In Case You Missed It: Be Quiet on the 9/11 Mosque

Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin has an important public service announcement for Republicans: Do the right thing and drop any and all calls against the Ground Zero mosque. His convictions appear so strong on the issue that he literally correlates GOP “misuse” of the situation with jihadist victory. If you missed the insanity, you can find it here. While Halperin is not necessarily a liberal (controversy ensues on his views/this issue), his piece illustrates a common tactic of the left – reversing rational thought and framing it in such a way that the opposition is purposefully backed into an inescapable corner. Let’s get a grip. Opposing the mosque has absolutely nothing to do with letting homicidal terrorist fools “win” and everything to do with exploring the moral compass through which the Cordoba Initiative has arrived at its decision to build near Ground Zero.

The now infamous mosque project has become a sore for Democrats in a hotly contested election year. Perhaps this is one reason why Halperin pleads so mightily for Republicans to leave the issue alone. Unfortunately for the left, the GOP has little control over public perception on this issue. Americans disagree with the mosque’s placement near Ground Zero, regardless of what conservatives say (or don’t say, for that matter). Even Harry Reid is hip to this reality. Halperin seems to believe that Republicans are driving public perception; this is incorrect on all counts. The American people are outraged and they want answers, explanations and assurance that nothing is awry.

Aside from the aforementioned tenants, there are a number of irritating elements in Halperin’s article. Of course, no words at all are devoted to questioning why the Cordoba Initiative has chosen to build a massive monument to Islam just blocks away from where the World Trade Center once stood. Halperin’s article is limited to telling Republicans why they should silence themselves on the issue. Before I continue, allow me to clarify something. I’m all for religious freedom; I’m not attacking Islam, but I am questioning the intention, knowing the sensitivities involved, of planning to build a mosque at that location. Naturally, Halperin is more concerned with providing advice to Republicans than he is in actually getting to the bottom of the issue at hand — why the Cordoba Initiative is obsessed with placing an Islamic beacon at the center of America’s greatest travesty.

And another note — I recognize that most Muslims are peaceful. That’s not the point here. In the end, the Cordoba Initiative has every legal right to build, but the moral implications of doing so at, near or around Ground Zero are evident. Whether leftists agree, the vast majority of the public sees the move as insensitive; it is widely opposed by nearly every measure. Should plans for the mosque forge on, there will be a great deal of resentment, which will, in turn, damage reconciliation efforts. If those individuals who wish to build truly care about bridging divides between Muslim and non-Muslim Americans as they’ve stated, they’ll choose another location. Wouldn’t this spread the goodwill that Halperin seems to believe can only come if conservatives remain silent?

Aside from the asinine notion that conservatives should simply back away from questioning the mosque’s moral implications, Halperin inserted a number of slaps, digs and generalizations. For instance, he claims that the GOP has avoided dealing with social issues, while focusing wholeheartedly on Obama’s spending habits. In his letter to Republicans he writes,

Up until now, you have restricted yourself as much as possible to an economic message, eschewing social issues and foreign policy as you try to establish contrasts for the electorate between your brand and the Obama-Pelosi-Reid record.

Unfortunately for this political analyst/journalist, who has obviously paid little attention to conservative proposals, the GOP offered a detailed alternative to ObamaCare, which the administration and members of the leftist media brigade simultaneously ignored. But, the bombshell (allow me to channel Nancy Grace) comes at the end of the piece, as Halperin writes,

It isn’t clear how the battle over the proposed center should or will end. But two things are profoundly clear: Republicans have a strong chance to win the midterm elections without picking a fight over President Obama’s measured words. And a national political fight conducted on the terms we have seen in the past few days will lead to a chain reaction at home and abroad that will have one winner — the very extreme and violent jihadists we all can claim as our true enemy.

Did you catch that, America? Holding a president accountable for his own words will literally hand victory over to our enemies. When leftists and their enthusiasts in the media are prepared to allow students to recite the pledge without designating the words “under God” unconstitutional, idiotic or bordering on the illegal, I’ll take their advice on matters of religious freedom. Until then, I’ll stick with the notion that the Cordoba mosque is perfectly legal, but overtly insensitive and morally damaging to reconciliation efforts. Moving the mosque would be a sign of goodwill and would do wonders for Muslim/non-Muslim relations in our post-9/11 world.

With that in mind, don’t give up. Make your voices heard, but do so respectfully and without making Islam the target. Focusing on the Constitutional and legal rights of the Cordoba Initiative, while illustrating the moral conundrums the project will create is a viable and common sense way to treat this issue. Don’t let Halperin or anyone else for that matter tell you otherwise.

