On Election Night 2012

It’s Election Night in America. I wrote this post several days ago with this night in mind so, at the time I publish this, the elections results are young and without a declared winner in the race for president.

While one party likes to walk around with the pocket Constitutions, all members of Congress swear to uphold it. The U.S. Constitution is an interesting document, but to me, the following are the three most important words: We the people.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the People elect members to Congress to represent We the People in order to pass laws, control the budget, and exercise authorities granted by the Constitution.

We the People elect members to represent all people, which means not just the ones who voted for the elected; not an ideology; not a political party; not a religion, not a financial donor, not a special interest – but yes, to represent We the People.

We the People elect members to serve all people regardless of their faith, thus the elected are not to serve their religious preference. After all, the Constitution is quite clear regarding religion. Let the elected not forget that the Constitution lacks words as God, Creation, Christian, Jesus, and Lord (which only appears in the Signatory section).

Although Christian principles may have influenced the Founding Fathers, the Constitution does not declare the U.S. as a Christian nation. If the elected represent Christianity, what about the nonChristians? If the elected represents Christianity, which denomination will you represent? Then, what about the other Christians?

We the People are from all faiths and no faiths, therefore, our representatives should avoid submitting proposals on behalf of Christianity because what the church considers best for itself may not be in the best interest of We the People.

Representing We the People requires avoidance of firm ideology or a party each of these diverts attention from the needs of We the People. Adherence to a party or ideology silences We the People, and blocks the path to meaningful solutions.

Representing We the People requires conviction to represent the needs of the people who did not vote for the elected. After all, they too are We the People.

Representing We the People requires patience, the ability to listen, to desire to find the common good for all, to watch-out for and respond to human need that is beyond one’s self interests, party, or ideology.

Representing We the People requires discussing among yourselves to share ideas and concerns in order to work toward a solution for the common good – an idea that may be found in one side, the other, a compromise, or outside the grounds established by ideology, party, religion, self-interest, or special interest.

We the People need effective government to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, to provide a common defense, to promote general welfare, and to secure liberty for all of We the People. Especially during this time, we need our elected officials to make difficult decisions – the ones that test their gut against their party, their ideology, their religion, their self-interest, their donors, and special interests.

Along with a president, on this day we elect all 435 members of the House of Representatives, and 33 members (approximately one-third) of the Senate. Their task seems simple, but I also know they will represent religion, a party, an ideology, self-interests, special interests, and donors over We the People – therefore, let me be the first to say the following about the newly elected, ‘Starting in 2014, throw the bums out. All of them! Clean house!” After all, We the People deserve better.

On the NYC Mosque

To the surprise of some, especially Mr. Marching Band, I have been quiet about the proposed Islamic Center in NYC. Unlike the countless spouting off that I have heard or read, I first posted(on Aug 12) some articles to read as I listened, read, pondered, and learned – therefore, it is time for a pragmatic opinion

First, the proposed building is not at Ground Zero – it’s two block away. I know that is it very close, but I prefer using near instead of at or on.

President Obama said Muslims have a right to build a mosque at the proposed site. Of course he’s Constitutionally correct. He did not use the verbs that many in the media used as support, endorses, promotes, approves, and countless of others. Meanwhile, a Fox News poll has 34% that say the situation is against our Constitution! Well, these people are obviously misinformed.

President Obama said Muslims have the right to build the mosque, while reminding us that he did not comment on the wisdom to build the mosque in the proposed location. Again, 100% correct. The wisdom of the building choice is the key question. The same Fox News poll supports this notion.

I normally don’t read columnist Charles Krauthammer. Although I don’t agree with him 100%, I appreciated his effort here – but he returned to his myopic view in his next column. Building elsewhere is a consideration, but I ask “How far away is far enough?” Apparently, Murfreesboro, TN is not.

On GOP Chairman Michael Steele saying President Obama is going against the wish of Americans by stating the administration is again tone-deaf to what the American people are saying. Hmmm … that’s interesting Mr. Steele, not according to the a poll at one of your favorite news sources (Fox News).

Politicians politicizing the situation are incredibly lost. This quote from USA Today calls the situation “a sorry exercise in political exploitation” that gives “lip service to religious freedom but offering no solution that wouldn’t offend it.” Here’s a great example. Former House speaker and presidential want-to-be Newt Gingrich accused President Obama of “pandering to radical Islam” while equating the situation “like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust museum.”

Mr. Gingrich (and others) point to the number of Christian churches in any Middle Eastern country as an argument – which is irrelevant! This is America, a country governed by American law based on our Constitution. Actions elsewhere do not interpret our Constitution.

Tolerance is important, but tolerance is a two-way street. I normally don’t read Ross Douhat, but I appreciated this column and its unexpected twist. Perhaps those seeking to build the New York mosque will defuse the situation by seeking a less controversial site. I wonder why planners would want to continue moving forward with so much opposition. After all, it will only take one or a handful of our kooks to make some tragic happen on that site.

I wonder if Fox News relentless coverage while airing quotes as “the center will serve as a breeding ground for terrorism” is an intentional ploy to fan the flames. Oh that’s right – Fox News is fair and balanced – not biased. Shame on me for thinking as such.

This is a New York issue, thus I can find NO reason for any candidate in any state other than New York to use this issue in their campaign. (Yes, I have seen too many quotes of this.) Perhaps, that identifies President Obama biggest mistake – simply commenting on the issue. I end with this Richard Cohen column.