Sequestration 2013, a Political Mess

It’s a ransom - if you do that, we will do this. Neither Obama administration nor the Republicans budged from their positions to realign the cuts in expenditures and enhancement of revenues to balance the budget. 

We can survive this $85 billion cut, but is this how we deal with the national issues? 

Republicans are assuming that we are not going to make it in 2014, so what the heck, let’s do the thing that needs to be done any way and make Obama look bad. Our intention smells foul.

We have to balance the budget; we cannot spend more than we collect. Indeed, we had a balanced budget when President Clinton left. However President Bush, the macho man loaded with revenge seeking testosterone's had to lie to us to go to war and that is where our destruction began. His actions killed over 5000 of our soldiers and nearly a million Afghans and Iraqis – for what?  He piled up a reckless debt of $10 Trillion dollars. That was irresponsible, had he done what Obama did, to go get that one guy Bin-Laden; we would not be in this mess today. Cheney and Bush owe an apology to the nation, their karma is messed up, but they have messed us up. 

The blame must be placed squarely on the party leadership. The Republican Party programs its members to be sheepish; to shut up and listen to the boss. How many Republican were belligerent towards Bush?  We are freaking conformists in a free nation. We have become cowards and don’t have the balls to speak out against our own. It is time to change. I see hope in Chris Christie, John Huntsman, Colin Powell and many more that are speaking up, and add to that list, this little man from Dallas, Texas who will relentlessly pursue the case for sanity in our party.

Had we questioned President Bush and demanded the truth from him, we would have saved the nation, but that is behind,  right now,  we have to cut spending. Cannot continue with deficit financing of our state. 

President Obama needs to be aggressive in cutting spending; there is a lot of wasteful spending that needs to be cut. Let it begin with huge pay cuts for the elected representatives, not the ones who make less than $100,000 but any pay check above that. They can demonstrate to the nation that they mean business.

The Republicans on the other hand need to have some common sense, we cannot go cold turkey on budget cuts, and it has to be a gradual and balanced approach over a period of 6 years without hurting the economy. But cuts, we must make.

The good thing about Moderate Republicans is they care for their country more than their party and they will save the party and not the right wingers among us.  We need to have a simple (not the arrogant) majority in the house and Democrats to have the simple majority in the Senate. These guys need to fight and spend time on each bill – there shall be no slam dunk of any bill. Most of the evil decisions were made when all the three branches of government were of the same party.  As a moderate Republican I detest a monopoly of the party over our governance.
If we don’t change our stinking attitudes we will be slaughtered in 2014, all these Taliban’s, 22 of the Republican Senators and some 138 Republican Congress persons must go for voting against women’s equal rights act in the senate. What a shame! I expect more of us Republicans to speak out against these primates. 

URL- http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/03/sequestration-2013-republican-mess.html
....... Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.

TEXAS FAITH: Across religious spectrum, voters are increasingly identifying themselves as Republican. Why?

Every religious group is clamoring to have their personal religious interests take precedence over the interests of America. In the long run it is not sustainable and does not bode well for America. There are two critical factors in the play to explain the voter shift towards Republicans; unemployment and religion.

TEXAS FAITH: Across religious spectrum, voters increasingly identifying themselves as Republican. Why?

Across almost every major religious group, the share of voters identifying with or leaning toward the GOP has either grown or held steady. So what's going on? Why has the number of religious voters identifying themselves as Democrats declined - and as Republicans risen? Why do you think this is happening?

We asked our panel of Texas Faith experts to weigh in. Their responses follow:
MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas
There are two critical factors in the play to explain the voter shift towards Republicans; unemployment and religion.

Every religious group is clamoring to have their personal religious interests take precedence over the interests of America. In the long run it is not sustainable and does not bode well for America.

There is a positive correlation between the swap among unaffiliated Independents and Democrats. The 4% loss to Democrats comes from the 4% gain to the unaffiliated independents; there is also an identical 4% increase in Republican leaning independents from 39% to 43%. The major contributing factor seems to be the unemployment. Per the department of Labor, the unemployment grew from 6% in July 2008 to 9.2% in July of 2011 and the shift has occurred during the same period. Disenchantment factor seems to be in the play.

