In New York, there has been a controversial debate whether an Islamic Center should be built near Ground Zero.   On Monday, the news soon spread that President Obama threw his support behind the proposal to build the Islamic Center.

My initial reaction upon hearing this (from 1:15-1:27):

Besides the fact that this news heats up the political landscape for the upcoming elections in November, it provides more fodder to those arguing the President is a foreign-born Muslim-Communists-Nazi, bent on setting up a Marxist-style government that allows death panels to kill grandma.

It’s just not a good look.

However, Obama did have great reasoning and justification for his support:

“Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country… That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,”

They say that there is nothing new under the sun, and that history repeats itself.  Our country’s first president, George Washington, responded to a letter,  from a Jewish citizen, which supported our newly formed government, and welcomed Washington on his goodwill tour.  Prior to the Revolutionary War, Jews in Newport, Rhode Island, were somewhat accepted, but not able to obtain political equality as citizens of Rhode Island.  Washington’s response to the letter:

“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens…

May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

This day in age, it is very easy (and wrong) to associate Islam with terrorism, extremists, and the like.  If we had the type of media and technology back in the days of Jim Crow that we have today, one could easily (and wrongfully) associate Christianity with extremists who lynched blacks, hated Jews, and burned crosses as a way of intimidation.

With all of that said, I know that, legally, those looking to build the Islamic Center have every right to do so.  I know that it is supposed to promote unity and peace in the midst of the tragedy that occurred at Ground Zero.   I also know that the wound of 9/11 still hasn’t fully healed; and I believe that it is somewhat disrespectful to the families of those who lost loved ones on 9/11, to build, next to Ground Zero, a center associated with a religion, that is still somewhat associated with negative sentiments.  And though these sentiments are wrong, it still takes time to heal.

In other words, right now,  it’s just not a good look.

In the midst of Lebron moving to South Beach, the ongoing Epic Fail that is the BP oil spill, Lindsey Lohan going on vacation to  prison, and Mel Gibson saying “FML” in only so many words… a bigger news story managed to emerge this week.

As most of you may know, Shirley Sherrod, a U.S. Department of Agriculture official, was fired forced to resign and offered her job back in 48 hours.  A video of her giving a speech was edited to portray her as a black woman, in a position of power, using this power to exercise reverse racism against a white farmer.  She was painted as not helping the white farmer out because of his skin color and “superior attitude.”  (The events she recalled in the speech occurred 24 years prior)

That’s when fhit hit the san.  Things got real.  The plot thickened.  Fallout occurred:  The NAACP condemned her.  The White House, in an attempt to jump on the situation before Glenn Beck, threw her under the bus.  The media, primarily Fox News,  judged her faster than the word “prejudice” itself.  When the facts came out, and the full video surfaced, her speech was actually one of reconciliation, self-reflection, and the plight of poor people… regardless of skin color.  Oh, and it also helped that the very white farmer she was accused of discriminating against 24 years ago said she helped save his farm, and that she deserved her job back.

On Wednesday afternoon, Mrs. Sherrod was apologized to by the president of the NAACP, her superior at the department of agriculture (Mike Vilsack), and the White House.  She was also offered her job back.

Now that this story has reached its climax, what is there to say?  I believe Keith Olbermann said it best in the video below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

You look at your credit report.  You see that your total debt, including any credit cards, student loans, car loans, mortgage, etc, is $200,000.  This is your total debt.

Your bills total up every month to $3,000.  You make $2500 a month.  You have a deficit of $500.  You’re spending more each month than you bring in.

The National Debt is roughly $15 Trillion.  That’s right.  The US Government owes $15 Trillion to various entities, countries, people, etc.

The US Government is currently spending $3.5 trillion, while bringing in $2.1 trillion.  So America is currently operating on a $1.4 trillion deficit.

In order to foot the bill, each US citizen would have to pay $42,000.

Obviously, this needs fixing.  How would you fix it?  Respond to the poll and leave a comment.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,596242,00.html

It appears we’re on the edge of an AIDS/HIV breakthrough:

“U.S. researchers discovered two powerful antibodies that neutralize more than 90 percent of all known strains of the HIV virus in the lab, new research released Thursday showed.

