Everywhere we turn Islam is in the forefront of discussion.  Every media page, news program, magazine and blogosphere is in a constant state of reporting some story that revolves around Muslims.  It has completely permeated every area of American life: our culture, our legal system, our deepest held beliefs.  We are told many things from people who have a myriad of motives. The unknown has thrown America into a tailspin.  Many people, even with the best of intentions have no idea how to react to a value system so different from our own.  This is why we hear outrageous stories ranging from extreme acquiescence of allowing Sharia law within our borders to the incendiary pastor condoning and leading the burning of Korans.

Let me start by making some statements that will probably really anger some of you.  Let’s just get them out of the way.  After reading Nomad, an incredible book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman who escaped extreme Islam, I am more sure than ever that most forms of Islam will never coexist with American values.  She tells of the Islam that she has seen, one that rules by fear, warning of a furious god that will punish for the most minor infraction, and results in total social control.  She tells of societal norms, prescribed by their biblical texts that oppress women, and sour men towards all forms of modernity, seeing them as immoral and corrupt.  She points out certain passages in the Koran that suggest beating your wife to keep her from rebelling, killing infidels, and valuing men above women in every way.  A Muslim woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s in a court of law.  In the case of rape, it is a he said/she said, and he always wins because his testimony is worth double of hers.  A woman who is raped is often outcast or stoned for her “illicit” behavior that led to her rape.   A Muslim woman’s inheritance is legally half that of her brother’s.

The author herself underwent genital mutilation at the hands of her grandmother as a small girl so that she would never enjoy sex, and thus, remain pure and faithful to her future husband.  She states that genital mutilation is an extremely common practice in African Muslim nations, happening to 90% or more of young girls, and continues in Western societies despite laws trying to prevent it.  Ali had no choice in whom she would marry, and faced an arranged marriage to a cousin that she fled from, putting her very life in jeopardy for her disobedience.  Merely speaking out as a now-American citizen has her life at a constant threat from Muslims trying to assassinate her.

Under Muslim law, women do not have the right to decide what to wear, if they will work, who they will marry, or even where they will go.  All these decisions are made for them by their father, brothers or husband.

Let me stop here.  Folks, we are not talking about extreme Islam here.  Just plain Islam.  Certainly, there are zealots in Islam just as there are in other religions, and of course there are moderate Muslims who do not prescribe to these beliefs, but in many cases these are values taken directly from their holy texts and integrated into their daily lives. And let me address something that is sure to be argued: these are folks living among us.  They are not just some fringe group in a far-away land.  There are millions of Muslim Americans living around us that have immigrated from all over the globe.  Do you think they integrated into American life completely upon entering our borders?  Do you think they left behind all their customs and beliefs just because they don’t jibe with our American civil rights?  Do you think they care about feminism?

Recently, a case in New York came to light in which a woman accused her husband of multiple rapes.  The state pressed charges, and the husband calmly explained in court that he abides by Sharia law, which dictates that a man can have his wife whenever he wants, even if she doesn’t want to have sex.  He admitted to forcibly making her perform sex acts because that was his right as a husband.  Was he sentenced to years in prison for admitting to raping his wife, you ask?  No, a judge found that the man would be held to a different standard because his personal religious beliefs dictated a different set of rules.  So basically, we’ll just throw the laws of our nation out the window to acquiesce to someone who is attacking their wife on a regular basis in the name of religious tolerance.  Be warned: Someone who thinks Sharia Law is acceptable is accepting of discrimination against women.  There’s no way around it.

Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, and extremism is growing in leaps and bounds as well.  Today, a major news source released a report that showed a frightening increase in Muslim American-born citizens resorting to terrorism.  In her book, Ali addresses this issue, describing how Muslim populations often “ghettoize,” segregating themselves from the rest of society.  They do this so they can uphold their way of life, their beliefs and customs.  It also serves to become a source of “Us and Them” syndrome, though.  Since they do not integrate into our society, they see themselves on the outskirts, and feel rejected.  Many refuse to learn the language, their children have trouble in school, and they don’t identity themselves as American, but rather just living in America.  Because of this, they feel no loyalty to America, no patriotism.  They are angered by inequality, and feel marginalized (even if it is by their own doing), and they are easily swayed by zealots selling extremism.  They see themselves as SO different from the American population who heralds shows such as, “Sex and the City,” and, “the Sopranos,” and regale a woman’s right to choose, and support wars waged against Muslim nations.  They are happy to stand up for what they believe, and youth are often talked into a suicide mission that promises honor for their family, and happiness in the afterlife.   Ali mentions how common it is for Muslims to profess their beliefs even door to door, and win people over with good works and charity just to later spoon feed them a load of propaganda to inspire them to jihad. This cycle of events is sure to continue, and will be detrimental to the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans.  Every security measure, no matter how necessary, will remove some of the freedom we have to travel, to communicate, even how we live in our own homes.

So what can we do?  America is an awesome place of diversity and freedom.  While we should continue to celebrate that diversity, we should also be wary of people seeking to infringe upon the freedoms of others.  Just because it is done in a side of town that we are not familiar with, does not mean we can turn our backs on it.  We have a responsiblity as Americans to ensure that ALL people living within our borders are being treated in a humane, safe manner, regardless of color, sex or religion.  We need to shove religious tolerance to the side when it conflicts with basic human rights.  We cannot allow religious law to supersede the laws of our country, or the rights provided for us under the Constitution.  We need to help immigrants integrate fully into our society, and show them the value of assimilation.  Most importantly, we need to show them the good side of America.  We need to show love, compassion, and the idea of a loving God, a God who doesn’t ask us to give our lives, but gave the life of His Son for us. People who are connected and empathetic to those around them will not be as willing to kill the innocent.

     Back in my day (which wasn’t that long ago!) we had parents who were competent to make decisions, and, imagine this, a government that stayed out of our personal business.  This whole trend of demonizing junk food is so obnoxious to me.  Kids are fatter than ever, and we are looking to point the finger anywhere but at ourselves. In the era of video games and texting, parents these days are excited if their child will play Wii bowling because it’s the most physical activity that they will get for the entire week. So is this Burger King’s fault?  Aren’t we in charge of what our children eat?  Parents aren’t taking the time to make home-cooked meals, are grabbing fast food, and the scales are telling the tale.  I will not deny that a large percentage of children are overweight, but I get down-right angry when someone tries to mess with my junk food, as if Cheetos are waging war on America.

