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?
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 