Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

I think it’s important to disclose a vested interest up front. I am an American Jew, so the fate of U.S.-Israeli relations matters to me for three reasons. As an American, I want to keep close those nations that are democratic in nature and founded upon principles and values similar to those of my country.  As a Jew, I am emotionally and historically tied to the land of Israel and, particularly, its reestablishment as the Jewish homeland in 1948. As an inhabitant of planet Earth, I want the highest good for all concerned.  Having now indicated that I have a “dog in this hunt” (actually, three dogs), I now approach the topic of a recent U.S. State Department action.

Yesterday, our State Department issued an official communication regarding travel by one of its representatives. A screen shot of the original release looked like this:

The problem with the release is that it distinguished Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, from Israel itself. The other names in the title of the release are countries, as is Israel. So, the implication is that in some way Jerusalem is independent of Israel. This is a fiction but one which I believe the Obama Administration would like to foster as it has previously. This is not the first time Jerusalem has been singled out by this Administration and referenced as being separate from Israel. And as happened on prior occasions, when called on it, the Administration made a “correction.” Now, the corrected version reads “Acting Under Secretary Kathleen Stephens Travels to Algiers, Doha, Amman, Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv. (italics added).

So, where’s the harm? Well, none… if it were a one time, isolated “mistake.” But it is instead a pattern of words and actions by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, this State Department and this White House that have been hostile to a longtime friend and ally.

In so many ways we are living through an extraordinary time of change. What accompanies change is chaos. In times of chaos it is best to know what is at your core and be able to access it should you need to stabilize and even, perhaps, defend what you believe in and value. The same is true for nations.

In a technological world experiencing rapid, global, political upheaval we are both connected and reliant upon one another to a greater degree than has ever historically been the case. For any nation, ours included, seeking to self-organize within the larger self-organization taking place globally, we would be wise to know who our friends are and treat them as such.

For our government to willfully, blatantly and repeatedly disregard both U.S. law, which recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, as well as Israel’s decision as where it chooses to place its capital within its own borders, is not only a violation of the Jerusalem Embassy Act passed by the U.S. Congressional in 1995 but also an insult to Israel. Worth noting is that only when Israel has been in political, military and geographic control of Jerusalem have all three major world religions had the right and the access to worship.

In case you haven’t had the experience, friendships don’t survive repeated insults. It makes one wonder if that’s the real purpose after all.

So I’m wondering out loud because if I’ve learned one thing from history its to not be quiet and to not sit down.

 

 

Never before in my lifetime has this nation been so polarized, with the divide most evident in the rhetoric and posturing of our elected officials.  The run-up to the 2012 Presidential election seems like a war rather than a competition. But perhaps war is the inevitable result of competition in the extreme.

Admittedly, this is a tricky topic to approach. Our society, especially our economic life, is based upon competition. To in any way disparage competition raises the ire of all who believe capitalism and free markets to be the best system for economic prosperity. This same group tends to bristle at the whole concept of “participation trophies for everyone” in academics and sports, rather than acknowledging, and rewarding, only winners.

At the other end of the spectrum are those who advocate equality as an end result rather than equal opportunity as a starting point.  This group favors social justice rather than equal justice and would, among other approaches, redistribute wealth so that everyone has a “more balanced outcome” regardless of input and effort.

It seems an irreconcilable morass. But here’s the good news. Life is paradox.

It is the vast distance and seemingly conflict-laden discrepancies between these two positions that will eventually lead us to resolution. Extremes cannot exist for long without self-destructing. Such tension defies the Universal Laws of Balance and Wholeness. It is out of such destruction that we, as a nation and as a people, will emerge stronger and wiser.

It will not be an easy time transitioning to a better way of leadership and conflict resolution. Old patterns die hard.  We are all living the tension that must exist when polar opposites tug at one another for dominance. Many of us also understand that the “chrysalis” stage in transformation is not an easy place to be…however temporary. But dominance is what brought us to this evolutionary moment.

Those in positions of power who arrived there through dominance, deception and greed will not readily release their grip.  Make no mistake. There is war being waged. It is a spiritual war for the soul of humankind. And so we must experience the discomfort and uncertainty of profound change in order to arrive at the comfort and certainty that awaits us on the other side of this transition and expansion of human consciousness.

Take heart. Seek your own internal balance. It is worth the challenge and the wait.

It always has been. It always will be.

There is a priceless lesson from the 2008 Presidential election if you want it. The Nation voted for “Hope and Change” presumably because that’s what we sought. I think it’s an accurate assessment to conclude that we’ve actually lost hope and gotten change we never anticipated. Why? Because we each abdicated personal responsibility for maintaining hope and affecting change by instead believing that one man, promising to give us both, would do what we were unwilling to do ourselves.

Enter Ron Paul.