     Recent measures, such as NYC threatening to ban all saturated fats from city limits, and the campaigns throughout school systems nationwide to get rid of pop machines and snacks are anti-American.  Before you think I’ve lost it, consider this:  There are high school students that are old enough to fight in Iraq who are not allowed to crack open a Sprite at lunch.  I would venture to say that this is unconstitutional.  A legal adult should be able to drink whatever non-alcoholic beverage they choose.  Many schools will not even let students bring in soda with their parents’ permission.

     What bothers me even more than the personal rights side of it, though, is the Big Government infringing on the rights of business.  Michelle Obama takes offense to fat kids, and all the sudden my son can’t have a toy in his Happy Meal?  As I parent, I know that the toy is one of the only weapons we have against a stubborn child.  “Eat your nuggets, and you can have your car.”  Am I revealing too much?  Perhaps the children of Santa Barbara County choose on their own good judgment to dine on tofu and wheat grass, and a greasy cheeseburger is a personal affront to their sensitivities.  I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that even yuppie parents have a desperate moment every decade or two, where they swing by a drive-thru to get a quick meal.  This law will put the business owners of Santa Barbara County at a disadvantage.  Silly or not, they will lose business.  And will this really inspire parents to enforce good eating habits for their children?  Of course not.  We will still have fat children because we have fat parents with bad habits and the unwillingness to say no.

     The government has no business in business.  Short of regulations that prevent an E-Coli breakout or a six-year-old from cleaning bathrooms, I don’t want our government passing moral judgments on something as American as a cheeseburger.  Now if a parent decides that said cheeseburger is too fatty for their child, so be it.  If a parent is worried about the amount of sugar in a soda, they can refrain from buying soda.  Passing a law, no matter how well-intended, on my health, is un-American.  It’s none of your business whether I eat a salad or the fattiest, cheese-dripping, bacon-covered burger on the planet.

     Before you decide I’ve made much ado about nothing, I want you to think about something much more worrisome: If our government is willing to nit-pick on something so minor as a toy, what other issues will they stick their nose into?  What larger rights will they soon be trying to take away?

How could something that looks so good be bad?

     The latest Rasmussen polls tell us that 52% of Americans are opposed to a national health care plan, while only 44% approve.  Other polls have shown the disapproval rate as high as 58%, yet Nancy Pelosi and the Obama Administration are intent on passing a bill that most Americans don’t want.  Pelosi has been urging democrats to pass the bill, ignoring the concerns of their constituents, and threatening their re-election.

     Why democrats are so eager to pass this bill so quickly, I do not know.  61% of voters believe Congress should scrap the proposed plan, and start over, and 63% want Congress to pass smaller bills that address individual problems, instead of a massive overhaul of the health care system.  The people have many concerns.  There is the budget to think of, and the incredible national deficit, and a huge concern to many is the inclusion of abortion at the tax payer’s expense.  Do these issues give Congressional Democrats pause?  They don’t seem to.

     The issue of abortion being included in the bill is not just an effort by right-wingers to stall or thwart the proposed plan.  Nancy Pelosi has stated firmly that the plan does not support abortions with taxpayer money, but she isn’t being completely honest.  There are many loopholes in the wording that would, indeed, allow for women to receive abortions paid for by taxes.  For instance, in the current version of the bill, there is something called the Mikulski Amendement where abortion can be defined as “preventative care” for women.  Prevention of what?  Morning sickness and swelling ankles?  This is just one example of ways democrats will be able to push through their agenda with objectors (Republicans) having no voice thanks to the reconciliation process.

     In the past there has also been provisions for health care providers in bills called, “full conscience protection.”  Essentially, this is the promise that although doctors, nurses, etc., help process health care procedures paid for by government programs, they cannot be forced or accused of discrimination for denying to perform procedures they disagree with morally.  This means that a medical professional cannot be asked to perform an abortion if they object to it ethically.  They also cannot be penalized in any way for not performing a procedure that the government is providing. The current health care bill allows no such provision.  It is not clear what would happen to a doctor or nurse that would refuse to perform an abortion, but this bill does not protect their right of refusal as past bills have.

      While abortion is such a hot-button issue in our country, I would think democrats would be more inclined to compromise in order to get more people on board with the health care overhaul.  President Obama arranged a health care “summit” which would supposedly bring together bipartisan ideas, and mesh them into the perfect health care reform bill.  Republicans were promised a chance to voice concerns about the bill, but meanwhile, democrats were furiously working in the background on their own agenda, as if the outcome of the summit didn’t matter a lick.  They all know this matter will be decided by democrats and democrats alone.  While President Obama talks a good talk about bipartisanship, and being open about proceedings, the end result was always going to be the reconciliation process where democrats go in a back room and leave Republicans powerless.  Republicans are painted by Pelosi and her ilk as difficult to deal with, and dems pretend that this is not how they wanted to do things, and that they are just trying to do what is right for the American people.

     The truth is that Republicans and Independents are simply voicing the concerns of millions of Americans who are scared about the price tag of such a huge overhaul of our system.  They are worried about the quality of care they will be receiving, and the effect such a huge program would have on our country in a tough economic climate.  The idea that reconciliation can even be used in this instance is a mystery to me.  Democrats tried to implement it in 1994 for Clinton’s health care plan, and a rule, the Byrd Rule, halted the process because it states that reconciliation cannot be used when the national deficit will be increased for more than 10 years after the measure is used.  Obama and Pelosi insist that this plan will actually lower our deficit.  Any grade schooler could tell you that spending $1 Trillion does not add up to helping our debt problem.  Pillaging Medicare and other programs is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul, and does not help our overall money mess.

     Reconciliation is a nasty process, and while it has been used by both parties at various times, I believe it is so anti-American.  We vote to elect politicians to go to Washington and represent us and our beliefs.  Then, using an obscure method of procedure, our “guys” are completely side-lined, and we have no voice at all.

