And Freedom for All

At the risk of offending some of my friends and conservative followers, I am going to ask what seems to be an obvious question: what legal basis exists for opposing the Muslim construction plans in New York City? If you have been on vacation from the news for the last few weeks, you may not be aware that plans are underway to build a mosque and cultural center around the corner from "ground zero," as the former World Trade Center site is called. The sentimental motivation to oppose such a thing is crystal clear; New Yorkers have a justifiably raw nerve regarding the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. Many of us who live far from the fallen towers are nearly as sensitive as those who felt the vibrations on that horrific day.

Sentiment aside, how does one justify opposition to a religious building in the land of the free. It seems to me the First Amendment freedom of religion clause must apply to Muslims. I am aware that the spiritual leader at the forefront of this fracas, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf made some incendiary remarks soon after 9/11. Yet are not even these protected speech under our Constitution? I understand that Sharif El-Gamal, the developer, has a mysterious source of capital, allowing him to pay millions in cash for the building. Again, this is not illegal, as Soho Properties, is not a publicly traded company. The financials are no one's business until tax time; then the IRS will have a private audience. If I remember correctly, the Japanese used to own a good share of Manhattan (now I think it has transferred to the UAE,) and the Chinese were recently making offers on a large chunk of California real estate.

My point is that it is not illegal for foreign concerns to openly invest in US properties. If we oppose the development of this particular site for religious reasons only, the charge of discrimination seems appropriate. On the other hand, if the forces behind this project are proven to be enemies of the US, another door opens. National security concerns would dictate that we not knowingly allow North Korea or Iran, for example, to construct an airbase or bio-chemical facility on our soil. Our own citizens (think Michigan Militia, for example) can not plot murder and mayhem without incurring the wrath of the government they oppose. The problem with the NYC mosque is that to date no state sponsored terrorist organization has surfaced as a contributor (unless you count the rumors about Saudi Arabia.)

What appears to me to be happening among pundits of every persuasion is naked religious discrimination. Commentators I generally admire have made virulent statements denouncing the project for no other reason than its affront to Americans' sensibilities. "I don't like your kind, so you can't live here," sounds like the reasoning of bigot. Yet isn't this so sadly American. First the "Indians," then the blacks, Irish, Poles, Vietnamese, and countless others have had the door slammed in their faces. Our track record ain't so great.

Lest my true sentiments be misconstrued, I must say that I think the construction of an Islamic center near ground zero is about the dumbest move I can imagine. My advice to whoever is pushing this thing is to drop back and punt. Worse than thumbing their nose at the opposition, these people are tweaking the New Yorkers' noses. From what I have gathered about those hearty islanders, it doesn't take much to start a fight. While I am not recommending nor condoning violence, I predict that there will be hell to pay if this project gets much farther off the ground. And it is not only New Yorkers who have been itching for a fight since 9/11. Toby Keith echoed the feelings of a large part of America when he suggested that it is unwise to mess with the US of A. People are still looking for a target for that boot in the a** Toby sang about.

Bottom line, Christians can't afford to let religious bigots stop the mosque, any mosque from being built. Martin Niemoller is credited with saying that when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something--but then it was too late. We must protect the religious freedom of everyone, or there will be freedom for no one.

The Loyal Opposition

After the widely popular US Representative Pete Hoekstra lost his primary bid for governor, Danielle Leek of Grand Valley State University suggested that one of the explanations for Snyder's victory over Hoekstra might be the "crossover effect." She postulated that a number of Democrats might be certain enough of a Republican gubernatorial win in November that they would cross over to vote in the Republican primary for the candidate they would most like to see win. This is not a positive endorsement for Rick Snyder. Hey, I'm the guy most Democrats would like to see running Michigan (if a Republican has to do it.) That is the downside of an open primary.

This apparently less than ideal situation may have its advantages in other areas. What if it resulted in officials being elected who best represented the middle of the road? What if it eliminated the pressure from the fringes which presently warp many politicians? What if it brought about the coalition building like that required in a parliamentary system such as that of Great Britain? Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing after all. Which leads me to another radical idea. Why not have all the issues decided on the basis of what the "other side" has to say?

Gore's scientific "consensus" on the human role in global warming is widely reported in the media as fact. The truth is that while approximately 2,500 scientists worked on the United Nations report on global warming, only about 25 wrote the consensus paper which expresses certainty about the human causation of climate change. Many of the remaining scientists asked to have their names removed from the summary when they read it. They adamantly disagreed with the summary committee's position. Let's give them a "vote" when considering whether to spend trillions of dollars to fight what just may be a chimera.

Or what about Obama's economists believing we can spend our way to prosperity (aka the stimulus package.) Franklin D. Roosevelt tried that and many historians agree that his policies did not end the Depression, rather they turned a serious recession into the longest economic downtime in our history. In other words, the opposition which might have stopped FDR may have been right and decade long economic disaster might have been averted. Perhaps our thrill ride to insolvency could be stopped by such thinking today.

Or what about the wisdom of raising taxes to increase government revenue versus lowering them and encouraging growth which then builds the tax base. Confiscatory tax rates simply cause people to hide their money or move it out of the reach of the IRS. There is no proof from history that higher taxes increase revenue. On the other hand, lowering the tax burden, allowing people and corporations to keep more of their own money has always caused a spurt in economic growth and a resulting boom in tax collections. It worked for JFK; it worked for Reagan; it should work again.