While the Republican base has remained even at 28% in the survey period, the loss has occurred in the Democratic Party, moving away towards independents. Which throws a challenge to the Democratic Party that it was a performance based change and the gain will shift back with new and improved results, which is yet to be surveyed.

Not sure, how big a factor unemployment is when you review the new analysis in the same survey that claims, "the share of voters identifying with or leaning toward the GOP has either grown or held steady in every major religious group."

The biggest gain for the Republican leaning registered voters comes from Mormons, Jews and White Catholics respectively. That is 12, 9 and 8 points. Is it easy to draw conclusions?

Is Romney a factor for a 12% gain for the Republicans among Mormons? That is the highest singular gain among all religious groups.

What percent of the 9% Jewish shift towards Republicans is attributable to Democratic President's stance towards Iran? What percentage goes towards his call for the 1967 borders and stopping the settlements?

The White Catholics have the third largest leaning towards Republicans with 8%. Is it the abortion issue or the same sex marriage? We cannot entertain political candidacy as Gingrich and Santorum had not announced their candidacy during the entire survey period, where as Mormons know Romney was going to run.

America was founded on liberty from religious persecution and we should consciously not let a religious ideology dominate the nation, we are the final frontier land of freedom and we should preserve it, unless we have the promised moon colony ready to flee.

Let people have the freedom to choose and not let the government regulate what we eat, drink, wear, believe or who we marry.

. . . . . .

The other panelists responses at: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/02/texas-faith-across-religious-s.html

. . . .

Here's the link for the Pew study: http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Trends-in-Party-Identification-of-Religious-Groups.aspx

. . . . . .

Additional Notes: I am glad to see the spread in party identification – 34% identify themselves as Democrats with an additional 14% independents who lean towards Democrats giving them a 48% political share, where as 28% identify themselves as Republicans with an additional 16% who lean towards Republicans giving them a share of 44% and that leaves an 8% true independents. Where are you in this affiliation game?

. . . . . .

Mike Ghouse is a thinker, writer speaker and an activist of pluralism, interfaith, co-existence, peace, Islam and India. He is a frequent guest at the TV, radio and print media offering pluralistic solutions to issues of the day. His websites and Blogs are listed on http://www.mikeghouse.net/

Dumb Republicans

Dumb Republicans

I am a Republican and have voted Republican all along, except the President where I had voted for Kerry and Obama. Not only I voted for Obama, I campaigned and held ralliles for him.

A majority of us Republicans are moderates who want to get along with every one and envision a better world for one and all; a characteristic of all majorities. Unfortunately our party is infested by a few extremists and shamelessly the majority of us are silently enduring the collapse of our party. A few who are confused want to hang on to the Palins, McCains, Gingrichs, Romney’s, Rove’s, Limbaugh’s and others who are the very reason for this wreckage. Their creepy presence will have us lose some more Senate and congressional seats in 2010.

During the election campaign, any three minutes McCain or Romney had on the television they spilled nothing but hate and destruction or bombing others. That is not what we want, hence the Republicans dumped them.

Have you ever heard these guys speak about peace, civility, dialogue and co-existence? How can they? They are obsessed with fear and cannot think of peace for themselves or the Americans. They cloak themselves in Patriotism and Religion, as if others are not. The Limbaughs, Hannity's, Rileys and several others made their money by selling hate and fear, they made their good. We Americans are not dumb to keep buying their stupidities. They got us by our balls by lying to us and frightening the crap out of us after 9/11, but not any more. They have done more harm to our nation than any one else has ever done before, and now they deserve to be dumped.
Listen to them; “With "empathy" reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, "Justice is not about empathy." As the author below adds, “People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.”

“What about Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist?” He was the same guy who was fooling around with another woman while accusing Clinton for the very same thing. The dumb Republicans in charge still give him the room to speak?