… NIH-led scientists discovered the antibodies known as VRCO1 and VRCO2 that prevent most HIV strains from infecting human cells. The find is a potential breakthrough for advancing HIV vaccine design, and antibody therapy for other diseases.

“The discovery of these exceptionally broadly neutralizing antibodies to HIV and the structural analysis that explains how they work are exciting advances that will accelerate our efforts to find a preventive HIV vaccine for global use,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institutes of Health.

“In addition, the technique the teams used to find the new antibodies represents a novel strategy that could be applied to vaccine design for many other infectious diseases,” Fauci stressed in a statement.”

I’m conflicted.  Yes, I know… strange.

Part of me is excited for this breakthrough in medicine and science.  Another part of me wonders about the ramifications of an actual H.I.V. vaccine on society.  Would we see a spike in pregnancies?  What about other STD’s?  Would the vaccine promote promiscuous behavior?  Suppose the vaccine works, but we eventually run into another strand of H.IV. that is immune to the vaccine and more deadly.

The same debates and concerns have arisen with contraceptives causing more harm than good.  But what do you think?  What ramifications do you see arising with an H.I.V. vaccine?

Before getting into today’s post, let’s take a brief second to recap what has happened since our last post:

A BP oil rig explodes in the Gulf.

Oil starts leaking.

Size of the leak is underestimated.

More oil starts leaking.

Obama administration is criticized for time, type, and lack of response.

BP attempts to stop the leak, but doesn’t really know how to.

All of this could have been avoided by purchasing a $500,000 device a few years ago.  BP makes $67 million a day.

More oil is leaking.  Oil is affecting environmental life, fishing industry, etc.

President Obama addresses the nation.  The next day, he meets with BP executives and secures an unprecedented $20 billion for those affected by the oil spill.

BP executives go to Capitol Hill, and receive an apology…

A what?  Yes, an apology.  Texas Representative, Joe Barton, was quoted as saying the following to BP CEO Tony Hayward:

“Now I’m going to speak totally for myself. I’m not speaking for the Republican party, I’m not speaking for anyone in the House of Representatives but myself – I’m ashamed at what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown – in this case a $20 billion shakedown. The attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people, participated in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund. That’s unprecedented in our nation’s history, has no legal standing and which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future.

“If I called you into my office, and I the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Stupak, with me, who was legitimately conducting an oversight investigation on your company and said if you put so many millions of dollars in a project in my congressional district, I could go to jail, and should go to jail.

“There is no question that BP owns this lease. There is no question that BP made decisions that objective people think compromised safety. There is no question that BP is liable for the damages. But we have a due process system where we go through hearings, and in some cases court cases and litigation and determine what those damages are and when those damages should be paid. So, I’m only speaking for myself – I’m not speaking for anybody else – but I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or corporation that does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.”

What do you think of Rep. Barton’s “apology?”  Was he right?  Did he have any points?  Was he totally out of line?  What say you?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/10/scotus.kagan/index.html?hpt=T2

Last year, President Obama made history by nominating Sonia Sotomayor, who was later confirmed as the first Hispanic justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

With Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens retiring, President Obama has gotten another chance, in the same term, to nominate and seat a Supreme Court Justice.

Enter:  Elena Kagan.

At first glance, Kagan has an impeccable resume.  She is a Harvard Law School grad, served as dean of the law school, served as counsel in the Clinton administration, and is currently the *Solicitor General.  She is also highly regarded as having one of the most brilliant legal minds in the country.

*For those who don’t know, the Solicitor General is the counsel appointed to represent the Government of the United States of America before the Supreme Court of the United States.  Consider it Attorney General-lite.

She looks great on paper…

But she’s no judge though.

The fact that Kagan has never served as a judge seems to be the main flaw in her qualifications.