I have been asking myself “What is the zealous appeal he ignites in, particularly, young voters?” I’ve concluded that young people are yet idealistic and believe, in theory, what is tremendously difficult to accomplish in reality. This is not a bad thing. It is, however, a perspective that is usually tempered by life experience. Hence, most people become more conservative in their views as they age and have those life experiences. So Ron Paul, in his straightforward and honest way, reflects the idealistic views of the young…but he also reflects the best in us regardless of age. He is the out-picturing of our Higher Selves.

I have always held to the conviction that we get the leaders we deserve. This explains Barack Obama. We wanted a free ride and someone else to row the boat. He promised both. Well, we got our free ride, only now the boat is careening down the rapids and controlling the oars is a man who cannot, or will not, change course.

Ron Paul’s rise to the status of serious Presidential contender is a good sign whether he is the nominee or not. Under the “leader we deserve” theory, it bodes well for our awakening to the necessity of speaking truth to power and the need to make tough decisions.

But let’s not deceive ourselves yet again.

Neither Ron Paul nor any elected official can do it for us.  A leader can inspire and can point the way but each of us must do the heavy lifting for ourselves. Unless we are willing and able to grow up and accept this truth, we’d better take one last look around at the scenery because this boat is going down.

M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D., a devout Muslim, is Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, “created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the United States as an effort to provide an American Muslim voice advocating for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, and the separation of mosque and state.” When looking for what is often called a “moderate Muslim” Dr. Jasser is the prototype and an admirable representative of that group.

When Dr. Jasser was asked in a recent interview about Islamic extremism he said “It’s not so much Islam against the West as it is a civil war within Islam.”  This statement fascinated me and got me thinking about the problem and the solution to radical Islam. United States history can be instructive.

During the founding of this Nation, and through the end of the 19^th century, we too were internally torn apart by a philosophically, and even religiously, sanctioned belief that physical and psychological enslavement of a targeted group of people was acceptable behavior and policy. Such is the well-documented history of African-Americans. However, this shameful time in our cultural evolution led good and decent people to stand for what was right, even at the price of brother against brother and the loss of 620,000 lives.

If we have been conditioned to perceive Islamic terrorism as a war against all Western nations then we may be misguided in our response and efforts to combat it. Further, we may altogether miss the instructive view that Dr. Jasser sets forth.

If, instead, there is a civil war occurring within Islam generally, then would it not behoove all freedom loving nations to seek out and support the internal Islamic opposition that itself seeks freedom from the fear of living under Sharia law as promulgated by the extremists?

Perhaps the greatest blunder by Barack Obama and the current U.S. foreign policy approach is the recognition and credibility given Islamic extremist groups (e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood) at the expense of marginalizing moderates such as those represented by Dr. Jasser.

This is not to say that it is unnecessary for us to be prepared to defend against Islamic terrorism. However, should we not simultaneously allow for such insight as that expressed by Dr. Jasser then we may have no one to blame for the outcome but ourselves.  Having failed to support, and even abandoned, those Muslims who similarly revere life and freedom as do we in the West, we will find ourselves overcome by the forces of darkness simply because we did not stand with and  for what was right.

Glenn Beck was responding to a caller on his morning radio show who asked Mr. Beck’s take on Ron Paul’s superior ability over Rick Santorum to handle the fiscal crisis.  Mr. Beck responded with an analogy to Thomas Paine and George Washington. He elaborated that while Paine was vital to the success of the American Revolution vis-a-vis his courageous and inspired writing, the colonists’ efforts could not have ended in liberty without the faith, integrity and ethical certainty that Washington exemplified.

The exchange got me to thinking. Washington had Martha, who was known to support her husband even so far as to come to the battlefield to be with him and tend to the troops. Who did Paine have?

It turns out that Paine was married twice. His first wife died in childbirth a year into the marriage. He then married a second time several years later only to become legally separated shortly thereafter due to a disappointing and disharmonious relationship.

While it is not necessarily true that “behind ever great man there is a great woman,” I would argue that the vital role women have played throughout human history has been all but ignored. The Divine Feminine is within us all as is the Divine Masculine. We are created in the image of God…male and female alike. To revere one while dismissing or denigrating the contributions of the other is to not only deny one half of who we are but also to deny us full access to the total energies and potential for co-creation that is our birthright.

Each aspect of Divinity has its own unique power. Those powers are meant to co-exist in co-creation for the purpose of the highest good for all concerned. Together they are able to accomplish what neither could accomplish on its own.

So, if I could have joined in the conversation Mr. Beck had with his caller, I would have added that while the Nation needed Washington as it needs the integrity, faith and certainty of Rick Santorum… George needed Martha as Rick needs Karen.

As for the larger picture, each of us needs to resurrect the Divine Feminine within ourselves and balance it with the Divine Masculine. Once that is done, we can attract others who are equally balanced and, together, co-create the world of peace we so desperately seek.

