Muslim

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).

I am Angry

I am angry because it appears no one knows what is going on around them with deficits, rising fuel prices, Islamic radicalization, and Middle East uprising. The most twisted issue is an American society willing to tax food, clothing, and shelter, at the same time as supporting 44-million Americans on food stamps all while watching media celebrities like Charlie Sheen make fools of themselves. It cost an extra “Andrew Jackson” to fill my car today and the mainstream blames fuel prices on the Middle East, but that’s far from the truth. A middle-school look at the readily available data shows a more fundamental reason for the rise, one destroying our lifestyle and future.

Rising fuel prices are simply attributed to three factors: monetary supply, supply and demand, and speculation. Speculation is based on fear in the market which is driven by political unrest around the world. Supply and demand is a direct consequence of emerging economies, hurricanes in the Gulf, or destruction of Middle East oil assets. Although the Middle East uprisings are dominating news reports daily, the current rising prices are truly a function of monetary supply. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke speculated on QE2 in August 2010 and it was officially announced November 4, 2010. Each week I graph crude oil prices and up until August prices were relatively stable, but immediately following QE2’s speculation fuel prices started to rise, increasing more after the official announcement. With the devaluation of our currency, OPEC announced a desire for higher fuel prices to effectively capture the same income. Today’s Middle Eastern uprising is a secondary issue exacerbating the underlying cause of rising fuel prices. Blame our government and central bank, not those fighting for civil liberties.

The solutions being thrown around by political pundits from both sides make no sense and demonstrate politics’ need-to-please, not realistic solutions. Opening strategic reserves is anecdotal to a giving a cancer patient a band-aid. “The Long Emergency,” as James Howard Kunstler writes, has begun and political unrest, failed monetary policies, and a third-world desirous of the same excesses we enjoy will continue to drive oil prices upward. I am angry pop-culture nonsense Tom Brady’s hair and Gaga’s breast milk ice cream exploits resonates more importantly than the collapse of our currency. On November 10, 2010 I wrote, “Gasoline should easily reach $3.40/gallon by April as OPEC is demanding a minimum $100/gallon.” I am angry no one listens.

Cairo – Do Americans Riot?

Cairo – Do Americans Riot?

Several weeks ago uprisings in Tunisia dominated the evening news and daily papers. Most Americans are quick to dismiss such events, and why not? Steven Tyler’s performance on “American Idol” or the choosing of 20-something millionaires to play in the Super Bowl delude the masses; appearing far more important than citizens risking their lives for freedom. I too have felt the challenge to understand, but in college I watched Chinese students challenge communist regime and ultimately give their lives in Tiananmen Square to demonstrate the human rights violations of their government. Growing up I knew the communists of the U.S.S.R. regularly violated individual freedoms and imprisoned citizens behind the iron curtain. Through Hollywood movies I learned more about the fight after World War II and my history classes tried to explain the actions of authoritarianism and dictatorships.

Although many arguments about the cause may be made, the issues in Cairo this week are driven by 30 years of authoritarian rule under President Hosni Mubarak and a discontent youth rebelling against his authority. But the recent riots are not new, and by no means ultimately represent the underlying problems in a country desirous of democracy but operating with an ancient mentality. On November 24, 2010 a Christian was killed, 100 arrested and 3,000 demonstrators protested the razing of a new Christian church built without a permit. Under Ottoman law a permit is required to build a Christian church, in contrast Mosques are built easily and regularly without review of a state authority. Today many assertions are being made in the media that the riots are religious in nature, but local reporting and blogging, held an opposite view. Instead, the riots are the result of 30 years of oppression and dictatorship and inspired by the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia.

As the World’s policeman the American citizenry believes our own government is above such actions and the riots we watch overseas could not occur here. My wife and I had a conversation this week about Americans and whether riots would take place here. Coincidentally I am reading a book, “The Emerging Police State” by William Kunstler and together we watched “Battle in Seattle,” chronicling protests against the World Trade Organization. Skeptically I listen to the outrageous conspiracy claims of Alex Jones and wonder if any truth inspires. As I learn more though I have discovered striking parallels between the radical claims of the left and the right; the common thread leading to a questioning of our government’s actions. Uprisings have occurred on our soil, and many are similar to Egypt: spurred by youth and ideological believers desperate for change and an opportunity to be heard. Sadly, like Egypt, death has come upon those who question the United States government or the corporations profiting and seeking protections through the rule of law.

Kunstler’s book is a compilation of speeches made through the years and inspired by his battles for justice. In my opinion it is easy to condemn the actions of those we do not like, but it is more important to defend the application of justice when we like it least. From a speech in 1971, with memories of Kent State fresh, long forgotten to the annals of time and unknown to anyone under age 40 today, he indicts the government for condoning the slaughter of unarmed students, using the law to fabricate evidence and justify its actions. In the most disgusting example, the Grand Jury which is supposed to provide protection from the law, but serves as an agency of the government, found the National Guard justified in shooting, although no student sniper existed and it was a Major’s discharge of his sidearm that prompted spraying the crowd with bullets. Furthermore, the Grand Jury recommended .22-caliber bullets should be used against future student demonstrators instead of the larger, more harmful caliber M-1.

Forty years later, in the summer of 2010, Pittsburg was shut down and noise suppression cannons were used to hold off G-20 demonstrators. No one was killed, but our government has mechanisms to slow and prevent demonstrations. Likewise, the movie “Battle in Seattle” shows the offensive measures police and National Guard took against WTO protesters in 1999. Since then “Exclusion Zones” have been created and are defined as “areas where protesters are legally prohibited.” A quick read of the Bill of Rights contradicts this as the Congress was prohibited from passing any law interfering with the right to peacefully assemble. Without protest though, we have sheepishly allowed court rulings to support the establishment of Exclusion Zones and Free Speech Zones, often located miles from the desired protest site and set behind concrete barriers, fencing, and razor wire.

Watching from a distance this past week I am concerned our government and media does not condemn Egypt’s actions to shut down the internet and communications. With bi-partisan support the Senate is prepared to again introduce legislation to create an “Internet Kill Switch.” In Egypt stopping communication has become necessary to thwart organizing by protesters. I believe many Americans view such actions as part of their perception of safety, but I counter it is another step in the incremental destruction of our freedoms. When challenged, a congressional white paper on the measure said the proposal prohibits the government from targeting websites for censorship “based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Ironically, the same language is used in the Patriot Act.

Our country is radically changing, not in terms of Democrat versus Republican, but government and corporations versus citizenry. Each of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights has been usurped over the last 40 years to protect the state and corporation. Meanwhile we have sat idly by accepting, like children, the supposed safety created in exchange for liberty. We have watched legislation pass that punishes minorities and the indigent in greater numbers. Currently the mainstream populace finds itself victim to the banking, mortgage, and credit fraud perpetrated by the elite few and legitimized by Congress. I challenge you to understand why youth in Egypt are risking their lives against oppression, question why Icelandic people rioted to avoid the indebtedness of the banks, why 170,000 TSA employees have the freedom to ignore the Fourth Amendment, and why both sides of Congress support legislation to cut communications via the Internet. From the comfort of our homes it is safer to let others protest and not put ourselves at risk. I think the answer to my wife’s question about whether Americans riot is easy, “the passionate due, the idle don’t.”

Burn Qurans

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

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.