      Nancy Pelosi and others insist this is what is best for the American public, and I think she truly believes it.  I don’t doubt that her intentions are good.  It is sad that there are so many Americans that are uninsured, and have gone bankrupt to make good on their medical bills.  That being said, her condescension cannot be ignored.  The entire attitude in Washington democrats seems to be that they know what’s best for us, even though we can’t see it.  No matter how we protest or argue, or assemble, we are portrayed as a bunch of nut cases that don’t know what’s best for themselves.  Tea parties are openly regarded as a bunch of wackos congregating, and anyone who disagrees with the health care plan is looked upon as someone with sinister, greedy, right-wing intent. 

     And they don’t stop there.  Not only does Nancy Pelosi assume she knows what’s best for me, she is intent forcing her agenda at the same time.  According to her, what is best is free abortions for all American women.  Somehow we have gone from a focus on suffering citizens with pre-existing conditions to a platform for young women to have easier access to government funded abortions.  In a plan where every citizen is covered, it will be easier than ever for young girls to receive abortions without parental notification.  Nevermind the fact that, once again, the majority of people in our country think abortion is wrong.  So not only does the Obama Administration seek to implement a plan most do not agree with, they also want Americans who despise abortion to pay for it out of their paycheck each month.

     Once upon a time, we pretended that the people we voted for and elected represented us in Washington.  This was not so long ago.  We could voice our concerns to them, and supposedly they considered our opinions when voting on issues.  However, with the majority of Americans saying, “no,” to the health care overhaul, our voice is falling on deaf ears.  When President Lincoln gave his address at Gettysburg, he spoke words that Americans would hold dear for centuries to come.  His ideal of a government, “of the people, by the people, for the people,” is an integral principle of our country.  But the question remains: A government for the people, according to who?  The people have spoken, and the Nancy Pelosis of this country have ignored their voice.

What do you think?  Leave a comment below!

     This year, there is an ad that is receiving as much flak as Janet Jackson’s breast-bearing performance, and it hasn’t even been seen yet.  Tim Tebow, Heisman Trophy winner, and quarterback to the Florida Gators, will be starring with his mom in an ad that, “celebrates life and family.”  While it is sure to be more than that, the makers are mum about its implications.  Women’s groups and many others are irate about its possible message. 

      It all started in 1987 when Pam Tebow was pregnant with her fifth child, Tim.  When she returned from a mission trip to the Philipines, she was very ill, and her doctor suggested she have an abortion.  She adamantly refused, and gave birth to a child that would become one of the most successful, well-known athletes of all time.  He has more notoriety than most NFL players, and has never taken a snap on a professional field.    He is featured in Sports Illustrated, ESPN, and followed around by TMZ paparazzi.  He is the full package: someone who spends his time on mission trips while his teammates sun in Mexico for spring break, he is courteous, polite, a terrific role model, and has washboard abs to boot.  He is an exemplar human in every aspect.

     The ad first started taking shape when Focus on the Family, headed by James Dobson, approached Tebow.  He was happy to help.  Dobson and his group raised the $3 Million for the 30 second spot from, “generous private people,” and were surprisingly approved by CBS.  CBS has claimed in the past to reject any commercial spot that took a stance on a controversial issue.  They have rejected commercials from Catholic organizations, PETA, the United Church of Christ, and all political campaign ads during the 2008 election.  This is part of what angers people so much.  CBS certainly has a right of refusal, but why not refuse this ad?  It is hard to say without seeing any of the potential ads.  The PETA ad, for instance, showed models getting “friendly” with vegetables.  You can see why this would not please families sitting down to a football game with their children.  There is no way of knowing how risqué these ads might have been.  Presentation is everything, and even if a message is innocuous, it can be done in poor taste.  CBS must be confident that the ad featuring Tebow is acceptable, and as a conservative, and I am extremely excited that this one is slipping through the cracks.

     That being said, Super Bowl commercials have always been mindless, funny attempts for people to buy beer, stock trades and cellular service.  Ads that would feature somber, controversial topics would certainly change the tone of the festivities.  But isn’t the point making money? The capitalist in me says that CBS should sell these commercial spots to the highest bidders, providing they follow FCC guidelines.  The American public is smart enough to make their own judgements on political ads.  In this scenario, demand is driven up, the prices get higher, and most small groups wouldn’t be able to afford to push their agenda anyway.  However, the mom in me says that allowing the United Church of Christ to make statements about gay rights, and Tim Tebow to discuss abortion, presents some weighty issues that I might not be ready to discuss with my young children, especially not with a tv blaring in the background.

      CBS’s official policy is to not present commercials that are, “offensive,” but offensive to who?  PETA would say a McDonald’s ad was offensive, and some religious groups would find fault in Budweiser.  There is no way to please everyone.  In the end, it is always up to the channel broadcasting the event, and there will always be accusations of discrimination.

     If the Tebow ad does air, which is not guaranteed, it will surely open a can of worms.  To avoid claims of impropriety, networks will allow ads of all kinds, and private people with money to blow will be pushing their agenda every which-way.  Our old-fashioned ritual of sitting around the tv with family will have less of a care-free feel to it, and might even lose its place in our American tradition.

What do you think?  Leave a comment below!

     If you have read any of my past blog pieces, I am certain you can guess how I feel about abortion.  I feel that it is a terribly unfair, disgusting procedure that has been made legal by people of questionable morals.  I believe it is being used as a form of birth control in our country, which has taken away accountability from adults who are irresponsible in using protection.  I believe the methods of performing abortions are incredibly inhumane, and I find it ridiculous that in a culture concerned about torturing terror suspects, and ready to execute Michael Vick, that we do not have more people exposing the torturous ways babies are killed in our country.  They are suctioned, some are burned, some are cut to pieces, some are left to die from exposure after they were still born alive.  If you don’t believe me, please Google it.  You will be sure to see more than you ever wanted to.  The people who find it convenient to call these babies, “fetuses,” will be shocked to see from these pictures that these corpses are indeed those of small children.

