Where has all the honor gone?

A few months ago I took a hiatus from all things political.  Aside from feeling a bit burned out from fighting the political fights with both liberals and conservatives in Louisville, I needed a break in general.  Late last year I was badly betrayed by someone I thought I was very close to.  While this is a political blog and I shan’t get too much into my personal life, there is a bit of parallel between the personal and the political.  This parallel centers around the concept of honor.

The top two definitions of honor are: high respect, great esteem, and the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right.  I find in both the political realm and the culture at large these attributes are sorely lacking.  As a country are we honorable to be so far in debt? What is it that we hold in great esteem?

I recently traveled overseas and was watching CNN International and literally gasped when the presenter matter of factly stated that America was in decline. This wasn’t an editorial statement, it was included in another story; one where the anchor questioned whether this new development would contribute to America’s already noted decline.  Shouldn’t we be affronted? Shouldn’t we do all we can to show the world we have the quality of knowing and doing what is morally right? That is, after all, what has set us apart in the world since our birth.

Instead we bicker, excuse me, negotiate over whether to increase our debt or default. Neither of which in my opinion shows that we remember what honor is.

Choices regarding the debt are not easy and lack of honor make them even harder. Knowing and doing what is morally right often takes courage and sacrifice.  Both of which as a country we have lost sight of.  It’s always easier to not say anything, to turn away, ignore the issue.  My recent personal experience bears that out in stark relief.

But issues of honor do not go away when ignored.  While processing what was happening in my personal life I kept settling back on the concept of honor.  If there was more honor would the situation have turned our differently?  If we as a nation were more courageous in our politics would we have as much debt as we do today?

For the betrayal I endured, I am owed a debt of honor.  Luckily we don’t live in an era of an over extension of honor, so there will be no pistols at dawn, but the betrayal is there nonetheless.  I have chosen for my own sake to forgive the debt of honor owed and turn and walk away.  I ask and I wonder if we as a nation can do something similar?  While we cannot forgive debt we owe to others we can stop laying blame and seeking scapegoats.  It is not the fault of just the rich or the poor or the middle class that we have the current state of debt in which we find ourselves.  It is not fair to over tax the rich, enable the poor to remain so, or squeeze the middle class for all their worth to justify both.  We must forgive the debt of honor we owe to one another and turn a new page.

Personally I am looking to the future with, if not renewed hope, the clarity of a clean break.  This country needs a clean break as well.  A break from the pointing fingers, name calling and general deconstructive atmosphere that has characterized US politics in the last eight years.  It’s a tall order but I still have hope that we can do it.  And that’s genuine hope as defined in the dictionary.  Not the slogan “hope” of a campaign logo.

Mr Yarmuth and the bottomless pit

In a recent article in the Huffington Post newly re-elected Congressman John Yarmuth sought to explain away his party’s loss of the US House of Representatives.  Mr Yarmuth used a lot of imagery about light and dark, assigning the darkness to the Republicans, of course, and even throwing in a Moses reference when speaking about the light Americans are looking for.  As any good propaganda writer would, Mr Yarmuth showed a flair for hitting all the right buttons, throw in some fear, a little pandering and some half truths and voila, the kind of opinion piece long time readers of the LEO have come to expect from the former columnist turned congressman. 

The accusations come fast a furious: Republicans want to return to the 15^th century, Republicans have no ideas on how to govern, with Republicans in charge there will be no opportunity to make a better life for Americans, Republicans will not be able to show Americans the light at the end of the economic tunnel, and Republicans are a bunch of callous, self serving rich white men who are only out for themselves.  He even throws in enough mia culpa to trick you into believing that Democrats have learned their lesson, and it’s just us wayward, short attention span Americans, that can’t see how much the Democrats love us and want nothing but the best for us.  But even this suspiciously sincere humility throws enough blame at Americans in general to make his statements lack believability.  Americans aren’t looking for a Moses, they are looking for a little respect.  And the Democrats didn’t lose because we “stupid” Americans fell for a bunch to T-Shirt slogans as Mr Yarmuth implies.  They lost because they governed badly.  Pure and simple.

