Notwithstanding the likelihood that the majority of people living in Japan in 1941 were good and god-fearing people, the flag of that country would never be flown atop a monument at Pearl Harbor. The Americans who perished in the name of that flag, would not have been disrespected as such. Not all southerners in 1863 were dedicated to the despicable practice of chattel slavery, yet it would be inconceivable to dedicate a portion of Gettysburg to that misbegotten Confederacy. Although a Confederate shrine or a monument dedicated to Imperial Japan would be protected under the first amendment, they would, nonetheless, be considered morally repugnant by the majority of American citizens.
Two blocks away from Ground Zero, at 51 Park Place, lies a plot of land that will likely house a 13 story, $100 million, Islamic mosque and cultural center. In the name of “tolerance”, President Obama, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo have publically endorsed this project. The latest polls show that nearly 70% of Americans are opposed to the idea of a “super-mosque” standing at the edge of Ground Zero. This national distaste for the Islamic center is not a product of institutional bigotry, nor does it imply an American loathing for all things related to Islam. Rather, it is a matter of national pride, a sincere desire that this hallowed ground remains free from intrigue and controversy.
It is in the name of patriotism that Americans are presently requesting that this mosque be built elsewhere in the city. Governor David Patterson has generously offered state owned land to foster this relocation. However, the planners of the Ground Zero mosque have declined to accept the Governor’s offering. The American people understand that there is nothing illegal about building a mosque in such close proximity to Ground Zero. Yet, we can’t help but view this endeavor as an affront to our national pride, an insult to the memories of our dead. Although Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims that he is erecting this mosque in the hope of “bridging the gap” between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities, the opposite result appears more likely. Inflaming the passions and challenging the sensibilities of American citizens will result in a bridge to nowhere. It would serve to trivialize a gruesome attack on American soil in which thousands of our brethren perished.
Imam Feisal, President Obama, Mike Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo claim that American opposition to the building of this mosque is a symptom of mass intolerance. I respectively disagree. The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and their terrorist cohorts at large, have hijacked the Islamic religion. This is an unfortunate fact that I believe most Americans are aware of. However, these attacks and countless others were, in fact, committed in the name of that religion and, in some respects, the two cannot be arbitrarily separated. Whether or not to build a mosque so near to the site of such a raw American tragedy is not a question of legality. It is a matter of right and wrong. In my opinion, proponents of this plan are revealing an extraordinary irreverence for the feelings of the American public. In Mr. Obama’s defense, it is not within his presidential powers to effectively resolve this issue. This same pardon, however, cannot be granted to Mayor Bloomberg and Attorney General Cuomo. Each of these officials have a duty to insure that the money being raised for this “cultural center” is devoid of connections to terrorism. We Americans take great pride in our country; we are a tolerant and forgiving people but, some things are simply improper. Legal proprieties aside, building a mosque so near to Ground Zero is a morally offensive act.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The American Gospel & Obama-Care
Call me a jingoist, but I believe that America is the greatest nation ever to inhabit the earth. The United States has created more wealth, spread more freedom and improved the human condition more than any other country in history. Notwithstanding the fact that these accomplishments are of near biblical proportion, they are not the result of divine intervention. They are the natural byproduct of a national faith that is rooted in individual liberty. American exceptionalism is directly attributable to the ideals of our nation’s founding documents. The Declaration of Independence is the American Gospel, the definitive moral blueprint of our nation. Man’s natural rights to freedom and liberty, to a government beholden to its people, and to the pursuit of commercial success, represent the founding tenets of our faith. The U.S. Constitution is the ultimate book of laws, created to guarantee these rights to our people.
In the summer of 1787, America’s Founding Fathers took great care to insure the ideals of the American Gospel in the U.S. Constitution. Their greatest concern was an inherent distrust of man’s tyrannical nature. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, was created to allay these fears. This crucial section clearly defines the limited powers of Congress. For 220 years, this central theme of the U.S Constitution has served the American people by confirming their rights as citizens.
Obama-Care, with regard to the Constitution, is a complete and abject failure. The individual mandate provision of this massive entitlement program clearly exceeds the limits of congressional authority. This mandate grants the federal government the power to coerce American citizens into purchasing a product (health insurance) or to impose a fine on those who do not. The Obama White House claims that this mandate is a necessary provision because it funds a greater good – that of national healthcare. It further claims that this act is justified under the commerce clause of article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
The commerce clause reads as follows: “The Congress shall have power to… regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Hitherto, the interstate commerce clause has mainly been utilized to justify federal regulations on shipping and on trade, but never to force an individual into a commercial transaction. Commerce, by definition, is a transaction (sale or purchase) that has the objective of supplying a commodity (good or service). It is a wild stretch to interpret this clause as a justification of Congressional power to compel Americans into purchasing an arbitrary good or service. In fact, this interpretation of the commerce clause would effectively give the federal government limitless power under the Constitution. Freedom of commerce, the nucleus of American prosperity, would cease to be a precept of our faith. The Supreme Court will ultimately judge whether or not this misbegotten mandate is permissible under Constitutional law.