     While I could go on for ages about why I do not support abortion, I would actually like to discuss the entire idea of being Pro-Life.  While this title does encompass the lives of the unborn, it is so much more, and is neglected on an even more regular basis.  To be pro-life should mean so much more to us as moral humans.  In the wake of the recent events in Haiti, I think many are pausing to reflect on life and loss.  We are more thankful for what we have, and hopefully, we have felt that undeniable twinge of compassion where for just a minute, we put ourselves in the shoes of someone else and feel true empathy.  Over 200,000 are believed to be dead, and over 20,000 died just yesterday for lack of proper medical attention. 250,000 are wounded, and all are hungry and thirsty.  These are desperate people.  While most watch their tv sets and shake their heads, perhaps pray or write a check, there are those who, in an effort to find some meaning in this disaster seek to place moral blame on someone.

     After Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans and much of the gulf area, we had religious leaders such as Pat Robertson speaking on behalf of God and pointing a finger at the people.  If you were not sinful, God would not have done this to you.  God’s judgement has been placed on you for un-Christian-like behavior.  This type of rhetoric implies that the people of New Orleans somehow got what they had coming.  Mr. Robertson has made several accusations on the people of Haiti in the same manner.  Most jump in at this point and say, “That’s ridiculous,” or, “He’s crazy,” and you might even question his character as a Christian ”leader.”  But don’t we all do this on one level or another?

     I have heard people dismiss those with the AIDS virus because “they” are the ones to blame for being irresponsible, or homosexual.  I have heard the homeless down-graded because “they” probably have a drug addiction that caused their life to go down the crapper.  “They” are blamed for STDs, unplanned pregnancies, being poor, jobless, sick and fat.  And we sit on our high horses and feel superior because we have never lived on the streets or been treated for emphysema after decades of smoking.  Why do we do this?  Is it to feel better about our own lives?  Is it to clear our conscience about our own transgressions?  Or is it just to shirk our duties of feeling compassion for those around us, and maybe even lending a hand?  I have news for everyone.  WE are “they.”  None of us is perfect, and we all fall short of who God has intended us to be.   Instead of patting ourselves on the back about how God hasn’t destroyed our neighborhood, and how that must mean we are blameless,we should consider that we are making ourselves smaller people with harder hearts, and we are denying ourselves the blessings of helping those around us. 

     Some of the most genuine feelings of happiness in my life have come from doing something for someone else.  It’s the anticipation of waiting for someone to open the gift you carefully picked out, or taste the meal you prepared.  It’s the feeling that you made their lives even just a little better.  What if we could have that feeling on a large scale?  What if releasing some of the judgements we pass on others made us happier people?  Wouldn’t it be worth it?  What if we were all truly pro-life, and cared about the quality of life of everyone, not just those who “deserve” it?  Not only would we all be better people, but the burden that has been placed on our government to help so many people would be minimized.

NEW FEATURE: Subscribe below for email updates!

     One of the most disturbing decisions President Obama and his administration have made is a “bend over backwards” technique to be completely PC in every area of our government.   Being politically correct has its place in our society, and  I am all for tolerance and the open discussion of opinions.  However, certain things should always be considered right and wrong in our society, and their punishments should be non-negotiable.  This is not a matter of small differences.  I don’t think it’s too much to see eye to eye on certain issues.  Child abuse is always wrong.  Rape and murder is always wrong.  The people who hurt others in the most heinous of ways should be dealt with swiftly and severely.  These should be moral absolutes.  However, we’ve somehow lost that sense as a country.  In a post 9-11 era, one of the most major of concerns is that of terrorist attacks, and the most severe of punishments should be in place for those who attack our country in the most cowardly of ways.  I think most people are still with me on this one.  Where we get in trouble is when we try to combine our ideals of being politically correct and doling out punishments for those who commit offenses against our nation.

     For starters, the people who have attacked our country were not American citizens.  They were fundamentalist crazies who had trained, premeditated and strategized the best way to take out as many Americans as they could, and incite the largest amount of fear in our country as possible.  Some of them were successful, some were not.  Some of them had the (supposed) misfortune of being captured within our country or on the battlefield, and have been detained for both inside information and punishment.  But just how much punishment are they going to receive?  The Obama administration has seen fit to afford these scumbags the same rights that we American citizens have under our Constitution.

     Legally, these men are military combattants fighting under the flag of no nation, so they are afforded no rights through even the Geneva Conventions.  So why then are we going to bring them to our country, and spend valuable taxpayer dollars on their trials, protection and defense?  Why are we giving them the rights of our precious Constitution when they are not one of us?  When one is tried in a military tribunal, there are less restrictions on evidence, and it is easier to be granted a conviction.  This professional courtesy is granted to the military in order to ensure efficient punishment for those that are subversive or dangerous to our country.  Taking away the military’s jurisdiction in these cases shows to me a distrust of the armed forces and is demeaning, and worse yet, dangerous.

      Under the Bush administration, there were a certain set of rules.  Bush allowed the military to be autonomous in their affairs, and allowed the detention and sometimes “torture” of suspected and known terrorists, and kept it under lock and key in someone else’s country to boot.  He trusted the military to carry on their work and protect the American people.   When Obama came along all the rules of the game were changed.  People being detained now had to have their Miranda rights read to them (even on the battlefield), and were afforded all the rights of an American citizen.  They would be held in American prisons, assigned defense attorneys, protected at the American tax payer’s expense, and tried by a jury at amazing standards that are being applied retroactively.  So we now have a group of terrorists arrested under Bush’s rules, and being tried with Obama’s rules.  Meaning: Bush didn’t have his troops mirandize people, and he allowed torture.  When these men step into the courtroom, only one question will need be asked: Were you read your rights?  No?  Then anything you confessed to is now thrown out, and you are free to go. 

     Currently, the trial of 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others is about to commence in New York City.  Mohammed has flat out bragged about his role in the 9-11 attacks, and taken credit for planning and carrying out the largest massacre of Americans on our soil in history.  The cost of the trial is estimated at $200 million, and most evidence and all confessions will be thrown out before the trial even starts.  With any luck, Mohammed will be walking the very streets he terrorized less than a decade ago.  This trial could also make New York City a target once again for terrorism by lunatics trying to make a point.

     A recent report just announced that 1 out of five detainees released from Guantanamo Bay  return to terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda.  Are we so dumb that we think these people will not repeat their crimes?  Does Obama think these men have been rehabilitated at Gitmo?  Someone please explain to me why we are trying our best to help those whose goal was to blow themselves up on an airplane!  If they care nothing of their life, why should we?