Contrary to what Mr Yarmuth would have you believe, Republicans are not heartless and cruel.  Republicans also, believe that everyone should have equality before the law, a value Mr Yarmuth would claim is uniquely Democrats’.  Republicans are supportive of business building green technology and efforts to preserve our environment.  Republicans want government to be efficient and effective so that our security and economic stability are ensured.  Republicans are against fraud and corruption and believe in working diligently to prevent such illegal activity.  And probably most importantly, Republicans believe that government should help create the framework in which all citizens have the opportunity to succeed. 

Compare this last statement about the Republican’s belief in the role of government to Mr Yarmuth’s statement about the role of government:

“Most important for this time in history, we also believe that government can and should be involved in creating and assuring opportunities for every citizen.”

It sounds similar but the subtle difference between the two statements has a significant impact on the type of policies each party would enact and how they would spend money.

The Democrats believe government should create and assure opportunities for citizens, the Republicans believe government should create the framework for citizens to have opportunities.  Directly creating an opportunity vs creating a framework for opportunities dictates a difference in government policy and in spending money.  To directly create an opportunity a Democratic Party run government would:

• create a government job,
• prop up a failing company to ensure jobs don’t go away, and
• take over the health care system bringing millions on to the federal payrolls and creating millions more government jobs in administration. 

To create a framework for opportunities a Republican Party run government would:

• ensure security and create a peaceful environment for business and citizens to grow and live,
• promote competition by breaking up monopolies thereby encouraging more businesses to enter the market, and
• crack down on fraud and corruption encouraging legitimate business and job growth.

Mr Yarmuth incorrectly demonizes Republicans in this propaganda piece he would not dared have written during the campaign.  Republicans want this country to grow and for opportunities for all citizens to abound.  Republicans no longer fit into the stereotypes that Mr Yarmuth would have you believe.  Young conservatives in particular are a diverse group of serious minded individuals that truly care about the future of this country.  It is the younger generation that will have to make the sacrifices to ensure that this great country continues to be great.  As this new breed of Republican comes of age and starts to assert itself, the accusations that Republicans want to keep this country in the dark, just won’t fly.  We believe that every citizen should have the opportunity to succeed unencumbered by an over bearing government intent on absorbing as much power and market share as it can in the name of “fairness.” 

While Mr Yarmuth has been “trapped in a mine” the younger generations of this country have been shoved into a bottomless pit.  Debt and deficits are mounting and it will fall on us to find the rope and climb out of the pit toward the light.  The light Republicans know how to get to, and the light the new breed of Republican will bring us all toward again. 

Inga Schweitzer

Chair – Louisville Young Republicans

GE and Yarmuth – Strange Bedfellows?

Let’s examine these two statements:

The Obama administration gave corporate giant General Electric—the parent company of NBC–$24.9 million in grants from the $787-billion economic “stimulus” law President Barack Obama signed in February 2009, according to records posted by the administration at Recovery.gov. CNS news.com Oct 11, 2010

Today, Congressman John Yarmuth (KY-3) released the following statement in response to the news that more than $24.8 million in tax credits from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been awarded to GE’S Appliance Park to create jobs and generate investment. Yarmuth.house.gov January 11, 2010

So a global corporate giant received roughly $25 million in stimulus money and spent it all in Louisville?  And Louisville added 400 jobs and GE laid off 18,000 yet made $156 million in revenue.  $25 million seems small potatoes for a company worth $183 billion.  If it is true that GE spent $25 million at appliance park in Louisville why would they spend the money here? Could it be that GE has too much invested in John Yarmuth?  Proving that there is a symbiotic relationship between politicians and big business hoping to influence them; Yarmuth has had tens of thousands of dollars in GE stock and GE has contributed over $10k to Yarmuth political campaigns.

The obvious conclusion in this situation is:

GE contributed money to Yarmuth in order to encourage him to vote favorably on legislation influencing GE, (such as the stimulus package) and as GE profited Yarmuth bought and sold GE stock to take advantage of some of the profit himself.  Then Yarmuth sent some federal stimulus money GE’s way to get them to add some jobs in Louisville and make Yarmuth look good.  It’s a win-win for GE and Yarmuth, with a little bone thrown Louisville’s way.

Of course we can’t “prove” this conclusion, we can only look at the numbers and infer what we will.  And what did Louisville get out of this deal? GE got some taxpayer money to pad their revenue stream.  Yarmuth got some influx in his personal balance sheet.  And Louisville got a 400 job drop in the bucket of 10% unemployment.

