Pictures speak Louder than Words

 There is much criticism over President Obama's handling of Libya. I am not saying that some of this criticism is unwarranted, because it is rightly deserved, but most of it is ironic flip-flopping done by the opposition. I think this cartoon adequately sums up that no matter what our President did, he would be lampooned. Keep doing what your doing President Obama, don't forget you still have a lot of supporters out there.

Hitting the Nail on the Head

Daniel Kliman, a visiting fellow from the Center for a New American Security recently wrote an opinion piece for CNN. I think his piece hits the proverbial nail on the head.

To be a good leader in the 21st century, you need to multi-task. Canceling a trip to Latin American AGAIN would have been devastating for very important relations and economic deals. No longer can the U.S. ignore Latin America; they are a growing presence and strategic interest on the international scene. The president should be given more credit in shoring up our relationships with certain Latin American countries. He is demonstrating priorities, and I believe he's chosen the right ones.

Here is the opinion piece.

What happened to less governement and strict constructivism, conservatives?

Disclaimer: If you don't like some bias, don't read this post

Modern hypocrisy at its best. The theme of going 'back to the constitution" used by republicans and conservatives in the 2010 elections seems to have been thrown out the window.

*An effort to encourage "In God We Trust" on "public buildings, schools, and other government institutions"

*Wisconsin State Senators proposing a bill to ban prank calling

*The Wisconsin Legislature in banning collective bargaining rights for unions

*In congress, security spending is not even touched by some conservatives, but they want to reduce the deficit? Cutting important social programs as part of an agenda does not strengthen America.

These are just a few instances, but actions are louder than words. Yes, there have been instances where Democrats have been hypocrites too. However, this is pretty unreal. If Republicans and conservatives were committed on "reducing the scope of government", why are they being blatant hypocrites?

You get what you vote for.


P.S. Here is one of my favorite congressmen making a very good point. We should be talking about jobs, not cutting them...

Islamophobia: Rearing its Ugly Head once Again

I would like everyone who's taking the time to read this blog to watch a section of  Fox's Bill O'Reilly Factor that one of my best friends sent me.

I cannot begin to express my disgust for Fox and this segment. There is no such thing as a "Muslim Problem". There is a problem called Islamophobia and a bigger problem called intolerance. I just can't help think of the hypocrisy coming from the conservative right in saying they're strict constructionist  but they don't even respect the values enshrined in our Constitution. It was NOT the religion of Islam who attacked us, it was extremists. This is going to be my third post about Islamophobia, but it is a steadily growing issue which deserves attention.

Recently, most-likely presidential prospect and former senator Rick Santorum gave a fiery speech about how Shria law is evil. Newt Gingrich, over this summer's "Mosque at Ground Zero" fiasco, related Muslims to Nazis. This is unacceptable rhetoric and behavior coming from people who probably have presidential aspirations. The President of the United States is not just the president of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, or another segment of the population; the president is a representative and is the leader of Americans of all sects, beliefs, and religions. For one to single out a distinct part of a religion, and way of life, and to call it evil is childish and proves they are not deserving of the responsibility of the presidency. Muslims are indeed Americans too. Moreover, evil is a subjective and abrasive word. In a culture where we see many things as a dichotomy, Santorum is portraying he see's Sharia in the same league as terrorism, the Soviet Empire (in Ronald Reagan's case) and other things that bring about injustice and pain.

These intolerant comments come about at the time of congressional hearings, by Rep. Peter King-NY (R) on the radicalization of Muslim Americans. By labeling that ALL of Muslim America are radicals, it paints a completely false picture as well as accuses hard working Muslim-Americans into an insulting group. This a a modern day McCarthy style witch hunt. Disagree? Ok. Does anyone remember the Hutaree Militia in 2008? They were a christian extremist group. How about Unabomber Ted Kaczynski or Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. Yes, they were both christian terrorists.

Now I am not saying that no Muslim American has ever been a terrorist, that is not true. However, domestic terrorists can come from all parts of the community and from different religions. Thus, specifically isolating Muslim Americans and associating them with radicalization and with terrorism is false and misleading. It is also unjust and misses the point. Instead of singling out Muslim Americans, instead the committees focus should have been on figuring on why Americans, of all creed, become radicalized and perform terrorist activities.

Banning Shar'ia law, as done in Oklahoma and being considered in other states, does nothing but exacerbate the problem of anti-Americanism. Instead of being divisive, disrespectful and intolerant, we as a community, as Americans, should work to find solutions and promote religious tolerance.

However, some "news" outlets disseminate fear and lies about people and groups. We must come together as Americans to stop this blatantly false bias and fear-mongering and work to solve this societal problems. It is truly against our values, against what America stands for, to single out a group or hate a group of people based upon their religion. If this "news" outlet truly loves America, as always make it known that they do, they should turn down the rhetoric and be fair to their fellow Americans.