Human nature dictates that those who control the money, by default, control the people. Commercial activity, in the hands of the people, has enabled America to prosper. The people’s rights to commerce, religion and speech are inherent in the American Gospel. The limited power of our federal government is a core component of our faith. By implementing Obama-Care and its individual mandate, President Obama and Congress are attempting to violate the basic tenets of Americanism. If we allow our government unlimited power in the guise of national healthcare, America will lose it soul. We will need to abandon our national faith, and pray for divine intervention. Because a Supreme Court decision on this macabre issue will likely be several years in the making, the American people must fight for their faith, and elect representatives who will act to repeal this blasphemy. To borrow the words of another great faith, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” Election Day is coming. All that is necessary for tyranny to thrive is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
In the summer of 1787, America’s Founding Fathers took great care to insure the ideals of the American Gospel in the U.S. Constitution. Their greatest concern was an inherent distrust of man’s tyrannical nature. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, was created to allay these fears. This crucial section clearly defines the limited powers of Congress. For 220 years, this central theme of the U.S Constitution has served the American people by confirming their rights as citizens.
Obama-Care, with regard to the Constitution, is a complete and abject failure. The individual mandate provision of this massive entitlement program clearly exceeds the limits of congressional authority. This mandate grants the federal government the power to coerce American citizens into purchasing a product (health insurance) or to impose a fine on those who do not. The Obama White House claims that this mandate is a necessary provision because it funds a greater good – that of national healthcare. It further claims that this act is justified under the commerce clause of article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
The commerce clause reads as follows: “The Congress shall have power to… regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Hitherto, the interstate commerce clause has mainly been utilized to justify federal regulations on shipping and on trade, but never to force an individual into a commercial transaction. Commerce, by definition, is a transaction (sale or purchase) that has the objective of supplying a commodity (good or service). It is a wild stretch to interpret this clause as a justification of Congressional power to compel Americans into purchasing an arbitrary good or service. In fact, this interpretation of the commerce clause would effectively give the federal government limitless power under the Constitution. Freedom of commerce, the nucleus of American prosperity, would cease to be a precept of our faith. The Supreme Court will ultimately judge whether or not this misbegotten mandate is permissible under Constitutional law.
Human nature dictates that those who control the money, by default, control the people. Commercial activity, in the hands of the people, has enabled America to prosper. The people’s rights to commerce, religion and speech are inherent in the American Gospel. The limited power of our federal government is a core component of our faith. By implementing Obama-Care and its individual mandate, President Obama and Congress are attempting to violate the basic tenets of Americanism. If we allow our government unlimited power in the guise of national healthcare, America will lose it soul. We will need to abandon our national faith, and pray for divine intervention. Because a Supreme Court decision on this macabre issue will likely be several years in the making, the American people must fight for their faith, and elect representatives who will act to repeal this blasphemy. To borrow the words of another great faith, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” Election Day is coming. All that is necessary for tyranny to thrive is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Our Indiscretions Sometimes Serve Us Well
New York Republican gubernatorial hopeful Rick Lazio may not possess the oratorical skills of Ronald Reagan, nor may he demonstrate the chutzpa of Chris Christie but, when this man spoke at the July 27th meeting of the Nesconset Chamber Of Commerce, held at The Watermill in Smithtown, his message was indiscernible from either of these gentlemen. Irrespective of his soft spoken approach, Mr. Lazio’s campaign themes of tax cuts, pragmatic reform and smaller government were well received by the approximately 150 people in attendance.
Lazio’s opponent for New York’s highest seat is the current Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo. Because of Cuomo’s name recognition and theatrical flair, his campaign has been quick to claim a premature November victory. Lazio, however, has consistently maintained a sharp and unwavering focus on the issues at hand: the dysfunction in Albany and his plans to effect a remedy.
