President Obama spoke to the people of America on Saturday. With the campaign season for the fall election heating up, his message was focused on the insidious effects of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Citizens United case. The President cited the recent “flood of attack ads, run by shadowy groups with harmless sounding names.” He contended that the people deserve to know who’s behind these campaign ads, and argued that the Disclose Act, which is being blocked by Senate Republicans, is an effective device to accomplish that end.

Legislation that’s directed at greater disclosure by donors, the Disclose Act would require, “special interest group officials to physically appear at the end of campaign ads they sponsor, acknowledging their campaign contributions.” It would also prevent foreign run entities from interfering in our election process, undoing another detrimental side effect of Citizens United. The bill was already passed by the House, with 2 Republicans voting in favor, along with all but 30 Democrats. But the legislation has been stalled since it reached the Senate.

Falling into the prevalent pattern of Senate dysfunction, the Disclose Act is just another bill to find itself the victim of Republican obstruction. Needing one more vote to gain cloture and avoid filibuster, Americans will not gain knowledge of the people behind the campaign ads unless Democrats can get at least one Republican to break ranks and put The People above the Party.

Asked for comment on the legislation, Mitch “Tax cuts pay for themselves” McConnell offered more nonsensical blather. According to McConnell, “The president says this bill is about transparency. It’s transparent all right. It’s a transparent effort to rig the fall elections.” So, in the Senate Minority Leader’s own words, informing voters of who’s paying for campaign attack ads somehow amounts to rigging the election.

I’m sure that Senator McConnell had no intent of supporting the President’s position, but based on his own comments, it’s hard to refute what President Obama had to say regarding Republican opposition to the bill, “This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark.” The President added that, “They don’t want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

The November election will be laced with illegitimate attack ads of all sorts, and those ads will come from both sides. This has long been the case, and now the problem has been magnified by the Citizens United decision. The Disclose Act is essential legislation that can’t prevent the ads, but can at least inform the voters who’s behind them. It’s like truth in advertising 101, and the Republicans want no part of it. That fact alone should call their position into question.

Concerned voters need to speak out and make sure their representatives understand that We the People want to know. Voters want transparency. Big-Money has already hijacked the American government, and the Supreme Court, through Citizens United, has given them yet another avenue to exert their will. Corporations are not people, and in the long term, our nation needs reform to undo the damage of this decision. Such reform is already underway in the form of a constitutional amendment carrying 74 cosponsors in the House. People can also voice their support at Free Speech for People.

Like campaign finance reform, the Disclose Act should have nothing to do with partisan differences. The fact that it is being debated along party lines should be sufficient cause to make people stand up and take notice. Citizens United was anti-democracy at its very worst. To fight against its reform is un-American.

By now, there are few Americans who haven’t been exposed to the furor surrounding the construction of an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan. Labeled the “Ground Zero Mosque” by its opponents, the project officially known as Park51 has become a centerpiece for those wishing to use anti-Islamic sentiment for their own advantage. From former Speaker Gingrich’s analogy comparing the Islamic Center to a Nazi sign at the Holocaust Museum, to half-term Sarah’s tagging it as the “9/11 mosque,” the crazies are flying into the issue like moths into a bug zapper.

Of course, as is almost always the case, the loons have no real substance in their arguments. Like Palin’s “death panels,” the specter they raise lives entirely in the minds of the self-serving fearmongers. This is SOP for the GOP, but in the case of Park51, they’ve actually taken their hyperbolic distortion to new levels.

There’s sadly so much wrong with the attacks being levied by conservative opportunists that it’s difficult to identify their most egregious warping of the truth. But anyone interested in honesty need look no further than the contrived project title — now a part of the American vernacular — to witness the unscrupulous use of misinformation. The clever creation of an epithet is actually somewhat remarkable, in a sick sort of way, but its power is destructive and its message a lie.

The Park51 project will build an Islamic community center, not a mosque. The facility will include a mosque, but plans are for a 13-story building that includes a swimming pool, basketball court, auditorium and culinary school in addition to the mosque. The center would also have a library, art studios, meditation rooms, and of significance — a memorial dedicated to victims of the 9/11 attacks. But correctly referring to Park51 as a “community center” just wouldn’t have the same impact as “mosque;” it simply fails to conjure up other-worldly images of central domes and minarets; it’s far too benign and without the power to evoke fear.

And “Ground Zero” — now there’s a term of unmistakable emotional force in contemporary America. Nearly lost is the old association with Hiroshima or with nuclear blasts in general. Today, the mere mention of Ground Zero elicits a swell of emotion that accompanies the recollection of the horror of September 11, 2001. The character of anyone who would abuse the memory of that day for selfish gain is without doubt questionable, yet conservatives have done so ever since the dust settled. And this latest rendition of hate-based leveraging is even more despicable than the rest.

Not only are the plans to build Park51 not at Ground Zero — in fact being at least two blocks away on Park Place — but the location is not even along a path to get to Ground Zero. The specious linking of Park51 to the hallowed ground where the former World Trade Towers stood, where nearly 3,000 people lost their lives, is purely an attempt to create controversy and gain political position. But as morally wrong as this distortion is on the surface, it’s even more reprehensible on the inside.

The Park51 story doesn’t end with the illegitimacy of the project’s label; that’s just the beginning. The heart of the controversy is rooted in the attempt by hate-wing activists to conflate Islam and the 9/11 terrorists. While this is obviously prejudicial stigmatization at its very worst, when wrapped in fearmongering alarm, it quickly gains traction within the large population of xenophobic Americans.