     An even greater outrage occurred when three Navy Seals were charged with assault and falsification of reports at the behest of a known terrorist.  After Ahmed Hashim Abed, the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in 2004 was arrested by the Seals, he filed a complaint with Iraqi officials that the sailors had given him a fat lip.  In case you have forgotten the details of this event, let me refresh your memory.  Four American contractors were driving along when their car was struck by a bomb, and they were killed.  Their bodies were then lit on fire, dragged behind vehicles, and eventually hung from a bridge for the world to see.  Abed planned all this, but apparently a little roughing up while being captured offended his sensitivities.  And apparently the rights of a terrorist are more important than the careers of three Seals who should be receiving honors for their acquisition of such a huge target. 

     Can we not see that the terrorists are using our law system against us, that this should feel like salt in the wounds of a country that has already been attacked?  These stories must be so amusing to Al Qaeda.  America is so stupid, we kill its citizens, and they help us survive for another plot, another day.  And for what?  In order to prove to ourselves that we are PC, even in the most extreme conditions?  God forbid we offend Muslims or Arabs.  We would rather sacrifice justice and safety than possibly offend our peers around the globe.  Our desire for approval from the world is weakening our defense, and making us look stupid.  Worse yet, the families of those killed on 9-11 are going to see little or no justice for their loved ones. 

     Affording terrorists the rights of American citizens cheapens our Constitution, and results in all Americans losing some of their rights.  If our government can’t eliminate the most obvious of dangers because they are too busy playing a political game, they are failing everyone except the terrorists.  Can’t Obama see why that is a problem?

     The statements varied, discussing his disapproval with the wars in the Middle East, and openly wishing that Muslims would rise up against military combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan.  After this, he created a blog that also voiced his thoughts and opinions.  On this blog he reportedly equated suicide bombings to jumping on a grenade in combat to save your comrades.  According to reports, he objected to the war in general, but had personal reasons for not wanting to go, being Muslim, and believing that one Muslim should not fight another. 

     Hasan, the son of Palestinian immigrants, grew up in Islam, and joined the Army directly after high school.  Family members called him a, “good American,” and were shocked by reports of the shooting.  He grew up in Virginia, attended Virginia Tech, and later got a degree in psychiatry from an Army college in Maryland.  While he  received complaints from patients during his residency there, he was still transferred to Ft. Hood earlier this year.

     According to his cousin, being deployed to an active war zone was his worst fear, both because of his knowledge of PTSD and personal religious beliefs.  While we will have to wait for his full recovery from injuries sustained during the shooting to hear his reasoning (if we ever will), some are crediting a mental breakdown over his impending deployment.  Family members claim to have had no knowledge about him deploying at all.

     What is more an issue, however, is the fact that Hasan has been under a watchful eye for the last six months by the government because of the outlandish statements on his blog.  In days to come, this will surely become an issue as fingers are pointed, and people will naturally try to make sense of a tragedy that is non-sensical.  Why was no one warned?  Why did this man not lose his commission?  These are all valid questions, however, unless Hasan made a specific threat against someone, was he not just exercising his first amendment right?

     The complaints he had about military action in the Middle East are not unique to Hasan.  Many don’t believe in the validity of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I imagine it must be excruciating to deploy to a war you do not morally believe in.  However, this war has been ongoing for more than eight years now.  Hasan certainly had time to leave the military as a conscientious objector.  Besides, he is a psychiatrist.  I can’t imagine his job overseas would include dropping bombs on people.

     So this tragedy poses a very sticky situation for our government and especially the military.  Post 9-11, the United States military has actually been courting Muslim Americans to join, and help in Middle East efforts.  Our military believes these men and women to be invaluable in speaking Arabic to detainees and combatants, and having sensitivity toward Muslim issues.  The government has gone as far as to build a mosque at West Pointe to show tolerance toward those practicing Islam.  These measures are incredibly accepting and tolerant, but in a time of sleeper cells, and horrible stories of converts laying in wait in order to ambush fellow soldiers, can we trust someone who swears allegiance to both the Quran and America?  Many Muslims believe that Americans are infidels, and should be rejected.  Extremists believe infidels should be destroyed.  Should a religion that teaches these principles be welcomed into our fold?

     America was founded by people who were fleeing religious persecution.  Therefore, we have taken great strains to ensure that no one be discriminated against for their convictions.  Because of this measure, and the Constitution that was written to protect citizens, the government cannot cherry pick employees that would best fit the profile of an ideal soldier.  If someone can meet physical and mental requirements, they must be taken in regardless of race, sex or religion.

     After a tragedy, though, people start to ask questions that are not easily answered.  Hindsight is 20-20, as they say.  Many will argue that the warnings Hasan made should have been enough to protect the individuals at Ft. Hood, that swift action should have been taken to prevent the loss of life and injury.  I would agree, but there is something else that needs to be considered.  The military can be a political nightmare.  There is an image to uphold, and with scandals occurring left and right, the armed forces are constantly finding themselves on damage control.

     Let’s pose a hypothetical: Consider that the Army had heard about Hasan’s rantings, and read his blog, and kicked him out immediately.  Would the public not be outraged?  Would Jesse Jackson and his ilk not be screaming foul, that Hasan was being discriminated against for his color, ethnicity, or religion?  Would the ACLU not come to Hasan’s rescue, to sue the Army, and make the end result further impotence for the Armed Forced to deal with matters of this nature?  The words that he declared, and wrote in his blog are all protected by the same Constitution that we hold so dear on every other day of the week.

     There are already limitations on free speech in America.  You are not allowed to incite a riot, the classic being that you cannot yell, “Bomb!” in a movie theatre.  You are not allowed to make threats on someone’s life.  The problem is that there are so many nuances to free speech, and those who are smart know exactly how to tread lightly and legally.  In a world of civil suits, however, liability becomes a huge issue.  Will the Army be sued by the families of the hurt and killed at Ft. Hood?  Should the Army’s suspicions have been enough to protect those on base, and were they negligent in their duties?

     In a time of war, sleeper cells, and a history of the enemy living among us, should there be special precautions for the military?  Shouldn’t they be allowed leniency in their decisions to terminate certain employees for any suspicion?  On a morning where loved ones are sitting in hospital rooms, praying for survival, and making arrangements for funerals, the notion of Hasan’s freedom of speech and the right to blog seem so absurd.  However, until he stepped into that building, armed to the teeth, and seeking retribution against a group of innocent people and changing their lives forever, he was completely within his rights as an American.