Prior to this event, I believed that Mr. Lazio’s lack of rhetorical fire was an insurmountable obstacle to his election. However, as I listened to and reflected upon this candidate’s low key style, I began to take a different point of view. It occurred to me that New Yorkers were initially impressed with the gravitas of Elliot Spitzer; Mario Cuomo, father of Andrew Cuomo, was known for his mastery of words. Irrespective of their aptitude for charm, these former governors left New York in a state of abject disrepair. Gone may be the days of the flashy New York Governor whose gift for catchy sound bites are equaled by his bent for reckless spending. Perhaps New Yorkers have lost their taste for demagoguery, gaining wisdom as a result of past mistakes.
As the election season commences in earnest, voters will immediately discern a sharp distinction in the personalities of the candidates running for governor. Andrew Cuomo, son of an icon, is prone to vitriol and tends to be most emphatic in his speech. Rick Lazio, of middle class roots, is unassuming by nature, yet articulate and proven in ability. Will New Yorkers finally come to realize that words alone, cannot make a governor; that ideas and actions are much more potent tools? The tax reforms and spending cuts espoused by Mr. Lazio are the types of measures that New Yorkers desperately require. After years of our subjection to melodrama and countless indiscretions, the concise and understated style of Republican Rick Lazio, in conjunction with his conservative ideals, offers New Yorkers an extraordinary opportunity to effect a reformation of their state. In recent years, New York voters have fallen prey to the charms of sophism. Hopefully, they have come to realize that ideas and substance, not rhetoric and pomp, mark the true measure of a governor. The upcoming elections will reveal whether or not the New York electorate is capable of self improvement. In the words of Hamlet, upon his own reformation, “our indiscretions sometimes serve us well”. New York voters will soon be put to the test as they choose to heed or defy Shakespeare’s wisdom.
Jeremy Pitcoff
Lazio’s opponent for New York’s highest seat is the current Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo. Because of Cuomo’s name recognition and theatrical flair, his campaign has been quick to claim a premature November victory. Lazio, however, has consistently maintained a sharp and unwavering focus on the issues at hand: the dysfunction in Albany and his plans to effect a remedy.
Prior to this event, I believed that Mr. Lazio’s lack of rhetorical fire was an insurmountable obstacle to his election. However, as I listened to and reflected upon this candidate’s low key style, I began to take a different point of view. It occurred to me that New Yorkers were initially impressed with the gravitas of Elliot Spitzer; Mario Cuomo, father of Andrew Cuomo, was known for his mastery of words. Irrespective of their aptitude for charm, these former governors left New York in a state of abject disrepair. Gone may be the days of the flashy New York Governor whose gift for catchy sound bites are equaled by his bent for reckless spending. Perhaps New Yorkers have lost their taste for demagoguery, gaining wisdom as a result of past mistakes.
As the election season commences in earnest, voters will immediately discern a sharp distinction in the personalities of the candidates running for governor. Andrew Cuomo, son of an icon, is prone to vitriol and tends to be most emphatic in his speech. Rick Lazio, of middle class roots, is unassuming by nature, yet articulate and proven in ability. Will New Yorkers finally come to realize that words alone, cannot make a governor; that ideas and actions are much more potent tools? The tax reforms and spending cuts espoused by Mr. Lazio are the types of measures that New Yorkers desperately require. After years of our subjection to melodrama and countless indiscretions, the concise and understated style of Republican Rick Lazio, in conjunction with his conservative ideals, offers New Yorkers an extraordinary opportunity to effect a reformation of their state. In recent years, New York voters have fallen prey to the charms of sophism. Hopefully, they have come to realize that ideas and substance, not rhetoric and pomp, mark the true measure of a governor. The upcoming elections will reveal whether or not the New York electorate is capable of self improvement. In the words of Hamlet, upon his own reformation, “our indiscretions sometimes serve us well”. New York voters will soon be put to the test as they choose to heed or defy Shakespeare’s wisdom.
Jeremy Pitcoff
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
A World Full Of Maladies
An injured child instinctively seeks the nurturing hand of his mother. The mother knows that in order to help, she must first identify the source of the problem. If the child is bleeding, she tends to the wound. If she proves unsuccessful, she seeks the advice and expertise of a doctor. This course of action is innate to the mother and requires no forethought to implement.
When a nation suffers an injury, the people instinctively know that in order to effect a recovery, they must first identify the source of the problem. Hence, the beginning and rapid development of the American Tea Party movement. At the core of this movement is a maternal instinct to protect the integrity of the Constitution. The Tea Party movement was founded upon a collective realization that something was gravely amiss in Washington; that the national debt, now at $13 trillion, was dangerous and unsustainable. By endlessly increasing our nation’s debt through massive entitlement spending, President Obama has managed to compromise the future prosperity of America. Thomas Paine once poignantly wrote that “even brutes do not eat their young”, yet the White House policies, now in play, will effectively result in the same. Ceaseless government spending, private sector invasion and dangerous consolidations of federal power will inevitably result in diminished freedoms and mounting burdens for many generations to come.