There is hope for us, if the silent majority of the Republicans have the balls to speak up and start purging the right winger extremists, we have a chance of regaining or perhaps gaining some seats in congress and senate and preserve our system of checks and balances. I would like to see a Republican Senate majority and Democrat Congressional majority, that way no decisions will be made without due deliberations. But we have to get smart and speak up.

http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Republican-or-Democrat-which-way.asp

Mike Ghouse is a Dallas based Writer, Blogger, Speaker, Thinker and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television networks offering pluralistic perspectives on issues of the day. His comments, news analysis and op-ed columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal site www.MikeGhouse.net

Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy:
The Conservative Stealth Strategy
Sunday 31 May 2009
by: George Lakoff, t r u t h o u t Perspective

The Sotomayor nomination has given radical conservatives new life. They have launched an attack that is nominally aimed at Judge Sotomayor. But it is really a coordinated stealth attack - on President Obama's central vision, on progressive thought itself, and on Republicans who might stray from the conservative hard line.

There are several fronts: empathy, feelings, racism, activist judges. Each one has a hidden dimension. And if progressives think conservative attacks are just about Sotomayor, they may wind up helping conservatives regroup.

Conservatives believe that Sotomayor will be confirmed, and so their attacks may seem irrational to Democrats, a last gasp, a grasping at straws, a sign that the party is breaking up.Actually, something sneakier and possibly dangerous is going on.

Let's start with the attack on empathy. Why empathy? Isn't empathy a good thing? Empathy is at the heart of progressive thought. It is the capacity to put oneself in the shoes of others - not just individuals, but whole categories of people: one's countrymen, those in other countries, other living beings, especially those who are in some way oppressed, threatened, or harmed. Empathy is the capacity to care, to feel what others feel, to understand what others are facing and what their lives are like. Empathy extends well beyond feeling to understanding, and it extends beyond individuals to groups, communities, peoples, even species. Empathy is at the heart of real rationality, because it goes to the heart of our values, which are the basis of our sense of justice.

Progressives care about others as well as themselves. They have a moral obligation to act on their empathy - a social responsibility in addition to personal responsibility, a responsibility to make the world better by making themselves better. This leads to a view of a government that cares about its citizens and has a moral obligation to protect and empower them. Protection includes worker, consumer, and environmental protection as well as safety nets and health care. Empowerment includes what is in the president's stimulus plan: infrastructure, education, communication, energy, the availability of credit from banks, a stock market that works. No one can earn anything at all in this country without protection and empowerment by the government. All progressive legislation is made on this basis.

The president wrote of empathy in The Audacity of Hope, "It is at the heart of my moral code and it is how I understand the Golden Rule - not simply as a call to sympathy or charity, but as something more demanding, a call to stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes."
President Obama has argued that empathy is the basis of our democracy. Why do we promote freedom and fairness for everyone, not just ourselves or the rich and powerful? The answer is empathy. We care about our countrymen and have an obligation to act on that care, and to set up a government for the protection and empowerment of all. That is at the heart of everything he does.

The link between empathy and democracy has been established historically by Professor Lynn Hunt of UCLA in her important book, Inventing Human Rights. To hear her speak, go tohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZVD1G4q0bA.

The link between empathy and progressive thought is spelled out in my book Moral Politics and in my new book The Political Mind, just out in paperback (http://www.amazon.com/Political-Mind-Cognitive-Scientists-Politics/dp/0143115685).

In describing his ideal Supreme Court justice, President Obama cited empathy as a major desideratum. Why? Because that is what our democracy is about. A justice has to take empathy into account because his or her decisions will affect the lives of others. Before making a decision you have to put yourself in the shoes of those who your decision will affect. Similarly, in judging causation, fairness requires that social causes as well as individual causes be taken into account. Empathy forces you to notice what is crucial in so many Supreme Court cases: systemic and social causes and whom a decision can harm. As such, empathy correctly understood is crucial to judgment. A judge without empathy is a judge unfit for a democracy.