     When I was younger (and not yet a mother), I thought blaming society or the media for problems your child had was bogus.  Does a video game make someone shoot up their school?  I didn’t think so.  I have to admit, I now think differently.  That is not to say I blame things completely on outside influeneces.  It is the parents’ role to safeguard their children from anything too explicit.  But what happens when the most pervasive themes are implicit ones?

     I am luckily not at the point in life where I have to deal with parenting issues that pertain to teenagers, but the issues that parents of teens deal with are more than a passing phase.  These issues have large implications on our society as a whole, and what is slowly becoming acceptable.

     When pop star Miley Cyrus was only fifteen years old, she participated in a photo shoot done by Ann Leibowitz for Vanity Fair.  At first, the whole shoot was buzzed about, and highly anticipated.  Then, after the photos were released, there was a huge backlash.   There sat Miley Cyrus, topless, covered by nothing but a sheet in an extremely vulnerable pose.  The photo looked extremely sexual.  Her full nudity is implied, and Miley, bedraggled, displays a  defensive posture. Miley’s parents made statements that her father was present for the shoot, and that the photo was merely art.  But is a naked child ”art”?

     Fast forward to a couple of months ago when Miley performed a song at a music awards show with the assistance of a stripper pole.  Once again, outrage ensued, and Miley’s father simply responded by saying that she is performing, and it’s just Miley being Miley (which is almost verbatim from one of her songs!).  Clearly, the Cyrus family is no more concerned about their younger daughter, who is also wearing very questionable attire. (See below.)

     Perhaps this wouldn’t be so disturbing if it wasn’t causing a pop culture phenomenon.  In my day, (yes, I realize this makes me sound old!) I played with makeup and dress up clothes like every girl.  But when I played pretend, the people I was emulating were my mom, and teachers.  Nowadays, kids are pretending to be Miley, and Disney makes sure there are hundreds of trademarked items for sale that make that fantasy a near-reality.  With Halloween around the corner, there is sure to be a large number of Miley look-alikes begging for candy.  Last year, my husband and I were shocked by the number of slutty little costumes that came to our front door. “Aren’t they cold?” I wondered.  I think this phenomenon has become so mainstream that parents see nothing wrong with dressing their children in a sexual way. They consider it, “dressing up,” or “pretend.”  The other possibility is that they just won’t stand up to their children, who want to look like every other child in their classroom.  Let me assure you, this isn’t an innocent issue.  Children dressing and behaving as adults is flirting with danger.

     The sexualization of children is everywhere, and is becoming increasingly accepted in our society.  Halloween costumes are just one small example.  At least then there is an understood concept of playing a role.  What is disconcerting is inappropriate attire when one is simply being themself.  One mother on a blog complained about a t-shirt in her six-year-old’s clothing section which read, “So many boys, so little time.”  I also found an article observing that certain Bratz brand “bralettes” made for elementary age girls featured both sequins and bust-enhancing padding.  A new, “Tattoo Barbie,” was just unveiled (complete with a tramp stamp), and another dominatrix-looking  Barbie is about to hit stores that is even worse.

      Beauty pageants are still going strong, and children as young as infancy are paraded around for competition.  Most young girls are made up to look much older, and placed into sassy (and sometimes sexy) little ensembles.  Everything about them is fake: hair pieces, eyelashes, even false teeth to complete their naturally snaggletooth smile.  The pageant world was exposed when Jonbonet Ramsey’s lifeless body was found in her own home, and pictures of the little princess surfaced.  Made up to look at least a decade older, the little beauty’s sad eyes rendered even more sympathy from the American public.  I believe the parents were suspect even more because of their role in her tragic little life–making her the object of judgement and scrutiny by strangers, and possibly the target of a sexual deviant.

     TLC is currently airing a show entitled, “Toddlers and Tiaras,” which chronicles the lives of pageant contestants and their parents.  Each episode features young children who primp and parade in the most ridiculous fashion, and the attention hungry stage parents who push them to succeed.  Ironically, most of the parents are grossly overweight, and not good looking themselves, yet expect a much higher standard for their child.  They place their children in the most critical of situations, and the kids are taught that the things that matter most are fake smiles and a cute style of walking.

     So what are the implications of the sexualization of our children? Some studies show that the earlier children are sexualized, the earlier they act in a sexual way.  The average reported age a young girl loses her virginity is now 15 years old, and this number is likely even younger, as those being surveyed typically like to show themselves in a better light.  Other sexual acts are commenced at a much younger age.  Early sexual experience has been linked to poor scholastic performance, gang membership, and earlier drinking and smoking.

     In her book, The Lolita Effect: Why the Media Sexualize Young Girls and What You Can Do About It, M.Gigi Durham, Ph.D discusses the many adverse effects children may face when sexualized.  The most important (and terrifying) finding she has is that sexualized images of children increase child porn and sexual violence against young girls. 

     Now I will interject something here before you even think it: This is not a form of blaming the victim.  This is not to say that anyone deserves to be molested, or tempts creeps to mistreat them.  But let’s face reality: when you put your child out there for the world to see in a sexual light, a sexual deviant’s desire is fueled.  They know they can visit the nearest mall or park and get an eyeful, and we are aiding in their sick lust.  A child should be treated like a child, and dressed like one as well.

     Other adverse effects are less sinister, yet shape our youth in a frightening way.  When we are purchasing push-up bras for our first graders, we are sending the message that what is important is large breasts (even when physically impossible), and appearance is everything.  When we buy them makeup, we are telling them they do not look good enough as they are.  We are telling our boys that girls should be shapely and made up, and should expect no less.  We teach them to look at girls as sexual beings instead of kickball teammates or reading partners, or simply another human being.

     Girls will have plenty of time to feel insecure in the future.  In fact, a recent study showed that by the age 17, over 80% of girls responded that they hated their body.  When we stress looks instead of substance, this is the result society sees.  As parents, we should foster good morals and decency in our children.  The activities we let them participate in, and the things we let them wear, shape their worldviews and make them who they will be as adults.

