A look at the news will quickly headline Glenn Beck’s Saturday rally, conspiracies surrounding Obama’s religion and birth place, anti-Islam sentiments and mosque controversies, and even Paris Hilton’s latest arrest resulting her possession of cocaine. Amidst all the panelists heated debates, Pakistan and her people have been lost and forgotten.
Back in July, Pakistan was hit with record breaking storms that left the poverty-stricken nation in a state of devastation.
A Pakistani child seeks assistance while trying to stay afloat in a flooded city street.
20-million people have been displaced, 1,600 have lost their lives, and a fifth of Pakistan, roughly the same area as Italy, has been submerged as monsoon rains continue to ravage the lands.
Thousands of those displaced have resorted to make-shift homes and tents placed along a highway median. Children run the grassy fields on the shoulders, dodging 60-mph traffic on all sides. With the largest natural disaster in its history, Pakistan continues to suffer as the media casually ignore the crisis opting for, instead, stories of celebrities and mundane controversies.
Relief efforts from the international community as well as celebrities has paled in comparison to that which was devoted to Haiti in the midst of its earthquake crisis. The crisis resonates volumes given the state of Pakistan prior to the flooding.
A nation bathed in political turmoil and corruption has left the population in poverty. Many Pakistanis rely on agriculture as a form of subsistence, a mechanism, which, as a result of mass flooding, has been completely dissolved of any means of production or profit.
Those families living on the median have found the spot, aside from the dangers of traffic, to be quite the advantageous spot with the occasional vehicle stopping by with supplies or food to hand out.’
United Nations Secretary General recently visited Pakistan and returned saying that it would take $500,000,000 to provide adequate relief to the region. There have been a number of minor demonstrations and movements aimed at raising awareness and relief, but have found little luck and much resistance given the current economic climate and disasters, both natural and man-made, in other areas of the world.
So what is to become of Pakistan after the flood waters recede? Lost crops and livestock along with property damaged cities will leave many residents lacking essential resources. Diseases have already risen to epidemic proportions as healthcare was initially scarce and has diminished only further.
I would hope that, as a nation, people would rise up and answer the call to help their fellow brothers. It should not rest on the government’s shoulders to draw attention to the crisis, although it would help. In the words of Pablo Casals, “the love of one’s country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border?”
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you. Thank you for supporting the Manhattan mosque – the Manhattan mosque, not the Ground Zero mosque, nor the 9/11 mosque, as some “politicians” have recently relabeled it. Your public announcement supporting the mosque is one of the finest demonstrations of American ideology that I have witnessed in my lifetime. You show the world that our nation remains one of progress and tolerance, even if we continue, as a country, to struggle with these ideas every day. America is supposed to be the leader of the free world, we are supposed to be the guardians of freedom and deliverers of democracy, ideas that I once believed to be true, but have lost faith in over the past years. You, Mr. President, allow be to believe that hope remains and that those principles will not falter as long as we fight for them.
Your words regarding the controversial Manhattan mosque, delivered during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and on the evening of the White House hosted Iftar dinner, reinforce the lost tenets of America’s virtuous moral compass. In a year of dismal approval ratings approaching midterm elections, Republicans, namely Conservatives, have been propelled to the forefront of “righteousness.” The Tea Party has come to stand for “morals, values, and defenders of the United States Constitution.” Yet, you’ve demonstrated to the whole nation, and, more importantly, to the entire world, that acts of intolerance have no place near or Constitution. One of our most revered Constitutional rights is clearly outlined in the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The idea of a mosque being built in Manhattan in the near vicinity of Ground Zero shouldn’t be as controversial a subject as it has become, but for whatever reason, Tea Partiers and Republicans, in their quest to uphold the Constitution, have forgotten what is actually in said document.
Their reasoning of America’s founding being based on Judeo-Christian principles is widely accepted as fact, yet, simple review of founding documents, essays, speeches, letters, and such, reveal that the Founding Fathers had no intention of utilizing religion as a basis of the newly born nation. This most explicitly noted in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, an agreement of peace between the United States and an Arab nation and her Muslim people:
“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
And you, Sir, have done well to personify and uphold these principles. Your words remind me of those of your greatest predecessor, President George Washington. In a 1789 letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia, Washington declared:
“…every man…ought to be protected in worshipping the [d]eity according to the dictates of his own conscience.”
So it is with gratitude and hope that I write these words. Your words have allowed the dimming light of that “shining city upon a hill” to continue in radiance, beaming hope, and, possibly one day, illuminating the world.
2010 is a big year for politics. November’s midterm elections are sure to see their fair share of controversy. With Obama’s and Congress’ ratings down, Republicans could, seemingly, have an easy victory this Fall. But primary elections have shown the GOP split as voters back far more radically conservative candidates than the party endorses. Pundits have called this a blessing and a curse. What say you?