The defining goal of the Tea Party movement is to reclaim the autonomy of the people. Liberty, as a principle, we have ceased to revere and the Tea Party aims to reverse that. Its objectives of limited government and individual rights are best expressed by, though not exclusive to, the modern Republican Party. Emerging leaders such as Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee have developed a loose knit coalition of conservative thinkers within the Republican ranks. They seek to promote such policies as tax cuts, free trade and entitlement reformation, all of which share one common goal – that of reducing our dependence on government. These are the policies that must be implemented if we want our nation to heal; they can all be achieved with relative ease by a conservative majority in Congress. Permanent tax cuts however, and the repeal of Obama-Care will likely require more time. Because taxpayer funded entitlement programs are at the core of the President’s policies, Mr. Obama would likely veto any measure that threatens their continuity. Thus, the necessity for Tea Party activism in effecting a cure to our malady. At this juncture, the movement has served to awaken the people as to the source of our nation’s injury. Its continued vigilance is now required to eliminate the catalysts of the wound.
America is currently bleeding. Its Constitution is under attack. Its Congress is complicit in committing this crime and it is now up to the people to strike back. The Tea Party has indentified the problem. A new Congress can tend to the wound. However, complete rehabilitation is unlikely before the elections of 2012. The policies of the Obama Administration have only served to make a bad economy worse. A drastic cut in the size and the scope of our federal government is our only path to redemption. What America presently needs is a veritable conservative in office; a leader who will practice fiscal constraint and stay true to free market principles. This course of action is innate to conservatism and requires no forethought to implement. The injuries our nation has suffered thus far, can only be blamed on the reckless spending and the arbitrary laws that are the symptoms of big government.
Jeremy Pitcoff
Smithtown Republican Committeeman
When a nation suffers an injury, the people instinctively know that in order to effect a recovery, they must first identify the source of the problem. Hence, the beginning and rapid development of the American Tea Party movement. At the core of this movement is a maternal instinct to protect the integrity of the Constitution. The Tea Party movement was founded upon a collective realization that something was gravely amiss in Washington; that the national debt, now at $13 trillion, was dangerous and unsustainable. By endlessly increasing our nation’s debt through massive entitlement spending, President Obama has managed to compromise the future prosperity of America. Thomas Paine once poignantly wrote that “even brutes do not eat their young”, yet the White House policies, now in play, will effectively result in the same. Ceaseless government spending, private sector invasion and dangerous consolidations of federal power will inevitably result in diminished freedoms and mounting burdens for many generations to come.
The defining goal of the Tea Party movement is to reclaim the autonomy of the people. Liberty, as a principle, we have ceased to revere and the Tea Party aims to reverse that. Its objectives of limited government and individual rights are best expressed by, though not exclusive to, the modern Republican Party. Emerging leaders such as Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee have developed a loose knit coalition of conservative thinkers within the Republican ranks. They seek to promote such policies as tax cuts, free trade and entitlement reformation, all of which share one common goal – that of reducing our dependence on government. These are the policies that must be implemented if we want our nation to heal; they can all be achieved with relative ease by a conservative majority in Congress. Permanent tax cuts however, and the repeal of Obama-Care will likely require more time. Because taxpayer funded entitlement programs are at the core of the President’s policies, Mr. Obama would likely veto any measure that threatens their continuity. Thus, the necessity for Tea Party activism in effecting a cure to our malady. At this juncture, the movement has served to awaken the people as to the source of our nation’s injury. Its continued vigilance is now required to eliminate the catalysts of the wound.
America is currently bleeding. Its Constitution is under attack. Its Congress is complicit in committing this crime and it is now up to the people to strike back. The Tea Party has indentified the problem. A new Congress can tend to the wound. However, complete rehabilitation is unlikely before the elections of 2012. The policies of the Obama Administration have only served to make a bad economy worse. A drastic cut in the size and the scope of our federal government is our only path to redemption. What America presently needs is a veritable conservative in office; a leader who will practice fiscal constraint and stay true to free market principles. This course of action is innate to conservatism and requires no forethought to implement. The injuries our nation has suffered thus far, can only be blamed on the reckless spending and the arbitrary laws that are the symptoms of big government.
Jeremy Pitcoff
Smithtown Republican Committeeman
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To: If You Can't Be Free, Be As Free As You Can
Posts
All Comments
Jeremy Pitcoff & Governor Mike Huckabee