The War on Terror is a war of ideas. In order to win a war of ideas, the key is make one of the ideas no longer appealing (radicalization). If we spent more time addressing why terrorism happens and fixing those issues than indulging in illogical bigotry, the world would be a much better place.

Coming soon...

For anyone who checks this blog at some regular interval, sorry for not posting on it for over a month. I've been pretty busy (aren't we all). Now that I have some free time, I promise to have another post up soon!

James Traub backs me up

James Traub recently wrote an article on FP echoing my sentiments about the Muslim Brotherhood, and why they aren't such a threat.

He is a regular writer for FP, and I even included a link to who he is. I think the article underscores the ideas that I put out in my previous post. Take a look at both (hopefully mine first).

Side Note
It should also be noted that the same goes for Turkey's AKP. They aren't a threat, and the hostility towards them just because they are an Islamic rooted party is illogical. Country before self interest, and if specific people in Congress and the State Department thought the same way, we'd be great friends again with Turkey. Turkey is a friend we're going to need.

A Government with the Muslim Bortherhood is not the End of the World, and why these protests help the War on Terror

In the turmoil that has erupted in Egypt over the past weeks, there is much speculation of what the government is going to look like post-Mubarak. I, along with many others, think its going to be far more democratic, and a new government will be formed with parties from all aspects of Egyptian society.

What many in the U.S. have picked up on is the "threat" of the Muslim Brotherhood; an opposition political party. Newt Gingrich, a prominent conservative and former House Speaker, certainly thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat and turn America into an Islamic state too. He said the same of Turkey's AKP.

Both are not true. This, yet another wrong and misleading comment coming from someone who most likely will run for president. Even if he doesn't run, a national leader shouldn't make comments where he is so ill-informed in foreign policy. 

Let me explain why he is wrong.

There are many mixed perceptions of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yes, they have committed acts of violence in the past and is an Islamic rooted party. Fast forward to the present day. Yes, they may still have an extremist wing which is a legitimate security concern. But now I ask, what political party doesn't have an extremist wing? If the Muslim Brotherhood is to lead Egypt, it will have to create a coalition. The party alone cannot with the election; there is just not enough support. If they are to get a figure to the presidency, they will have to negotiate with the secular forces in Egypt. This will moderate the Muslim Brotherhood if they are to stay in power. That is a fact for all politics. I highly doubt that the majority of the Egyptian people, especially the youth, want a state like Iran. Its just not going to happen.

Another reason why so many are 'terrified' of the Muslim Brotherhood is because their stance on Israel and the U.S. Yes, they are no Mubarak. People have to come to terms with the fact they are an Islamic rooted party. That's not always the end of the world. By a recent opinion poll, the majority of the Egyptians don't like us anyway! So we already lost that battle. Also, per the Camp David Accords, a continued peace with Israel means massive funding and aid to the army and the government. If a Muslim Brotherhood figure (lets say they get to the presidency) were to not honor the accords; the army would be up in arms (no pun intended) and I am sure many would be displeased with the lack of funding and possible U.S. trade sanctions. The same goes for the Suez Canal; its not in Egypt's interests to change its Israeli or its U.S. policy. It would undermine their security and clout in the region.

If the Muslim Brotherhood ascends to the presidency, it may actually be good for the U.S. A working relationship with a moderated but still conservative Muslim Brotherhood could show the world that we can work with Islamic rooted parties. Though the relationship with Turkey's AKP is a more complicated story (one for another time), it may boost our points with the Middle East. It also show's the world we're willing to work with others we may not see face-to-face with. Cooperation is the word.

So the Muslim Brotherhood isn't the end of the world. Yes, we won't have an ally like Mubarak, but its no end game by far.

Now on to the second part of this post: the protests are helping the War on Terror.

Why does terrorism happen?

Well that's a big question. One reason, which I saw through my class on the Middle East last semester, is because people's governments do not respond to their needs. In Egypt and Tunisia, there were no economic reforms for the people. There was massive unemployment. This anger and rage translates into support for groups that are radical (or want to overthrow the government) or in some cases, the people join radical organizations to secure a better future.

These protests are making the government listen up and reform. In the Tunisian case, the president straight up left. Reforms to encourage a healthy economy and happy people have the potential to make radical organizations seem, well, radical. People like to do well, and violent change often doesn't appeal with those who like the status quo. If the people of the Middle East succeed in making their governments listen and these reforms give more freedoms, and stimulate the economies; it could be a help to curbing radicalization and thus terrorism. The War on Terrorism is a war on ideas and minds. To make terror unappealing is to make one's people happy. Good government is a responsive and fair government. These protests are just what the region needed to cleanse devastating policies.