President Obama has described Justice Sotomayor in empathetic terms - a life story that would lead her to understand people who live through oppression and deprivation and what it does to them. In other words, a life story that would allow her to appreciate the consequences of judicial decisions and the causal effects of living in an unequal society.

Empathy in this sense is a threat to conservatism, which features individual, not social, responsibility and a strict, punitive form of "justice." It is no surprise that empathy would be a major conservative target in the Sotomayor evaluation.

But the target is not empathy as it really exists. Instead, the conservatives are reframing empathy to make it attackable. Their "empathy" is idiosyncratic, personal feeling for an individual, presumably the defendant in a legal case. With "empathy" reframed in this way, Charles Krauthammer can say, echoing Karl Rove, "Justice is not about empathy." The argument goes like this: Empathy is a matter of personal feelings. Personal feelings should not be the basis of a judicial decision of the Supreme Court. Therefore, "justice is not about empathy." Reframe the word "empathy" and it not only disqualifies Sotomayor; it delegitimizes Obama's central moral principle, his approach to government, his understanding of the nature of our democracy, and progressive politics in general.

We cannot let conservatives get away with redefining empathy as irrational and idiosyncratic personal feeling. Empathy is the basis of our democracy, and its true meaning must be defended.

But the attack can be sneaky. Take David Brooks' column in The New York Times (May 29, 2009). He frames what he calls "The Empathy Issue" in terms of the use of emotions in decision-making. He is doing a conservative reframing of the issue. What is sneaky is that he starts by saying a number of true things about emotions. As Antonio Damasio pointed out in Descartes' Error, you can't make rational decisions without emotions. If you have a brain injury that wipes out your emotional capacity, you don't know what to want, since like and not-like mean nothing, and you can't tell what others will think of you. Here is Brooks:
People without emotions cannot make sensible decisions because they don't know how much anything is worth. People without social emotions like empathy are not objective decision-makers. They are sociopaths who sometimes end up on death row.

Supreme Court justices, like all of us, are emotional intuitionists. They begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work, which have been idiosyncratically ingrained by genes, culture, education, parents and events. These models shape the way judges perceive the world.

Note the mixture of truth and non-truth. Yes, sensible decisions require emotions. Yes, people without empathy are sociopaths. Yes, we all make decisions based on models in our head of how the world works. That's basic cognitive science. Mixed in with it is conservative reframing. No, empathy is a lot more than a "social emotion." No, using models of the world in decision-making need not be a matter of emotion. It's just how real reason works.

Then the conclusion:

But because we're emotional creatures in an idiosyncratic world, it's prudent to have judges who are cautious, incrementalist and minimalist. It's prudent to have judges who decide cases narrowly, who emphasize the specific context of each case, who value gradual change, small steps and modest self-restraint.

Right-leaning thinkers from Edmund Burke to Friedrich Hayek understood that emotion is prone to overshadow reason. They understood that emotion can be a wise guide in some circumstances and a dangerous deceiver in others. It's not whether judges rely on emotion and empathy, it's how they educate their sentiments within the discipline of manners and morals, tradition and practice.

Empathy here has been reframed as emotion that is "idiosyncratic" - personal - a danger to reason. "Sentiments," that is, emotions, must be "disciplined" to fit "manners and morals, tradition and practice"- in short, the existing social and political order. This is perfect radical conservatism in the guise of sweet, moderate reasonableness. Where Rove and Krauthammer have the iron fists, Brooks has the velvet glove.

The attack on empathy becomes an attack on feelings, with feelings as not merely at odds with justice, but at odds with good sense. Where Brooks' tone is sweetly reasonable, G. Gordon Liddy is outrageous:

Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/).
Liddy is saying what Brooks is saying: Emotion is irrational and dangerous. Only Liddy is not nicely-nicely. The attack on feelings is of a piece with the old attack on "bleeding-heart liberals." And one step away from Cheney's attack on Obama and defense of torture.

What about Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist? It is linked directly to the personal feeling argument: because of her personal feelings for her own kind - Latinos and women - she will discriminate against white men. It is to support that view that the New Haven firemen case keeps being brought up.