Of course, I realize this strategy of letting the naysayers have more say could backfire on me. Not long ago there were many who were opposed to the surge in troops to Iraq which President George W. Bush hoped would end the war. It did. If Sen. Harry Reid, then Sen. Barak Obama and the rest of the opposition had kept Bush from executing his strategy, we might not have had the result we see today in that country. If we had followed the opposition's lead, we would have left the country to the insurgents instead of pulling out as we are now with some hope that the freedom our presence (and blood) bought will survive.

Maybe what I am really hungry for is a return to the good old days when issues were honestly debated. US politics today seems to be a winner take all kind of game where the loyal opposition is regarded as not just different, but wrong, even unpatriotic. This is unfortunate, because as Baron Acton observed correctly in the nineteenth century, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bible also commends the practice accepting "many counselors" to reach wise decisions. What I pine for is what used to be called civility. I don't imagine that we'll ever agree on everything, but I dare to hope that we might learn how to disagree less disagreeably, and more honestly.

Election Night Ruminations

It is well after midnight on Primary Tuesday. Neither of "my guys" looks to be in the running anymore, so what can I say. I did not hear Pete Hoekstra's concession speech, but I'll wager it was gracious and grateful -- that's the kind of man he is. I did speak to Bill Cooper a few hours ago (when things were not looking too pretty for his bid.) I can only paraphrase, but I think he said he could handle the emotions if he loses better than if he wins. His reasoning was that everything he has ever achieved has been by his own sweat and tears; a political win would rest on the efforts of others than himself (I assume he meant staffers, volunteers, voters, etc.)

This seems to me to be a refreshing dash of humility in a field where such is seldom present. I missed my chance to tell Bill that in effect, a victory would still have been based on his own personality, policy choices and preferences, in other words, on who he is. He went on to say that he was glad he could do all the politicking the race required without having to become something he was not. Again, a win would have represented a personal accomplishment, in the sense that Bill Cooper (the real Bill Cooper) would have won the day.

It may be ironic that the man who appears to have taken the Republican primary for the 2nd District US House of Representatives seat is so much like Bill Cooper that a wolverine hair might stick if dragged between their positions. The only thing Bill Huizenga can say to differentiate himself is that he has political experience. I was in Cooper's camp precisely because he doesn't have political experience. This is not just throw-the-bums-out vitriol; I hate that both Huizenga and Kuipers voted for the Michigan Business Tax when in the legislature. Granted, Huizenga voted against the second version of the MBT (the only one that saw the light of day,) and he was stalwartly in favor of demolishing the Small Business Tax. Still, I would have preferred a man who could have said no to any business tax in the environment we currently suffer under.

Now if Riemersma slips past Huizenga in the wee hours, I will wonder what happened to common sense among West Michigan Republicans. Again, the same wolverine hair test would prove sticky; all three candidates make pretty much the same claims. I can support everything the man says he stands for, and I appreciate the professional way he promotes his cause, but Jay Riemersma was a football player and a non-profit runner, neither of which is exactly a resume rocket booster. A victory for Jay might just prove that you can still buy an election in this district.

So what do "my guys" do tomorrow? Pete can probably retire, although I suspect he still has too much energy and political inertia to slip completely off the grid. Bill Cooper will just go back to being Bill Cooper which is not a bad thing for anybody, as far as I know. The other losers will have stacks of receipts (and maybe bills) for ad space and yard signs, whereas Cooper, since a large share of the campaign time and energy went to Thanks a Million food distribution, will have thousands of people in the 2nd who can be truly grateful that he made the effort. That's not such a bad way to lose.

Good Time Charlie

The good times may be nearing the end of the roll for Charlie Rangel, unless he can wrangle himself some kind of deal with the House Ethics Committee. Call me a cynic, but if the Dems are seriously looking into the affairs of one of their own, he’s toast. Many of my apolitical friends say there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. In some ways that is true; there seems to be only one species of political animal in Washington these days (with rare, refreshing exceptions.) But when it comes to ethics, the two parties’ behavior is poles apart (pun intended.)

Slap the stink of scandal on a Democrat and his buddies rally round in defense, usually blaming the right wing smear machine (aka those-who-tell-the-truth.) Just picture the way Bill Clinton soldiered on through Travelgate, Whitewater, Lewinski and etc. Or you can recall William (Cold cash) Jefferson, the Louisiana congressman who is still representing, at last notice. One can barely recall all the tax cheats and social misfits President Obama nominated to fill his administration. The scandal du jour is Rangel, whose alleged misdeeds have been public knowledge for almost two years. If he leaves office, I predict it will be by force of law, not of free will.

On the Republican side there may be no fewer allegations, but there is a decidedly different reaction. There was that Senator, a Governor, a Speaker, and that Florida candidate all of whom did less than moral things, although none could hold a candle to Charlie and the gang when it comes to gravity. Yet I struggle to remember their names (do you?) I think it is because they slipped away quietly into the night. Granted, Senator Bridge-to-Nowhere hung around to be ousted by his Alaskan constituency. And poor, hapless Congressman Wide-stance tried to wriggle out of his embarrassing situation in the airport. But by and large, Republicans just resign, perhaps in shame or just out of better political judgment.

I really wish we had more elected officials who could keep their noses clean (and to the grindstone) so that the scandal machine would just run out of steam. I think Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are the type I mean. I want guys like Norm Coleman and Tom Tancredo not to disappoint me. I really hope that Bill Cooper and Pete Hoekstra will fulfill the promise. And did you vote today? The primaries are such slow news that the predictions are for a twenty percent turnout. This is the beginning of the process to put better people in office. If you didn’t vote today, don’t complain if there is nobody worth electing in November. A participatory democratic government is only as good as the participants. If you want less of Charlie Rangel and more of somebody else, it’s your duty to make it happen. We the people is you and me. Period.