Three stories you may have missed.

First, the President of the National Association of Former Border Agents, Zachary Taylor, has made public photographs of mutilation, torture, rape and indication of terrorist connections on the U.S. Mexican border with more to come on our northern border with Canada. He further referenced a possible entry into the U.S. during October 2100 of a weapon of mass destruction (WMD), possibly 4 pounds of anthrax.

Second, Pepe Rojas Cardona is a prominent casino owner in Mexico, where he is suspected of illegally pumping $5 million into political campaigns and allegedly connected to the murder of a competitor.  His brothers, Alberto and Carlos Rojas Cardona of Chicago donated $200,000 to President Obama’s re-election campaign. Now, only following a Wikileaks disclosure of this connection, the Cardona brothers are getting their donation back.

Third, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is traveling in Egypt telling Egypt (and the world) that in drafting a new constitution they should look not to the U.S. Constitution but rather the Constitution of South Africa.

If you are focused on your personal financal situation and the economy…wake up! We are faced with challenges that threaten the future of freedom as we have known it in our lifetime…and our very existence.

None-the-less, I’m hopeful. Why? Because as I write this post a decent and honorable man, Rick Santorum, has swept three of three caucus vote wins in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado.  In a political environment awash in deceit, corruption and lack of character, Rick Santorum is our best hope to turn the tide of bloated, intrusive government once again in the direction of respect for the individual and nurturing of the free market.

There is no politician with whose policies you will agree 100% of the time.  But there is a politician with whom you can have trust in the character of the man. That politician is Rick Santorum. He says what he means and he means what he says. How refreshing that is…and how necessary. It’s necessary because in order for us to regain trust in our nation, we have to start with trust in the people who administer the nation.

I know your personal economic welfare is of importance to you. But it is time that each of us rise above our personal challenges and aim for the highest good for all concerned.  If, as I did, you listened to former Senator Santorum’s speech from Missouri after the caucus results were in, you too saw the sincerity and heard the kind of straightforward language we are all in search of.

He has the courage of his convictions. Now, let us have ours. We say we want change for the better.  The question remains, “Are we willing, and able, to see it when it’s in front of us?”

There are two types of anger… ego based anger and righteous anger.  As frustrations and demonstrations mount here at home and around the globe, it’s vital that we distinguish between the two. Without such discernment, we will become victims of our own misguided behavior.

Ego based anger is about control and lack of forgiveness.  When we have an expectation or plan that does not result in the outcome we desire, feeling out of control results in anger. The thought process is as follows: “If I were in control I could have made happen what I wanted to happen.”  Likewise when we (or someone else) do something to negatively affect the outcome we seek, resentment and blame for the interference causes the resulting anger. Lack of forgiveness is the culprit.

Righteous anger, on the other hand, is not personal. It originates from an awareness that I, or another, am not acting in a way that causes growth and spiritual advancement. Perhaps the most recognizable example is Jesus striking down the tables in the Temple. Yes, he was angry. But it was not self-destructive anger, nor was it destructive of others.  It was anger born of knowing that the behavior was inconsistent with the highest good.

Why is it so important that we understand the distinction? The answer lies in the effect each has on ourselves and others.

Ego based anger feeds itself and builds accordingly. It has no purpose or end other than destruction. Righteous anger is a wake-up call. It is meant to bring one present and stimulate honest inquiry into intention, behavior and direction.

Spring and summer are coming. So is a national election. The Occupy movement, and those with less than altruistic motives who seek to capitalize on the discontent, are already talking about and planning for “Days of Rage.”  Unless we are fully conscious and aware of the distinction between egocentric anger and righteous indignation then rage, when stoked, will thrust the Nation and the world toward the annihilation of personal freedom and the implementation of rule by force… of the many by the few.

It is up to each of us to make certain we identify the source and quality of our anger and be certain it is righteous in origin and not motivated by personal feelings of inadequacy or control.

This is the most assured path toward overcoming the planned destruction of ego looming on the horizon.

 

Just when you think it can’t get any more absurd or bizarre…Herman Cain endorses Newt Gingrich.  Of course, if I were Newt Gingrich, I’d be standing as far from Herman Cain as I could. But then again, I don’t share the common values of 1) objectifying women and 2) being unfaithful in marriage that these two men share.

I want to believe that we as a Nation, not to mention human beings, have reached a point where we no longer believe the image that politicians and media outlets project but rather make our decisions based upon actions not words. If that is in fact the standard then Newt Gingrich is unacceptable as a Presidential nominee.