A few other interesting things about Kagan:

• Kagan has previously written-off the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees as, “a vapid and hollow charade.”  She has criticized the process for not pressing nominees enough to express their views on key constitutional issues.  This could come back to bite her.
• She has attempted to block military recruiters from Harvard due to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” policy.  Republicans won’t like this, and are likely to press her about this.  See: Vapid and hollow charade.
• Kagan has defended the nation’s anti-terrorism strategy, famous from the days of the Bush Administration.  Republicans will like this.  Liberals are likely to show concern over this issue.

Overall, Kagan seems like a solid choice as a nominee.  What do you think of her as a nominee?  Any concerns?

There is a lot going on in the news this week.  Nashville is experience Noah’s Ark 2:  The Revenge of the Flood.  Trust me I’m not being funny.  Nashville was my home for a few years, so my heart goes out to the people that live there.  God Bless.

As I was running through my Google Reader getting my news of the day my eyes stopped on this…

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/03/grandmother-arrested-slapping-granddaughter-cursing/

Pretty much an 18 year-old, grown tail woman,  got the fire knocked out of her for talking back to her granny.  So the granddaughter hits the 73 year-old granny back, then calls the police and has granny arrested for battery.  There are so many things wrong with that story I won’t even go into all.    But the story makes me ask this question.  Is corporal punishment still valid?

Now I’m the type of person that like mental torture more than physical punishment because I think it sticks with a person longer.  But anyway what say you people.  But sometimes you do go have to reach to the depths of Hell and bring back some fire across your child’s face to let them know you mean business.   And in the words of my dad, “You can call S.C.A.N. if you want to.  I’ll whoop they a**es too.”

In the article Who’s Afraid of South Park.  Frida is very condeming of the execs over at Comedy Central.

Background Story:  Basically there is a extreme Muslim website that said if SouthPark aired a show that depicted Muhammed in a comedic way thay would suffer the fate of Theo Van Gogh, who was almost decapitated for a film he made about the Koran.

Frida’s editorial say’s that Comedy Central allowed fear to make them give up their 1st amendment rights.   Now some would argue that it’s just a cartoon that isn’t worth risking your life over.  So which side are you on?  Is it something deeper?   Or is it just a cartoon not worth dying over?

http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2010/apr/29/columnists-whos-afraid-south-park-20100429/

Who’s afraid of South Park?

By BY FRIDA GHITIS MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — Despite much-quoted claims to the contrary, evidence abounds that the sword frequently defeats the pen. If you don’t believe me, come to Amsterdam, to the bustling street where, in plain daylight four years ago, a man called Mohammed Bouyeri cut the throat of Theo Van Gogh, almost severing his head off.

By way of explanation, the Dutch-born Bouyeri plunged a knife into Van Gogh’s body, skewering into him a letter threatening to also kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a fierce critic of Islam, whohad collaborated with Van Gogh on a film about the Koran. The killer, it seems, did not like the film.

Another similarly disposed art critic brought up Van Gogh’s name a few days ago in the United States. Writing on the website Revolution-Muslim.com, he threatened a fate equal to what befell Van Gogh’s for the creators of South Park, the animated cartoon that makes it a pointto offend just about everyone. According to Revolution Muslim, a South Park episode depicting the Prophet Mohammed (in a bear suit) along with figures from other religions is a crime punishable by death.

Quoting Islamic scholars, Revolution Muslim explains that, “Whoever curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him)-a Muslim or a non-Muslim-he must be killed and this is the opinion of the general body of Islamic scholars.”

While most Muslims would not shed blood over a comedy show, we have known for a good many years that among the followers of Islam there are those who would kill anyone-even other Muslims-who offends their religious sensibilities. That is not news. What we learned from the South Park event, however, is just as troubling. In the face of threats, the bosses at Comedy Central folded like cheap TV trays. Comedy Central heavily censored the cartoon, granting the blackmailer exactly what he wanted. Forget Land of the Free, etc. They gave up without even considering a fight.

Jon Stewart, the Comedy Central faux anchorman, regaled viewers with a musical number carrying a message to Revolution Muslim. Marveling at the extremists’ chutzpah for living in New York-home of the world’s best Jewish delis-and enjoying American freedoms only to threaten South Park’s Matt Stone and TreyParker and their freedom of expression, Stewart sang a feverish, and profane, song telling the blackmailers exactly where to go, complete with backup gospel choir.

