Supersize he US Muslims

In my on going thoughts about how to destroy Al Qaeda it occurred to me that we have barely leveraged our most powerful asset. Those nut jobs should not speak for Islam because they are nothing but fringe revolutionaries. But what they do is capture the imagination of Muslims around the world. Everyone needs someone to spill their own aggression over to, and its easy to hate on the coolest, richest, smartest, biggest, toughest, best looking, kid in class (aka the U S of A). My solution is simple, use our American Muslim community to capture the imagination of Islam.

The nut jobs use the misconceptions of America as a homogeneous nation of rich white Christians as a blunt instrument to hide what they do not want their followers to see. America is truly a land of freedom where you are free to be whatever you want and the government will still root for you and allow you to succeed on the merit of your character. The Islamo-fascists use freedom as an excuse to highlight those that use the this beautiful freedom to live innocent lives different from their demands. They focus on the fringe excesses of our culture to highlight the supposed immorality and dangers of it. We should exploit the inherent flaw of their lies of omission. When I was a child my mother had to explain to me that purposefully telling half truths can be worse then lying, and by omitting the truth about the large swaths of pious, devout, successful, and FREE American Muslims they support their bowling ball of hate on a bed of tissue paper. Lets shine a bright light on our Muslims communities and Supersize their message so that it reaches all Muslims of the world.

With the election of Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States we have unique opportunity to recapture the American brand. Instead of a Pakistani child growing up in fear of the corrupting influence of "The Great Satan" he should be growing up with dreams of living amongst our free, peaceful, and prosperous Muslim community. I once saw a documentary where an evangelical christian went to live with a community of devout Muslims in Michigan. They were so happy and very similar to his ideals of piety, family values, and goodwill for all man. In one segment all the men gathered in a gym to throw a bachelor party wherein they played basketball, ate, and listened to music. They were very happy. That documentary should be on YouTube and forced down the throat of every Muslim being corrupted by the Al Qaeda message. The policy of the US Government should be to reclaim our brand by getting that message out and supersizing it.

In America you are free. In America you have the right to the pursuit of happiness and that means that you have the right to live and create your ideal pious Muslim utopia with the full support and equal civil rights guaranteed by the government. We are the best nation in the world and there are pockets of citizens living out the fantasies of every possible dream dreamt across the planet earth. If we could supersize that message and get it out to the Islamic world then they would yearn to live in that pocket, and for those that could never come to the US they would have a shining model of the city on the hill that they could use as a model to build free, peaceful, and prosperous nations of their own.

The First Simple Majority Amendment

I am probably one of those people on the fence about the whole crazy prop 8 issue just because like a lot of folks I think just changing one letter in the name would settle the whole thing (who wants to get Narried or Harried or Rarried!). But I know one thing I am sure about that I don't hear anyone mentioning. Regardless of your thoughts on this annoyingly hot button issue (don't we have more important things to figure out) when was a simple majority enough to change the constitution?

Correct me if I am wrong but in our democracy we had the wisdom to allow for amendments to state and federal constitutions but amendments had different requirements. If supporters of prop 8 (they keep telling me what to think at church but I can't seem to get passed the feeling that its wrong for me to tell other people what to do when it doesn't hurt me at all) believe that any kind of discrimination, ie certain citizen do NOT have this right, should be written into the constitution doesn't that require more then a simple majority? Isn't that the whole ideas of having constitutions? So that a hefty chunk have to be on board before guaranteeing any new freedom or taking any away?

So just to finish my thought I am really confused by all this controversy. If you want to ban gay marriage, and I am not sure if I am against that because civil unions seem to work just fine, wouldn't you have to amend the constitution? The courts interpret law -> court says rights bestowed on married folks are in the constitution -> legislators make the law -> ipsos facto -> go ammend the constitution you lazy legislators? Now if the legislators don't want to take that up because they are afraid they aren't gonna get enough votes or re-elected, well that leads me to think that was the point of the whole special process for amending the Constitution in the first place!