Mr. Gingrich was disgraced as Speaker of the House of Representatives, has left a trail of unethical and shameful personal behavior, and is a Progressive.  His most admired U.S. Presidents are Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Wilson began the Progressive movement and the drive for big government under which we now suffer and Roosevelt implemented Progressive policies with abandon. In fact, Roosevelt was so power hungry and dismissive of the Constitution that his Presidency led to the passage of a Constitutional Amendment limiting the Presidency to two terms so no individual could ever again so abuse access to power.

I believe that we get the leader we deserve. If we refuse to think for ourselves but instead follow the herd, we will have as our choice either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich on one side and Barak Obama on the other.  Each of those is noticeably flawed.

If, however, we do our homework and look deep into the policies, actions and character of the leader we seek, Rick Santorum will be the next President of the United States. Remember, we get the leaders we deserve. I hope we deserve Santorum.

I wonder….

 

The Gingrich candidacy deserves the two consecutive posts I am giving it. It deserves both because it’s critical that his candidacy be terminated as quickly as possible. Newt Gingrich is dangerous man, I am sorry to say…dangerous because of something we all struggle with: ego.

So many Americans, in their haste to be entertained and their willingness to abdicate personal responsibility are distracted by Gingrich’s intelligence and showmanship. Intelligence without ethics is a vacuum waiting to be filled by whatever steps up first. Usually, it’s pure ego. The desire, one might even say the inherent need, for self-aggrandizement.

I have no doubt Gingrich will have to bow out… either gracefully or perhaps, with that theatrical “hook” around his throat that you see in comedies when the actor refuses to timely exit stage left. My certainty comes from the fact that he’s left too much ugliness in his past personal and public service lives… and too much of it is recent.

We are a forgiving people, but the mea culpa goes a lot farther when the act(s) needing forgiveness occurred in the distant past.  When you’re asking for access to the control button on ultimate power…well…even recent acts sincerely seeking forgiveness will be forgiven.  It’s just that the forgiveness will be followed by a “No thank you. We forgive you your past we just don’t trust you with our future.”

So, yesterday Nancy Pelosi hinted at one of the dark sides of Newt Gingrich.  Today former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams reveals another. The House Ethics Committee considered his prolific “doodles” where he routinely drew himself as the center of the political Universe. And so it begins. Exit stage left.

My real concern is not if he will go but how soon before damage is done. We are heading into the most important election of our lifetime. Our continued well being depends on its outcome. Literally. Gingrich’s showmanship and eloquence are a distraction.

Newt Gingrich and Barack Obama are examples of intelligence without ethics. The Nation is in dire need of a candidate with an ethical foundation who is bright enough to discern and gifted enough to lead.  It’s the ethical foundation that is key.

At the moment the alternatives are Santorum, Romney and Paul.  Stay tuned and stay alert. Your voice and your desire to be more than simply entertained for the next 9 months is why you’re here.

There’s an expression among con artists that refers to a habit or gesture that gives away the con. It’s called, if I am correct, a “tell.”  Newt Gingrich has a tell.  I’ve noticed it every time he is questioned by either another Republican candidate during debate or when asked a question by a reporter. He sort of furrows his brow, squints his eyes, looks somewhat askance and gets a quizzical look on his face as if to say, “huh?” A noticeable uncertainty for a man so eloquent and ready to respond.

I most recently saw that look last night during the final Republican Presidential debate when Mitt Romney accused Gingrich of “influence peddling” and “lobbying” based upon Gingrich’s financial relationship with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal mortgage giants.

I’ve written about why Newt Gingrich should not be President in a prior blog post. Then, it was based upon his rather unseemly behavior with ex-wives and paramours. Then there’s the whole ethics violation charges while he was Speaker of the House and his inability to garner sufficient votes within his own party to maintain that position. Now there’s Freddie and Fannie.

What is astonishing to me are the amount of people who seem willing to make the same mistake in 2012 that was made in 2008: Take the candidate at face value and rhetorical eloquence even if it flies in the face of reason…not to mention past behavior and/or accomplishments.

I think there are three reasons so many are on the “Newt Wagon.”  First, they want to see him verbally crush President Obama. Gingrich is a heady match for any opponent. But it would be darn close to entertainment many would pay for to see the teleprompter dependent and manipulative Obama have to go up against Newt. Second, many people want to believe that words are the same as action and since Newt can speak a good game they want to believe he will deliver one.  Finally, too many want to abdicate personal responsibility by looking past the surface razzle dazzle and do the homework it takes to know where a candidate really stands and what he or she has actually accomplished. All together, these three reasons combined make for a tragic outcome for the nation.

If the choice is ultimately Obama vs. Gingrich, we will have to choose between two very flawed men. Gingrich is flawed in both his personal and professional life. Obama is flawed by lacking anything resembling leadership capability. Both men lack integrity.

What’s the solution?

Let’s support integrity over show and values over theology.  If we do that, we’ll at least have to choose between either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Then, at least, we’ll have a fighting chance to turn this sinking ship upright.