But Stewart went curiously easy on Comedy Central’s spinelessness. “It’s their right,” he allowed. “The censorship is a decision Comedy Central made to protect their employees.”

Yes, they can do it. But that doesn’t make it any less scandalous. Comedy Central should have hired bodyguards for Stone and Parker and aired the episode uncut. That way the rich and powerful corporation (Viacom) could have really protected them-protected their safetyand their freedom of speech and their ability to do their work and to give Americans their often-hilarious and frequently cringe-worthy material. It goes without saying, but let’s say it anyway, that nobody is required to watch the show. Not Muslims, not Mormons-whose theology South Park mercilessly mocks. Not Jews, not Christians, not anybody.

The show often goes over theline. Those who find it offensive can change the channel. They can write letters, start boycotts, picket the studios. Death threats are simply not acceptable. Caving in to them is shameful.

Too many times in the West we have seen powerful media empires behave like craven weaklings. It was Bart Simpson, aptly, who put it best, writing a hundred times on the blackboard “South Park-We’d stand beside you if we weren’t so scared.”

A few years ago, after extremists threatened (and later attempted) to kill a Danish cartoonist for depicting Mohammed in his work, I saw the artist interviewed on CNN, my once-proud home. When the cartoonist tried to hold up a page with the drawings, CNN almost tackled the camera to the ground to keep the pictures from airing. Cowardice was never so pathetically hilarious.

Theo Van Gogh, whose antics occasionally resembled South Park’s in their tastelessness, discovered that his pen was no match for a killer’s sword. And yet, the pen, the keyboard, the comedian, the editorial cartoon, Bart Simpson, Cartman, Kyle and Kenny actually hold enormous power. To win, however, they need their backers to show backbone. Too bad South Park’s bosses have none.

The country is a buzz in the debate on how to deal with people who have legally and illegally entered our country.    One side wants tougher immigration laws and kick out the illegals and the other side wants to give them all amnesty.  Most of us fall somewhere in between the extremes.    A lot of places in the country have decided to adopt the idea of alternate languages since we are a melting pot.   Well Alabama gubernatorial candidate Tim James has taken a stance.   “This is Alabama; we speak English,” he says in a political ad, “If you want to live here, learn it.”  He vows that if he is elected state driving exams will only be giving in English.   I can understand his position.  Since all traffic signs are in English it would make sense that you would want to make sure your drivers could speak the language, of they were pulled over by the police  they could communicate effectively as to avoid any mishaps.  Well,a few people said his words were as a writer from Rachel Maddow’s blog puts “just plain mean”.

Well what do you think? 

1.When in Rome do as the Romans?  (When the country was founded, no matter what dark history it was founded under, English became dominant language and we should respect that)

2. Should America let every culture put their stamp on our everyday life?  (Only Native Americans are truly native to this country, so we should let everybody have free reign here.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100428/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1831

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day.   A man who I think is a genius.  The man is quite possibly one of the greatest marketing minds of the our era.  This guy spews nonsense from his mouth everyday.  Some of the things being blatant lies and somehow he keeps a top rated show.  He scares people into listening to him everyday.  And I really don’t believe he believes half the stuff he says.

Well Rush really finds his niche in scaring Conservative into believing that Democrats are trying to take over the government and your everyday lives.  Well this got me to thinking what would happen if one political party took over the government.  Would it be as bad as the other side says?

If Democrats took over – Would they really tax us into a socialist society?   Would we all have to stand in breadlines and dress in burlap sacks?  Would corporations have to stop making profits?  Would we slowly lose all of our freedoms? Would we have to give up our standard of living for people unwilling to work as hard?

If Republicans took over-  Do they really not care about the poor?  Would all social programs be cut? Would people not be able to have abortions?  Would gay marriage always be outlawed?  Would the rich get richer on the back of the poor?  Would government regulation go out the window totally?

What do you guys think?

-Trillionaire Wood