultimately, the court of public opinion will either empower the developers and those funding the project, or send them packing.

I am disturbed by talk radio pundits flummoxing methods. Other than to inflame an ill-informed public there is no other purpose for the front-page debate. The fallacy of the current argument comes from the presumption if terrorists are Muslim then all Muslims are terrorists. I take issue because living in the south, as a white male; I am stereotyped as a racist redneck by the argument racist rednecks are southern white males. Similarly, a German born in the 1920’s is not automatically a Nazi. What has been lost in the argument propelled center stage is the right to build a place of worship, as protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The same people who herald the constitution in arguments against healthcare, bailouts, and social programs are quick to stomp the same document when it does not meet their needs.

There are many aspects of the Constitution which may not conveniently fit our desires and likes. However, if we remain consistent in our application, trusting the truths set forth by the founding fathers we will not go wrong. In the case of Park51, it is clear there is no constitutional violation to build. The decision to build is purely local and is governed by the zoning laws, planning commissions, and local electorate. Does it feel good to support building the project? No, but the more important issue at hand is support of the Constitution in the face of our enemies, asserting what separates our country from those who attack us in the name of God.