This is the story of American heroes; the story of men and women of valor, brave enough to offer up their lives for the national defense of this country.
Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach is a 19-year war
Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a decorated Air Force veteran, is due to be discharged as a result of the DADT policy.
veteran, having served tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he has deployed six times as a weapons system officer, and flown missions as a decorated Air Force flight officer over Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Captain Jonathan J. Hopkins is a 9-year Army veteran, who, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, was a brand-new graduate from Westpoint, graduating 4th from a class of 933. Recipient of the Fort Knox award, Hopkins quickly climbed the ranks to become a Captain where he served 3 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and earned 3 bronze-stars, one of which with valor.
Defenders of the United States Constitution, service-members in our nation’s military forces, veterans, American heroes. But these two brave men share something more. Regardless of their committment to the defense and security of this country, these men have been faced with discrimination by the very same people for whom they would lay their very own lives down. Captain Hopkins was officially discharged on Tuesday, August 10, 2010, as Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach anxiously awaits his fate with the military.
These veterans have been faced with the threat of longer being able to serve a country that they love. It has nothing to do with faulty military careers, evident through their track records, it’s a matter of their being. These decorated war veterans are being discharged for the simple fact that they’re gay.
Homosexuals have long been prohibited from serving in the military, but the severity of consequences has changed dramatically of the course of the 20th Century.
The amount of service-members that have been discharged as a result of DADT from 1994-2009.
It wasn’t until 17 years ago, after President Bill Clinton took office, that the current law was enacted as a compromise. The issue of homosexuals in the military is explicitly outlined in Section 10 of the United States Code, § 654, which is commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).
But the debate over the ethics of this clause has risen to new heights this year as President Obama made a promise to repeal this discriminatory policy. Yet the promise seems to be falling short – or at least, to slowly.
Service-members, such as Lt. Col. Fehrenbach, have been forced to take matters into their own hands by hiring legal teams and filing lawsuits so that they may continue to serve in their positions. Rachel Maddow did a terrific exposé on her MSNBC show last night, Wednesday, August 11, where she featured interviews from both the aforementioned service-men as well as a current Westpoint cadet who recently submitted her resignation.
And yet the most upsetting part of this mess isn’t just simply the fact that this bigotry is allowed to persist, but that it exists in a day and age of progression, and it exists in a day and age of patriotism; and all the while it exists, these men and women in uniform continue to love this country, its constitution, and its people – some of America’s finest heroes.
For a veteran is a veteran, no matter their orientation.
When a war is won, do we question whether or not those who won it loved someone of their same sex? When a life is saved, do we appreciate it less because the savior loves someone of their same sex? And when a casket comes home, draped with a flag, do we mourn any less because the person inside loved someone of their same sex?
What is the deal with politicians and their quick-fix ideas for handling illegal immigration? Time after time, we see Washington trying to put a Band-Aid on a gushing wound. This past week was no variation from that track record; Senator Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina went on Fox News’ “Happening Now” to discuss the possibility and the need to revoke the 14th Amendment of the United States’ Constitution which reads:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
But let’s back up a second and examine the 14th Amendment. The amendment was adopted in 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Its Citizenship Clause, the one in question, was included to overturn the ruling of Dred Scott v. Sanford, which ruled citizenship rights were not to be extended to blacks. So, the clause initially sought to protect former slaves and their children from being denied citizenship in a country where they did not choose to come to or be born in.
So why the issue now? Illegal immigration is, undoubtedly, one of the hottest issues of this era, and certainly of this year. It’s a common occurrence for immigrants to enter the United States illegally, or via a temporary visa, while pregnant, in order to give birth on U.S. soil. Birth in the borders of the United States grants the child U.S. citizenship by default and this has many Americans in an uproar as they argue illegal immigrants are cheating the system, and that those children born to illegal immigrants should not be granted U.S. citizenship. But amending the 14th Amendment won’t solve the nation’s immigration issues.
America’s immigration problems go further than amending amendments and SB-1070s, legislators are looking for quick-fix ideas to maintain their numbers and increase constituents’ support. In a recent Opinion piece, CNN political analyst, Roland S. Martin, notes that “[w]e have members on both sides of the aisle who care more about protecting their precious jobs and partisan poll numbers…[s]o instead of leadership, we get asinine suggestions like this one, which will do absolutely nothing about the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants in the country.”
What is needed is comprehensive immigration reform and Washington needs to implement an extensive overhaul of the broken system. Rather than funneling money into the border and wasting time debating amendments, legislators need to find common ground and apply that time and funds into a more permanent and effective solution. We’ve witnessed plenty of failed attempts to secure the borders, millions of taxpayers’ dollars have been sent to increase border security with the little to no impact on the wave of immigrants flooding the border. Bush’s wonder wall? That only increased death rates of immigrants as they moved their trek further out into the Arizona desert.