The question is: Was it worth it?

The great jobs debate

Jobs, jobs, jobs, with the rate of unemployment in this country, job creation is on the minds of every voter and should be on the minds of every politician.  There are a lot of “plans” and “ideas” and pseudo plans and pseudo ideas being batted around by multiple campaigns around the country.  Recently I posted the job creation plans of both John Yarmuth and Todd Lally (or at least what they said on their websites).  Libertarian candidate Ed Martin who is also running for the 3rd district congressional seat wanted to jump in and have his say on job creation as well. 

Mr Martin sent me a couple of press releases from his campaign that outline his specific ideas for job creation.  In a nutshell Mr Martin states that small business is the most important job creation engine in this country and any real job creation plan should start with small business.  His plan to encourage small business to grow is to exempt the first $25,000 in profit a business earns from federal tax.  Simple as that.  He goes on to explain why this will create jobs, here are his points:

The $25,000 profit tax exemption will:

• allow more businesses to stay afloat by improving their cashflow.  The business goes under – people lose jobs
• keep businesses from taking out a loan to pay their taxes, then they could use loans to invest in the business and stay afloat
• encourage businesses to keep their money in their business, thereby growing and creating more jobs, instead of taking money out of the business to avoid more taxes
• make opening a business more attractive, encouraging more people to open businesses, which hire people and grow the economy

Mr Martin also addresses critics by rolling out some numbers to counteract anyone who says the US can’t afford tax cuts.  By Mr. Martin’s calculation each unemployed person costs the government $12,000 a year but his tax exemption plan will only cost the government $3,500 – $7,500 a year per person hired.

So there you have it, another plan to consider for job creation. This one is pretty straight to the point. What remains to be seen is whether any plan that offers specifics actually takes any root in Washington. Plans can come from campaigns (most often the don’t) or from pundits, or even academia. But Washington chews them up and grinds them down.  As we have seen with the Health Care bill the final plans still come from back rooms with the chosen few making the decisions. As voters we can send those chosen few decision makers home. Pick your plan, pick your candidate and Vote on November 2.

this just in

Bill Johnson to announce for Secretary of State tomorrow at 10am

The new Outlaw or the new independent?

While catching up on fall TV premiers this weekend I caught the first two episodes of NBC’s Outlaw with Jimmy Smits.  I’m not a huge fan of the courtroom drama, (i’m not one of the millions going into Law and Order withdrawl now that it has moved to the west coast) but I thought the concept of a sitting supreme court justice going into retirement to return to private practice was interesting enough to warrant at least a first look.

Unfortunately the first episode played all the usual Hollywood cards of “conservatives are evil, haters who are out to screw the underdog, and the liberals are the saviors, out to put the big bad conservatives in their place and save the underdog.  Smits’ justice is haunted by the recent death of his ACLU loving father who was at odd’s with Smits’ conservative justice there to enforce the rules and thereby ensure society does not dissolve into chaos.

The first half of the pilot is devoted to setting up the internal conflict that Smits must leave behind is bad conservative days and redeem himself by working for the little people. And by the end of the episode he had saved a man wrongfully accused by dirty cops and an inept justice system.  Just the type of happy ending justice served in one hour formula Hollywood loves.

I almost didn’t click on the next episode, but the caption said it had to do with an Arizona cop and the new Arizona immigration law.  Curious to see if NBC would have the political courage to do anything but lambaste Arizona, paint cops as racist and script flowery civil rights closing arguments, I started to watch.

To my surprise and the surprise of all of the other characters on the show Smits’ character decided to defend the cop. The details of the case could have been lifted directly from any number of newspaper articles in Phoenix or Tuscon (where the episode was set).  The script deftly drew a line between recklessly accusing someone of racism and, the where and when to challenge a law you don’t agree with. The whole episode reminded me of the episode in American history when then lawyer John Adams, chose to defend the british soldiers accused of firing into a crowd of colonists.  He chose the unpopular case in order to ensure the soldiers get a fair trial.  Almost all of them were acquitted, something that probably would not have happened if the popular opinion of the day were allowed to prevail.