Never mind that there are more than a billion Muslims in the world today. Never mind that the vast majority of those Muslims are peaceful. Never mind that all religions have extremists and those who corrupt or ignore the teachings of their faith. Never mind that even George Bush made it clear that terrorism is “not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” Never mind that there’s already a mosque only 5 blocks from Ground Zero, or that the site for Park51 is already being used as a prayer center. And for Newt and Sarah’s sake, please never mind the fact that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind Park51, is exactly the type of moderate Islamic cleric that right-wing commentators call upon to speak out against terrorism.

Imam Rauf has routinely spoken out against the death cult of al-Qaeda and its adherents. He is a Sufi, a practitioner of an older strain of Islam, one whose ethos is egalitarian, charitable and friendly. The Rand Corporation, in a 2007 report, advised Western governments to “harness” Sufism. They contended that its adherents were “natural allies of the West.” And this is exactly the message carried by Rauf, who “has written extensively on Islam and its place in modern society and often argues that American democracy is the embodiment of Islam’s ideal society.”

Rauf is exactly the type of Islamic leader that Americans should embrace and work with to forge better understanding and interfaith cooperation. The stated aim of his organization, the Cordoba Initiative, is “to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, steering the world back to the course of mutual recognition and respect and away from heightened tensions.” For what more can Americans ask?

The proposed name for the building: Cordoba House, is even given in the spirit of harmony. Named for the city in Spanish Andalucía where Muslims, Jews and Christians once co-existed for centuries. It embraces that extraordinary time when these diverse faiths came together and culture and science flourished.

Indeed, the only people involved in this debate who Americans should fear are the usual fact-free suspects on the conservative right. Just as they did during the healthcare debate, under cover of the American flag, they launch all manner of incendiary rhetoric, with complete and total disregard for the truth. Sadly, they do somehow get enough people to buy into their hyperbole that they move public opinion. Recent polls do show 63% of New Yorkers are opposed to a “mosque” near Ground Zero. But with all the negative press, this can be expected. Fortunately, those who live nearest Ground Zero, where the effort is supported by people of all faiths, have not been so easily swayed.

When I originally heard about this issue, my first reaction was, “Oh my god, why would they want to build a mosque at Ground Zero.” But then, of course, I found out that it’s not actually at Ground Zero, and the plans aren’t really for what you would think of as a mosque, and the people leading the effort are moderate, peaceful Muslims, and this may actually be exactly what’s needed to bring people together . . . well, once you get the facts straight, it becomes obvious that it’s rather un-American to stand in opposition. It’s really a case of “Will America uphold the principles on which she was founded, or will she allow fear and hate to rule the day.”

My support for the Cordoba House Islamic Center is unequivocal. I have but one regret in the matter — that I don’t live close enough to engage with these fine people and help them to realize their vision.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined an array of Republican lawmakers who feel we should examine whether to rescind all or part of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to prevent some children born in the U.S. from being granted U.S. citizenship. The pro-life, pro-family Republicans are now pro-neonatal detention and deportation. It isn’t enough to drive out the people not born here, now they want to drive out the ones that were.

Actually, I agree with Senator McConnell. We absolutely should hold hearings as soon as possible to discuss whether we should amend the U.S. Constitution to make newborns deportable. We need a high-level national discussion in both Houses of Congress on the issue of whether to station federal ICE agents in every maternity ward and delivery room right between the OB-GYN and the expectant father.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Congressman

Great, so Rep. Gutierrez is already fear mongering up a storm with scenarios of Gestapo enforcers stomping around in maternity wards. I can’t help but wonder how liberals separate this type of fear based campaigning from the Sarah Palin death panels. Both contrive wildly extreme possibilities in order to discredit legitimate concerns, and neither attempts in any way to identify a solution.

I’m sorry, but I find it poetic that the one amendment to our Constitution that was enacted without rightful ratification and is also unconstitutional in its inclusion of ex post facto law, should now be the subject of such debate. The 14^th Amendment obviously did the right thing in providing citizenship to blacks and guaranteeing due process and equal protection, but the way in which it was enacted was an abomination. And now, the Party that illegitimately enacted the amendment wants to review and possibly rescind it. Now that’s poetic!

Personally, I‘d like to see the amendment changed, but that certainly doesn’t mean that I would support any retroactive application. The truth seems evident that the enacting Congress didn’t address the potential for abuse from illegal immigrants having children in order to obtain citizenship. That’s the just the way it is.

People like me, who believe that the abuse warrants a change, have but one form of recourse — amend the Constitution. That’s the way we do it in the United States. To do otherwise is to subvert the very spirit of our democracy.

I for one would welcome a national conversation on this topic. I’d like to hear the reasoning of people who believe that a child born of parents in the United States illegally should be granted citizenship. Is there an ethical argument? Is it simply a position of practicality? I’m sorry, but to me it wreaks of defending the rights of litigation for the guy who climbs on somebody’s house to burglarize them and falls through their skylight and gets injured.

I know, I know — there’s a child involved. But what I don’t understand is why there’s not more outcry against parents who would use their child this way. Break the law and hide behind a child . . .  now that sounds unethical to me.

Whatever side people are on, wouldn’t it be great if we could all just state our piece and work together toward a solution? It would be quite remarkable, but we’ll never get there so long as every issue is met with all the fear-mongering hyperbole currently waged by conservatives and liberals alike. How about instead, we stop the posturing, listen to one another and open a dialog?