(Originally published at HuffingtonPost.com)

Tagged with:
 

Human Events: Battling ‘God’ In The Public Square

This morning, my new article about the Pledge of Allegiance in America was published on HumanEvents.com.  Please take some time to read the piece, then share your thoughts (you may do so on this post or here).  Here’s the intro to the piece:

The debate over the Pledge of Allegiance has intensified over the past decade, with atheists and their leftist enthusiasts insisting that the proclamation be banned from the public square. While these individuals claim that they have no problem with the Pledge’s general patriotic tenants, the words “under God” are the objects of their intense scrutiny.

Click here to read the rest.

Human Events: America’s Ongoing Marijuana Debate

Last week, I wrote a piece for Human Events about marijuana legalization in America. While some conservatives and many liberals stand firmly against my opinion on this matter, I stand by it — weed shouldn’t be legalized in America.  Below, please find the article.  Read for yourself and feel free to comment:

As the debate over marijuana legalization heats up, misinformation and inadequate understanding are running rampant. While many proponents of legalization stake the claim that marijuana is a benign drug that charges no substantial toll to society, research and common sense prove otherwise.  Click here to read more

Tagged with:
 

FrontPage: The Next Nuclear Nightmare

As the U.S. and the international community enact additional sanctions against Iran, another rogue nation’s potential nuclear ambitions are raising increased global concern. For much of the past decade, intelligence officials have been warning that Burma (also referred to as Myanmar) may be actively seeking nuclear capabilities.  Click here to read more

Tagged with:
 

BP’s Other Oil Crisis

In light of the catastrophic spill off the Gulf Coast, BP has become one of the world’s most abhorred companies. While the most recent calamity may be an isolated lapse in judgment and preparedness, this is not the first time that BP has found itself in a high-profile scandal. Read more on FrontPage Magazine

Tagged with:
 

Millennials to Play Key Role in Politics

The key to winning any election is mass appeal. In simple terms: If a candidate can convince the majority of the electorate that he or she is the most favorable option, the path to the Capitol is paved in gold. Read more on HumanEvents.com

The first amendment to the United States Constitution is so profoundly important that it permeates nearly every sector of our society. Clearly, America’s forefathers deemed the contents of this primary amendment so essential that it was perfectly positioned to precede the other amendments. For this reason, among many others, any American worthy of the name should have reservations, if not concerns, regarding Elena Kagan’s anti-first amendment worldview. Allow us to first explore the amendment in its entirety:

FirstAmendment

Here, our forefathers very clearly tackle a number of issues – religion, government restraint, the freedom to speak openly, the allowance of a free press, peaceful assembly and the right to formal complaints against perceived government abuses. And this is only the short list. The amount of socio-political power possessed in the amendment’s 45 perfectly assembled words is mind-boggling. How so many on the left can continue to mis-characterize, utilize proof texts and unabashedly slaughter the amendment’s original intent is beyond me. While this continued misunderstanding is horrifying, of greater concern is the notion that Americans will potentially have another unfit Justice overseeing first amendment rights. Jacob Sullum has more on the potential danger to individual rights Kagan’s nomination may pose:

Together with some of [Kagan’s] academic writings, her arguments in [specific] cases provide grounds to worry that she will be even less inclined than Stevens, who has a mixed First Amendment record, to support freedom of speech.

Sullum covered Kagan’s penchant for censorship in detail, so I won’t recount his argument here. What I will do is tell you why the left, and Kagan, have the first amendment radically wrong (liberals: listen up):

Our forefathers (most of them, anyway) believed in the Almighty, and referenced Him in the Declaration of Independence. The “establishment clause” in the Bill of Rights is intended to prevent the American government from establishing a church, as was the case not only in England, but in such states as Massachusetts and Connecticut, which both had established churches (Congregational) and retained them in some form for decades afterward – Connecticut until 1818 and Massachusetts until 1833.

congregational church

That said, nowhere does it say that religion cannot be present in public venues. The left’s continued assault on free speech and religious practice is alarming, especially considering that the vast majority of Americans do, indeed, believe in a higher power. Congress may not create a law establishing a particular sect or religion, yet the left takes that to mean that a cross cannot be placed on public property and the Ten Commandments must be removed from every public venue. It’s clear that there’s a major disconnect between original intent and current interpretation. In fact, many times, liberals, themselves, violate the spirit of the first amendment by demanding that various cohorts not freely practice.

In terms of the press, I believe it is essential that we allow journalists and networks the right to decide how they want to distribute information. Nowhere in the first amendment would support for the Fairness Doctrine be found, as this regulatory shenanigan does little to provide actual “fairness” in reporting. In fact, this is a backdoor method Democrats incessantly salivate over, as they dream about using it to squash conservative successes in broadcast markets. Once again, it flies in the face of the individual rights guaranteed by the first amendment.