It was refreshing to see an attempt at providing a balanced view come out of Hollywood.  While the show still has a decidedly left lean, it is at least not doing a cannonball into the deep end of the left ocean.  NBC at least remembers character development and arc in it’s storytelling by showing that even though Smit’s has had a change of heart from his “big bad conservative ways” he was still a conservative supreme court justice and it would be an unbelievable character trait for him to throw that all away in the first episode never for it to return.

The current political climate in this country shows that we are split between left and right, and more and more people are leaving the political parties to become “independent” For an entertainment show to be “cutting edge” now a days it no longer can rely on the liberal agenda.  Viewers (or at least I) am tired of having the liberal agenda parroted back to me by “entertainment” shows.  Lets hope Outlaw keeps going down the path of “independence” and doesn’t fall into the “the left will save us” philosophy of past shows such as The West Wing.  I am going to keep watching for now, to see how it plays out.

yet another report showing how seniors will suffer under Obamacare

So this is worth re-posting in it’s entirety:

The cost of ObamaCare will be quite high for some people, says John C. Goodman, president, CEO and Kellye Wright Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

• By 2017, thousands of people in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio will be paying more than $5,000 a year in lost health care benefits to make ObamaCare possible, according to a study published this month by Robert Book at the Heritage Foundation and James Capretta at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
• For some New York City dwellers, the figure will exceed $6,000 a year.
• Residents of Ascension, La., will pay more than $9,000 in lost benefits.

Who are these people?  These are the enrollees in Medicare Advantage plans.  In many areas, Medicare Advantage enrollees will lose about one-third or more of their health-insurance benefits, says Goodman.

Ostensibly, Medicare Advantage plans do everything President Obama says he wants to accomplish with health reform, including provide subsidized coverage to low- and moderate-income people and no pre-existing condition limitations.

On measures of quality and efficiency, they also score well.  According to a study published in June by the trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans:

• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 33 percent more doctor visits (presumably representing more primary care), yet experienced 18 percent fewer hospital days and 10 percent fewer hospital admissions than conventional Medicare patients.
• They had 27 percent fewer emergency room visits, 13 percent fewer avoidable admissions, and 42 percent fewer readmissions.

According to a report published in April by the Medicare Office of the Actuary, about 7.4 million people who would have been enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans in 2017 will lose their coverage completely.  Those who are able to retain their coverage will lose significant benefits.

To those who view this as an entitlement wash, don’t be misled.  Many of the seniors losing their health plans will enroll in taxpayer-funded Medicaid, in addition to Medicare, says Goodman.

So first of all, how long do you think it will take Texas to secede

I continue to be amazed how those who voted for Obamacare in the House and Senate continue to think that government run = better.  Medicare advantage (which is Medicare enhanced by private insurance) clearly proves that individuals will have better health outcomes and that insurers, taxpayers and the government will have better cost outlays.   Yet we have created a system in which people will end up paying more and getting less and taxpayers will end up footing the bill, yet again.

How many times will articles and studies like this have to come out for people to start believing Obamacare is and always was a bad idea.

Obamacare tax?

A couple of weeks ago I received one of those email forwards deriding the health care law by pointing out new hidden taxes.  This email claimed that Obamacare would now put a 3.8% sales tax on the sales price of your home.  I decided to look up the law for myself and see if this was true.

Here is what the law reads ( I’ve included only the sections that would apply to discerning whether or not there is a real estate sales tax, not provisions for estates and trusts etc. )

H.R. 4872 – 33 Section 1411 Imposition of a Tax

(1) Application to Individuals  – In the case of an individual, there is hereby imposed for each taxable year a tax equal to 3.8 percent of the lesser of –

(A) net investment income for such taxable year, or

(B) the excess (if any) of –

(i) the modified adjusted gross income for such taxable year over

(ii) the threshold amount.

Threshold amount means –

(1)    In the case of a taxpayer making a joint return or a surviving spouse, $250,000

(2)    In the case of a married taxpayer filing a separate return, ½ of the dollar amount determined under paragraph (1)

(3)    In any other case $200,000

Net Investment income means – the sum of –

(1)    Gross income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, and rents, other than such income which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade or business

(2)    Other gross income derived from a trade or business that is a passive activity with respect to the taxpayer or business of trading in financial instruments or commodities

(3)    Net gain (to the extent taken into account in computing taxable income) attributable to the disposition of property other than property held in trade or business that is not passive to the taxpayer

So here is the plain language breakdown.

