Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Much Ado about a Mosque

Much ado is being made over an Imam wanting to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York. Talk show hosts, the President, and even the Senate Majority leader are all discussing it. Invariably they discuss this as a First Amendment issue. Even the action flick hero Chuck Norris has weighed in on the argument. Unfortunately they are all wrong.

This is not a First Amendment matter. Here is exactly what the First Amendment states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I challenge the reader (or any reader) to identify where the First Amendment prohibits or grants the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero. Nothing in the First Amendment addresses the siting or building of a mosque. Nor does the First Amendment (by any rational reading) prohibit Congress or New York from prohibiting the construction of a mosque within x city blocks of Ground Zero. It is well established that zoning rules may prohibit certain types of establishments from locating at certain areas.

Clearly this is not a First Amendment issue. It is, however, a Fifth Amendment issue. The Fifth Amendment states that: “No person shall be…...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Prohibiting the mosque could reasonably (and should be) deemed an illegal action based upon the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against the taking of private property.

The owners of the property have every legal right to build a mosque on their property as there are no laws prohibiting that land at that location. That said, do not confuse a legal right with a moral right or an ethical right or even what is right. Nor should a legal right be confused with understanding, compassion, or similar emotions.

If this monument to an attack by Muslim extremists (i.e. the mosque) is built near Ground Zero then the Imams and all Muslims in America that do not now speak out against this insensitive act do forever forfeit their rights to any future claim regarding a lack of sensitivity or understanding or any other emotional related actions taken by others against them due to their religion or beliefs. Thus if families of the 9/11 victims chose to (in the words of Neal Boortz and one of his callers) encircle the mosque with BBQ joints and nude bars and similar then the Muslims and Imans have absolutely no standing to complain about a lack of sensitivity or infringement upon their right to worship.

Make no mistake, this is a monument to an attack by extremist - it is not an attempt to build understanding or a bridge to anyone.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Democrat Walk-Around-Money

Talk about vote buying and walk-around money! The Democratic party is now pushing a $26,000,000,000 bill to keep 140,000 of its primary voters (teachers and other union members) employed.

Let’s assume for a minute that there will actually be 140,000 teachers and other union members employed. Yes, yes, I know, not a single one of the “stimulus” or “jobs” bills passed by the Democrats has come close to providing as many jobs as they claim. But let’s assume they get this one right (yes, yes, I know, it would be an absolute miracle but lets just pretend for the moment). This works out to $185,000 per vote – er, sorry, I mean per job. This equates to about $125 per hour of work!

No wonder the USA is in debt and sinking rapidly. And no wonder the union keeps voting for Democrats - I mean $125 per hour is one tremendous salary for teachers. . . or almost anyone else in the lower, middle, or upper middle class.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

There are few things more daunting and difficult to over come than allegations of racism. Calling someone, anyone, of any age, or any group or organization “racist” should require proof positive to back up the allegation. This charge is so serious and so damaging that alleging racism without even a shred of proof should carry consequences – serious consequences. Anyone knowingly use the charge falsely to harm others should be penalized and severely. This is true even if those they seek to harm are “public figures.”

Take for example Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent. When Fox news broke the sordid story of Jeremiah Wright during the 2008 Presidential campaign Ham wrote that “Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, ‘Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.’”

This is not journalism. This is not politics. Nor is it misinformation or freedom of speech. This is not even unethical, sleazy slander. This is worse by far. It is clearly and unarguably a deadly assault upon the character and career of the victim. This false charge has totally destroyed careers, lives and livelihoods. Want proof? Just ask Imus. Or maybe ask Jimmy the Greek's heirs.

Spencer Ackerman clearly urged his colleagues to engage in illegal and unethical profiling. Where are the mainstream media? Why are the airwaves not filled with outrage at this attempt at character assassination by Ackerman? Why was this only “leaked” and not broadcast by the numerous liberal “journalists” that had access to his post? Are they not accessories to this urging of criminal conduct?

The false charges of racism should be punished far more severely than most simple violations of civil rights. A person denied access to a restaurant can go across the street to another. A person denied a room in a hotel can go to another hotel. A person stigmatized wrongfully as a racist suffers enormous loss of friendship, associations, jobs, income, and more. And they can not just go across the street to another place.

It is time for everyone to unite against this travesty of justice. I am not calling for another law – but yes, I am calling for modifying existing law to make falsely alleging racism (especially with absolutely no reasonable proof) a crime as painful for the false alleger as it is for the falsely accused victim. Maybe falsely accusing a person of racism should be considered a hate crime – for that is certainly is a crime of hatred.