While the aforementioned examples are not necessarily tied to Kagan, a general pattern based on her past statements, papers and articles showcases an individual who appears bent on stopping many of the rights guaranteed by our Founders. Unfortunately for Kagan and her ideological bedfellows, the offensive quality of a statement, image or media outlet has nothing to do with its constitutionality. The people are protected, whether she likes it or not.

Tagged with:
 

New Jersey’s Wacky Education Antics

Without a doubt, April was a bizarre month in New Jersey education news.  First, Bergen County Education Association President Joe Coppola requested divine intervention and death by suffering for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  Then, elementary students were asked – regardless of sex – to dress up as women to commemorate Women’s History Month.  Talk about bizarre.

Let’s begin with Cappola’s plea.  In what I’m sure he thought was a fit of hilarity, he wrote the following in an email to union leaders:

“Dear Lord, you’ve taken away my favorite actor Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer Michael Jackson and my favorite salesman Billy Mayes. I just want you to know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor.”

Why such harsh words, you ask?  Like the rest of America, New Jersey is in a dire financial bind.  In an effort to reduce cuts and to keep teachers employed, Christie has proposed that teachers agree to a one-year pay freeze.  This, teamed with his request that educators contribute 1.5 percent of their income to cover medical benefits, has sent the unions reeling.  According to FOX News,

Christie added that $820 million in state aid cuts, primarily for school lunches, art teachers and language classes, among other programs, wouldn’t have to go if the teachers union would agree to a one-year pay freeze and to pay 1.5 percent of their salary toward their medical, dental and vision benefits.

While 11 local unions agreed, the union’s central authority refuses to jump on board.  Ironically, millions of Americans have lost their jobs and/or received no pay increases this year; many have fallen into poverty.  With our nation and our individual states in such horrific financial shape, it’s unconscionable that a body that represents a troop of public servants would refuse to allow educators to pay for their own health care, let alone give up a guaranteed raise.  Has the union forgotten that it’s bargaining with the peoples’ money?

The real victims are, once again, the children who will go without necessary programming and resources.  I’m convinced the union leaders would rather see insurmountable debt accumulate than compromise for the health and longevity of their state and nation.  Teachers have a tough job and they’re entitled to due compensation, but when it comes to a choice between essential programming cuts and asking teachers to do what the majority of society already does – contribute a small percentage of pay to their health care plan – the solution is clear.

In other news, in what one New Jersey school district has called a “misunderstanding,” parents are outraged.  Third-grade children (boys included) were asked to dress up in women’s clothing to commemorate Women’s History Month.  According to a letter sent home to parents,

“If your child is a young man, he does not have to wear a dress or skirt, as there are many time periods where women wore jeans, pants and trousers. However, each child must be able to express what time period their outfit is from. Most of all, your child should have fun creating their outfit and learning about how women’s clothing has changed!”

While the “cross-dressing” extravaganza has been cancelled, one cannot help but ask: What’s going on in New Jersey?  Both scenarios make it clear: Something’s definitely in the water.

Tagged with:
 

After reading about this ruling, all I can conclude is that New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Judge Anthony J. Parrillo is inept and rarely uses new media or he has an inability to reason (perhaps a cocktail of the two).  In a ruling that defies rationality, he claims that bloggers aren’t journalists.

Here’s what happened: Shellee Hale, a Washington State-based writer posted in the comments section of a blog.  Apparently, she posted information about an alleged security breach at Too Much Media, a New Jersey software company.

Though the company admitted the breach, Too Much Media sued Shellee Hale for defamation and demanded that she give up her anonymous source.  Unfortunately, Parrillo ruled against Hale, claiming that she is not protected by journalism’s coveted shield law (because she’s a mere “blogger”).  S.T. Karnick has more:

The Garden State has a shield law for journalists, meaning the government cannot force reporters or opinion writers to reveal their sources. There is nothing more vigorously defended among journalists than the right to keep secret one’s anonymous sources in service of “the public’s right to know.

In his ruling, the judge said, “Simply put, new media should not be confused with news media.”  Apparently, Parrillo’s not one for reading online news, most of which — including mainstream outlets — relies heavily on new and social media.  Simply stated: This is a terrible precedent.  Then again, this isn’t the first stench to come from Jersey, so I’ll withhold my surprise.  Read more here.

FrontPage Magazine: “America Unprepared”

This weekend, The New York Times reported on a secret, three-page memorandum that was composed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and sent to President Obama’s national security advisor this past January.  The document highlights Gates’s fear that the United States is not adequately prepared for a nuclear Iran, while calling for effective long-term strategies in dealing with the defiant Mideast nation…Read more