There is now an additional 3.8% tax on either net investment income or your gross income minus the threshold amount, whichever is lesser.

The threshold amount is

• $250,000 for those married and jointly filing or surviving spouses
• $100,000 for those married and filing separately
• $200,000 for all other individuals

Net investment income is =

+ Interest income

+ dividends

+ annuities

+ royalties

+ rents

+ any income derived from passive activity

+ income derived from trade of stocks and bonds

+ net gain from the sale of non business property

So let’s say you make less than $200,000 a year (most people in the middle class make less than $200K a year)  and you own a house.  You bought the house right before the housing market went bust, but it hasn’t lost all its value, it’s still worth slightly more than you paid for it but not much.  You have a mortgage for $200,000.  The tax assessed value is $226,000 but you probably won’t get more than $215,000 for it.  You put down $10,000 when you bought it.  With the new tax will you get your money back?

$215,000 – sales price

$200,000 – Mortgage

$15,000 – net gain (which according to the health care bill is now taxable at 3.8% – if you can’t find a write off for it somewhere else)

$570 – new Obamacare tax bill

$4300 – Realtor Commission

$5000 – estimated closing costs

$5130 – what you take home after the sale is complete

This tax takes effect after December 31, 2012.  So you’ve got 2 years to hope your house value doesn’t go down anymore so you can sell and keep a little more of your money.

It’s not the same thing that the email chain letter would like you to believe.  If it were a 3.8% tax on the sales price the tax bill on the above situation would be $8170 instead of $570.  However it is still a tax where there was none before.

What do Lally and Yarmuth say about Job Creation?

Job creation is the foremost issue on the minds of all Americans right now.  Any politician running for office needs to clearly articulate his/her position on job creation and growth.

Here is what the websites of the two candidates for Congress here in Louisville have to say about their job creation plans:

Yarmuth has 5 paragraphs under the heading Economy/Jobs on his website.  Distill down the extraneous sentences about how tough the economy is and how Yarmuth is there for the workers and you get the following list of things Yarmuth has done or says he will do to help the economy and create jobs:

• Voted to raise the minimum wage
• “helped craft an economic recovery package that put hundreds of dollars into the hands of more than 130 million American families-including seniors and disabled veterans. The package provided rebate checks of up to $600 per individual and $1,200 per married couple.”
• “championed provisions in this legislation” (stimulus package) “to increase the child tax credit and tax incentives for small businesses”
• “supported successful legislation to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks”
• Pushed for housing package so people could “refinance to lower cost government insured mortgages”

Lally has 4 paragraphs under the heading Job Creation on his website. Distill down the extraneous sentences about how government is stifiling growth with overbearing policies and you get the following statement about what Lally will do to help create jobs:

• “As your Congressman, I will support the limited role of government as a steward to business, and help it to encourage business growth, which inevitably leads to job growth.”

Per Yarmuth’s website he’s a fan of handing out money.  Rebate checks, extending unempolyment benefits etc.  Look at his press releases and press conferences through out the summer and every job he says he has helped create has been a result of handing out money, this time in the form of federal stimulus money.

At least Lally understands that businesses grow jobs not the government. However I would like to see some more detail about Lally’s job creation plans.  Exactly how will he go about limiting government? Exactly how will he get the government to encourage business growth?  And not that Lally should go into an economics lesson on his website, but sometimes things that are common sense, such as business growth leading to job growth need to be further explained.  Linking Lally’s strategy for business growth to some credible estimates for job growth in Louisville will go a long way with voters this election cycle.

The analysis of Yarmuth’s and Lally’s websites highlights one of the fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans.  Democrats prefer the bottom up approach of handing out money to workers in order to stimulate the economy (as evidenced by Yarmuth’s list of actions on his website) and Republicans prefer the top down approach of growing businesses that can hire more workers there by putting more money in everyone’s pockets and stimulating the economy.

It’s up to the voters to decide which approach they think will be more successful in growing prosperity for everyone.

September 11 Remembrance

September 11, 2001 was a Tuesday.  Like most people I will never forget where I was and what I was doing on that horrible day.   I was in my senior year at William and Mary, finishing a degree in Government with a minor in Middle Eastern Studies.  I had four classes that day; American Government, Middle Eastern History, Arabic Language, and Women in Islam.  American Government started at 9:00 am, shortly after the first plane hit Tower 1. Even though my roommates and  I usually turned on the TV while we were getting ready for class, we didn’t that day.  When I arrived at class some students were talking about a plane that had crashed into the World Trade Center.  Instantly I pictured a single engine Cessna denting the massive sky scraper.