Another blog post raised a striking point about these children – “[y]ou just can’t deny somebody something based on circumstances far beyond their control…[a] child whose parents are immigrants, illegal or otherwise, has absolutely no control over that fact…[i]t’s downright criminal and barbaric to deny certain newborns the rights and opportunities given freely to others based solely on their parents’ legal status.”
Children born in the states are often separated from their families in cases of deportation.
Why shouldn’t these children be afforded the same rights, privileges, and protections as a child born to legal immigrants? The status of the parents is a matter outside of the equation. Children are innocent victims to a battle waged between and within party lines as Americans continually fail to address the matter in a coherent fashion.
I do have to appreciate Lindsey Graham’s nearly-missed inclusion of immigrants world-wide as opposed to just those from South and Central America, even though he later states that “[w]e just can’t have people swimming across the river having children here.” And of course Fox News doesn’t fail to deliver those striking images of Latino immigrants, only further perpetuating the existing stereotypes of immigrants.
And here’s some quick food for thought for those Conservative Christian voters, “what would Jesus do?” It seems quite simple actually, for the bible reads in Exodus 22:21, “[y]ou shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien,” and further expands on this thought in Levitcus 19:34, “[t]he alien who resides among you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself.”
So I’d presume that answers the question. Unless, of course, there’s any “refudiations” to be made – Mrs. Palin, perhaps?
The economy is slowly recovering, but there’s still threat that another recession could hit. Politicians have thrown Social Security on the table when discussing budget cuts. What say you?
Retiring retirement? A segment from MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday discussed the possibility of raising the retirement age as a mechanism to cut federal spending. Being an election year, this topic could very well be used as a strong-point for Democrats to use on the campaign trail this Fall. Given the current economic state, Americans seem to be reevaluating their spending habits and saving more and more; interest-laden credit card purchases have seen a sharp decline over the past year as consumers opt for debit card and cash purchases. With a national unemployment rate of roughly 10%, foreclosure and bank closing rates exceeding the previous year’s levels, and nearly 7 million workers who have been unemployed for more than 6 months, Americans have much to worry about and the economy is surely to be the main focus of this year’s mid-term elections.
But what about federal spending? Americans are discontented with the federal budget as the deficit continues to climb and is expected to reach $1.3 trillion at the end of the fiscal year. States across the nation are expected to pass budgets with a combined total of $200 billion in cuts. With the $862 billion stimulus close to running out, senior Obama advisers are calling for another stimulus in order to get consumers spending again. But a recent TIME poll reveals consumer thoughts about the government stimulus: “[t]wo-thirds of respondents say they oppose a second government stimulus package. And 53% say the country would have been better off without the first one.”
Figures like that make it easy to recognize the need to cut federal spending. That brings us back to the issue of where to cut spending from. Politicians are considering Social Security, but a more feasible option is available – the defense budget. The United States continues to funnel funds into 2 war fronts, Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving tax-payers to front a bill of over $1.06 trillion since the first occupation began in 2001. A second TIME poll shows how respondents would reduce spending with only 12% choosing to cut Social Security compared to 55% voting to reduce spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The money acquired from a reduction in defense spending could provide adequate funds for other necessary sectors.
Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, in the same “Morning Joe” segment, estimated the cost of war per week as $2 billion. Over a year, that equates to $104 billion – nearly 7 times Afghanistan’s GDP, where estimates for the 2009 GDP of Afghanistan average $15 billion.
The United States is supposed to be “rebuilding” Iraq and Afghanistan; with that amount of spending, the United States can rebuild schools, hospitals, and houses in these war-torn countries. And funds can return to assist in domestic projects – unemployment, education, infrastructure. A study by the American Society of Civil Engineers found that “4,095 of the nation’s 85,000 dams are in need of repair, including 1,826 that could cause loss of life if they failed. That same group says our nation’s infrastructure, everything from highways to sewers, is in need of a $2.2 trillion upgrade.” Funds could be allocated to afford universal health-care and education at little to no-cost to tax-payers.
But that’s a fool’s dream, as the Obama administration – amid his promises of hope, progress, and change – has failed to divert from Bush-era policies regarding the wars, with the House of Representatives passing a $59 billion emergency spending bill, $33 billion of which will go to Afghanistan, just last month. With a reduction in defense spending unlikely, Washington needs a call for compromise, and quickly, as November could see a shift in power if Republicans secure enough races to acquire a majority in both the House and Senate, which could translate into problems for Obama and his agenda. So here’s to you, Mr. President, in hopes that we’ll see progress in Washington and change in spending.
Morning Soapbox 