     In a country obsessed with “going green,” and being environmentally friendly, could we teach our children one more valuable lesson?  While teaching them the merits of energy conservation and recycling, perhaps we could throw in a lesson on self-respect and modesty.  And while we’re at it, we can address the parents and their enabling ways.  It should make you uncomfortable to see your child looking like they are heading to a club instead of school.  It should frighten you that your children know what “sexting” is.  You should think twice before buying your little girl a devil costume that requires hooker boots.  You are not enlightened, or cool.  You are stupid, and your child is going to suffer the consequences.

     In September, President Obama made a huge media appearance on five different Sunday morning news shows discussing his health care plan and other pertinent issues.  However, he purposely snubbed one media outlet: Fox News.  The included networks  asked polite, softball questions, and the President remained (mostly) nonplussed and composed as always.  Fox News was irate.  Their news anchor, Chris Wallace, who assumed he would be granted an interview like all the other networks, was so aggravated he called the administration,”the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington.” The Fox network believed the snub to be related to their coverage of the president, and his distaste for their conservative commentators, who are constantly lambasting the President and his ties to unscrupulous people. The snub also came of the heels of Fox News refusing to cancel regular primetime programming in order to televised Obama’s joint session with Congress.

     At the time, it was a news story, and Fox News covered it thoroughly.  However, it seemed to die down until last week when the White House press staff made it clear that they opposed the Fox News Network  and would grant them  little (if any) access to the President and his administration.  Led by Anita Dunn, the White House minced no words, saying, “They are opinion journalism masquerading as news.”  The White House website’s official blog stated that Fox News showed a “disregard for the truth” in a “partisan attack.” Fox News was also called a, “wing of the Republican party.”  Dunn assured that Obama would continue to speak with Fox News because he loved a good discussion of issues, but later the White House stated that it would grant no interviews until 2010.

     The White House has a point when they are annoyed by Fox’s reporting.  They are one of the only networks to ever shed a negative light on the Obama administration. One important point to be made is that there is a huge difference in news reporting and commentary.  Fox News has many conservative commentators, and they often present exposes that are not flattering to the White House.  However, these shows are advertised as opinion, and are not the same as the morning news.  One could argue that they operate on selective reporting even on the regular news, and cherry pick the stories that will further a right-wing agenda, to get better ratings.  I would not argue with this.  However, is that not what every news outlet does?  There are endless examples of other news networks selecting certain stories over others, and they also could be accused of media bias.  I will not bore you with a million examples, but here are a few.

Gov. Mark Sanford Scandal

     During the time when the story broke about Mark Sanford and his adulterous relationship, there were five Democratic Represenatives invloved in scandals of their own: Represenatives Charles Rangel, John Murtha, Pete Visclosky, James Moran, and ex Rep. William Jefferson.  Their scandals involve everything from tax evasion to accepting bogus campaign contributions for favors, to bribery.  These stories were mentioned on ABC, CBS, and NBC a collective five times, while the Sanford story was run 49 times.

     While I don’t defend the scumbag that Mark Sanford is, this statistic shows that liberal-leaning networks relish the chance to bury a hypocritical Republican, and essentially ignore the wrong-doings of their own.

Rush Limbaugh

     While he is another one who is impossible to defend because he is constantly throwing bombs that are either hateful or hard to explain, Rush Limbaugh was the victim of an over-zealous liberal press that thought they were finally going to nail him.  While Limbaugh was stating an interest in being part owner of the St. Louis Rams, liberals across America were racing to shut down any efforts he had.  Suddenly, a quote from a book written years ago surfaced in which Limbaugh supposedly said that slavery, “has its merits,” and the man who assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King should, “receive a medal of Honor.” 

     Instead of investigating these quotes, which Limbaugh denied from the start, many news outlets, including MSNBC and CNN, start reporting them as fact in the most vitriolic fashion seen in recent time.  Limbaugh was accused of wanting to be part owner so he could pretend he was a plantation owner with a bunch of black slaves.  He was characterized as a racist and a bigot, and eventually denied the opportunity of throwing his hat into the NFL arena.  When the quote was eventually investigated, it could not be substantiated by anyone.  After days of reporting that Limbaugh spewed this hate on his radio shows, no one could find any footage of any such quote.  Instead of retracting the stories that had been reported, and apologizing for the smear campaign, the networks simply stated that the quotes could not be substantiated, as if to allude that they were still true.

     While Limbaugh is not a very sympathetic character, I believe he was severely wronged by a media that was liberally based, and wished to take him down a peg or two.  He was a target because he is a right-wing zealot, and his statements have threatened the success of the Obama administration’s agenda by encouraging dissent and leading the  Americans who are attending tea parties and town hall meetings.  If liberals could successfully discredit Limbaugh, his power and revenue would dwindle.

ACORN

     When the most recent ACORN scandal broke, I didn’t realize how bad it really was until I watched the hidden video footage with my own eyes.  A young man and woman enter different ACORN offices, and are completely blunt and specific about their desires to run a prostitution ring in the area, and avoid taxes.  ACORN employees help them in all the important ways: explaining how to launder money, claim illegal, underage prostitutes on their taxes as dependents, even avoid awkward situations with past pimps.  The young couple is instructed to claim their business as, “entertainment,” and even write off business expenses such as housing young girls forced into prostitution, and expensive garments that will help impress clients.  The footage was so egregious, I couldn’t believe it until I saw it for myself.

     While this young couple was able to get the scoop of the decade, media outlets seemed to be a little slow on the uptake.  Fox News reported on it almost immediately, and called for action upon the employees of ACORN who were involved.  Other networks’ reports were late, and then almost non-existent.  In a scandal that involved misuse of federal funds, one would think this story would be huge for any network.  But because of President Obama’s pass associations with ACORN, the story was clearly brushed under the rug.  Even Obama’s associations with ACORN were diminished, and scoffed at, even though he served as their attorney at one point, and listed ACORN as a key supporter to his campaign to the Illinois Senate in 1996.  During his presidential campaign Obama gave Citizens Consulting, Inc, an ACORN subsidiary, $832,000  for get-out-the-vote activities in key primary states.  ACORN registered many voters, almost all democrats, to vote in the upcoming election.  Impropriety in this area is currently being investigated, as so much voter fraud abounded after ACORN’s involvement.  Voters such as, “Mickey Mouse,” voted for Obama in an election he would go on to win.