After American Government I walked the entire length of campus to Middle Eastern History.   All over campus people were running from building to building crying, hugging and comforting one another.  In  Middle Eastern History a friend told me more of what was happening.  By that time planes had hit both towers and the Pentagon.  With both parents and a step mother living and working in Washington DC at the time, not far from the Pentagon, my first instinct was to call everyone and check in.  However  I sat through the rest of class and then headed to Arabic language.  The professor in Arabic class had the TV on showing the news which had video of the planes hitting the towers.  At the pure shock of seeing that video for the first time, I turned around, left class and walked the 15 minutes back to my apartment.  On the walk home I was thankfully able to reach everyone in my family by cell phone. Everyone was safe but shaken.

Back at the apartment my roommates (who had also skipped class upon hearing what was going on) and I sat in front of the television the rest of the afternoon watching the news coverage.  Our shock mirrored that of the rest of the college and the nation.  In the days that followed I watched a large scale conversation play out in all of my Middle Eastern Studies classes.  The professors and students reacted much in the same way family members react when one member of the family commits murder against another for reasons that were such huge under currents in the family relationship that no one noticed or talked about them.  Shock, grief, disappointment, denial, excuses, all in an effort to make sense of what had happened.

At the time I remained an observer of the dialogue and not an active participant.  I had been studying Middle Eastern culture, history, politics and religion for three years. I had been fascinated by the culture and history of that part of the world, and perplexed by the appeal and expansion of the Muslim religion.  Adding the events of September 11^th in to the mix made for murky intellectual waters.  The relatively moderate to liberal Muslims that I attended class with and the professors who had a definite liberal attitude toward Islam did intellectual summersaults trying to explain away jihad as non-violent only and not meant to be taken as advocacy of violence.  Yet we had just seen the proof that not all Muslims felt that way.  Try to explain it away as they might, jihad or “struggle for the religion” still has two meanings, both internal struggle and external struggle both violent and non-violent.

Nine years, two wars and countless debates later jihad is impacting American culture in more ways than just what happened on 9/11.  The press tiptoes around saying anything that might offend Muslims lest violence erupt around the world.   Americans are more distrustful of their American Muslim neighbors than ever before.   Like it or not, the jihad, or struggle for the religion, be it violent or non violent,  has more of an impact on the lives of Americans now than it did nine years ago.

Two recent debates surrounding Islam show how sensitive Americans are to the issue of jihad; the plans to build an Islamic community center and mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero in New York, and the plan of a minister in Florida to publicly burn a Quran.  Nine years ago, the plans for the mosque in NYC would have garnered no attention, and the minister in Florida would have been dismissed by the media as a crank.  But now that jihad has entered the daily consciousness of most Americans and certainly the press, both events bring large media attention and large controversies.

The good news in all of this though, is that this is America.  We have a system in place that allows for these controversies without violence.  People in this country are free to buy land and build community centers or mosques.  People in this country are free to protest by burning religious symbols.  The Imam in New York has the right to buy property, and build what he wishes.  The minister in Florida has the right to stage a protest and burn the Quran.  Personally I do not agree with either plan.  Do they have the right? Absolutely.  Should they do it? No they shouldn’t.  In New York, contrary to the claims of the Imam involved that the proposed center will help with outreach from the Muslim community to the rest of the city, it’s actually an incredibly insensitive slap in the face.  In Florida, instead of expressing his differences with the Muslim religion, the minister is pursuing a publicity stunt to gain more exposure for himself.

The violence that attacked America on September 11, 2001 has slowly seeped into our society taking away the peace that we knew before.  But we need to be careful to remember the tenets on which America was founded and which make America great.  Free speech and freedom of religion are not abstract thoughts that are nice to look at on paper.  They are oxygen for the breath of this nation.  You may not agree with the mosque at ground zero or the Quran burning protest (I certainly don’t agree with either) but by acknowledging their right to do those things we take away the momentum and oxygen for the “struggle for the religion” and breathe deeply in the freedom that is America.