     News networks with liberal ties are clearly playing favorites with which stories they report, and how often.  This is not to say that the conservative-owned Fox News does any different.  The Fox Network claims that they fill a hole in the media created by a  liberal vacuum in which all reporting serves democratic officials.  My point is not that any one network is more fair than another, just that the moral indignation the White House is showing toward Fox News is self-serving and childish, and exposes their thin skin.

     White House officials have waged a campaign against Fox News, and Obama’s senior advisor David Axelrod has urged other networks not to follow Fox’s lead because, they are “not a news organization.”  He went on saying that, “other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way,” to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “We’re not going to treat them that way.”

     I find it very ironic that the Obama administration is, on one hand, stating that the Fox network tries to manipulate opinion, and cause people to act a certain way, when they themselves are trying to direct media outlets on how to behave and report.  And this is where I get concerned.  The Obama administration is essentially black-balling Fox News for their viewpoint, and with this accompanies a tacit threat to other networks: support our cause, and our agenda, or you too will get no access to us, and your ratings will suffer.  This stifles freedom of the press, and negates the purpose of the media: to accurately investigate and report on current events to the public.  They cannot serve two masters, and attempting to do so weakens democracy and free speech.

     In a time of economic turmoil, war, nuclear proliferation, a health care crisis, and loads of Nobel Peace Prize acceptance parties, I would think the Obama administration would have more pressing matters than bashing a news organization.  Could their antics simply be a way to redirect attention from matters that deserve consideration from the American people?  They may want to re-think their strategy, as Fox News only grows in viewership, and the White House elevates their status unwittingly.

Let us know what you think…Leave a comment!!

     But just when everyone thought the dust was settling, pundits began to weigh in on the subject, giving it way more meaning than it deserves.  Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and others have decided to make statements about Wilson’s outburst accusing him and others of disagreeing with Obama because of deep-seeded racism.  In recent days, many others have joined these ranks to insist that the people who oppose President Obama and his policies are doing so because of racism.

     Let me take a moment to explain that I do not support Representative Wilson in any way.  I think he has many issues, and clearly self control is one of them.  His outburst was rude, and his response to the fallout was childish as he adamantly refused to apologize to the House, even though he had directly broken congressional rules by calling the President a liar. A lot of our politicians are immature, self-indulgent narcissists at best, and I hope this is not news to anyone.  Wilson acted in a very base, childish way: he didn’t like what was being said, so he shouted out his distaste, simple as that.  The next thing we know, Wilson is being portrayed in the media as if he is the founding father of the KKK.  It certainly doesn’t help that Wilson is a white guy from the south who previously fought to keep the confederate flag flying over the state house of South Carolina.  That certain detail muddies the water a little for some, I’m sure.  However, former politicians coming out to label the representative as a white supremacist does not settle well with me.  Does Jimmy Carter know Joe Wilson?  Did Wilson once twitter a racist joke to Carter?   Perhaps Carter caught Wilson doodling swastikas on his Trapper Keeper?  Does Carter have any evidence to suggest (besides being rude to a man who happens to be black) that Joe Wilson is racist? Or did he simply want to be in the spotlight?

     What Jimmy Carter did was irresponsible.  His statement, that Wilson’s outburst was based on racism and, “fears of a black president,” was incendiary, and an effort to take attention away from an imploding health care debate.  Throwing out the “race card” is an incredibly valuable tool, and one that cannot be trumped or taken back.  An accusation of racism is one that can be neither proven nor disproven, barring the unlikely event that Wilson should either burn a cross in the White House’s front lawn, or marry a black woman in an effort to make his intentions clear.

     Furthermore, Carter also lumped Wilson’s remark in with the actions of yahoos who are displaying actual racist activity, such as donning swastikas, calling the president the “n word,” and a nazi.  What is interesting about this to me is that President Bush was constantly being equated to nazis, and accused of lying to the American people.  Where was Jimmy Carter then?  Was he outraged by the Hitler references?  Was he giving interviews about how many Americans don’t like white people?  No, he was in Europe, campaigning against American efforts in the War on Terrorism.  He couldn’t care less about the accusations against Bush.  His statements are a blatant attempt to hinder a legitimate debate on health care, and any other issue that will arise during Obama’s presidency.  What is especially ironic is the fact that former President Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because of his outstanding conflict resolution skills, and now he is clearly stirring the pot.

     Other pundits have gone so far as to say that anyone who disagrees with the President is doing so because of racist ideals.  Florida A&M law professor Dr. Jeremy Levitt has done just this.  He is lumping all right-wingers in with the people who are presenting legitimately racist signs and sentiments at rallies and protests.  This is so unfair, and as I mentioned before, there is no viable way for anyone to discredit such accusations.

     Voicing our opinions is a basic American right, and we should all be able to do so without the threat of being labeled a racist.  Let’s remember that this is the same nation that elected an African-American man.  This, in itself, should be proof positive that the majority of Americans are not racist.  And  those of us who did not vote for President Obama are not racist, but simply from different ideologies.  If Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell had run for election, I would have been leading their grass-roots campaign.

     It is not fair to paint the right wing with such a broad brush, and Jimmy Carter and his kind are doing so as a political strategy to further their agenda.  Americans are suspicious and scared by the swift changes that are coming to America, and many can have their voices snuffed out by accusations of racism.  The fear of being labeled a racist will keep many from speaking out, and those who are further angered by these left-wing techniques will become more outrageous with their tactics, making the right-wing look even more crazy.  Some will be scared into submission, and others will retaliate against a faction that is making them feel marginalized.  The end result will be a one-term presidency for Mr. Obama.

     Note that President Obama was quick to disagree with Jimmy Carter’s remarks.  Perhaps he sees that dividing America even further serves no one, least of all himself.  Or perhaps, he is grateful for a distraction that could give his party time to galvanize, and present a cohesive, coherent plan for health care reform that both sides could compromise on.  Until then, President Obama will continue to throw the dice on his presidency, leaving either a legacy that heralds him as the man who changed the world, or leaving him packing his bags in three years.

Have a comment?  Bring it!