The real target here goes beyond Sotomayor. In the last election, conservative populists moved toward Obama. Conservative populists are working people, mostly white men, who have conservative views of the family, of masculinity, and of the military, and who have bought into the idea of the "liberal elite" as looking down on them. Right now, they are hurting economically, losing their jobs and their homes. Empathy is something they need. The racist card is an attempt to revive their fears of affirmative action, fears of their jobs - and their pride - being taken by minorities and women. The racist attack has a political purpose, holding onto conservative populists. The overt form of the old conservative argument is made regularly these days: liberalism is identity politics.

Incidentally, Democrats are walking into the Gingrich trap. I heard Ed Schultz defending Sotomayor by saying over and over why she was "not a racist," and using the word "racist" next to her name repeatedly. It was like Nixon saying, "I am not a crook." When Democrats make that mistake, I sometimes wonder why I bothered to write Don't Think of an Elephant!
The attack on Sotomayor as an "activist judge" completes the pattern of radical conservative reasoning: Because of her empathy, which is personal feeling, which in turn is a form of racism, she will interpret the constitution not rationally, blindly, and objectively, but to suit her emotions.

It is vital at this point to understand how conservatives get away with the "activist judge" ploy. As any cognitive linguist knows, there is no such thing as "strict construction" of the Constitution. The reason was given by, of all people, David Brooks, as we discussed above.
Supreme Court justices, like all of us,... begin their decision-making processes with certain models in their heads. These are models of how the world works and should work ... These models shape the way judges perceive the world.

These models also shape they way the most "strict constructionist" of judges read the Constitution. Such models are physically part of the brain and typically operate below the level of consciousness. Conservatives are thus as much "judicial activists" as anyone else.
So how do conservative Republicans get away with the "activist judge" ploy? Democrats hand it to them. Why? Because most Democrats grew up with and still believe a view of reason that has been shown in cognitive science and neuroscience to be false. The sciences of mind have shown that real reason is largely unconscious, requires emotion, uses "models" (frames, metaphors, narratives) and so does not fit the world directly.

But Democrats tend to believe that reason is conscious, can fit the world directly, and works by logic, not frames or metaphors. They thus believe that words have fixed literal meanings that fit the world in itself, regardless of models, frames, metaphors, or narratives. If you believe this, then original meaning could make sense. Democrats don't fight it when they should.
Democrats make another move that allows them to keep their view of reason. They adopt the view of the "living constitution," which opens them up to charges of "judicial activism," charges made by conservative judicial activists. The source of the problem lies in the Democrats lack of understanding of their own unconscious reasoning processes. One of many Democrats deepest beliefs contradicts the facts about the brain and the mind and allows conservative judges to be activists while claiming to be strict constructionists.

Taken together, the attacks on Sotomayor work as attacks on Obama and progressive thought. They are also attacks on "moderate" conservatives, who think with progressives on many issues. The attacks activate radical conservative ideas in the brains of those who voted for Bush and the 47 percent of the voters who voted for McCain.

Radical conservatives know that Sotomayor will be confirmed. They also know that their very understanding of the world is being threatened by Obama's success. But they have a major strength. They have their message machine intact, with trained spokespeople booked on TV and radio shows all over the country. Attacking Sotomayor, even when they know she will win, allows them to rally their forces and get swing-voting conservatives thinking their way again.

How should Democrats respond?

Democrats should go on offense. They need to rally behind empathy- real empathy, not empathy reframed as emotion and personal feeling. They need to speak regularly about empathy as being the basis of our democracy. They need to point out that empathy leads one to notice real social and systemic causes of our troubles and to notice when and how judicial decisions and legislation can harm the most vulnerable of our countrymen. And finally that empathy is the reason that we have the principles of freedom and fairness - which are necessary components of justice.

Above all, Democrats should be aware that the attack on Sotomayor is not just about Sotomayor. It is an attack on the basis of our democracy and must be answered.»

George Lakoff is the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of "The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics With an 18th Century Brain." His latest book, "The Political Mind," appears in paperback on June 2. To contact George Lakoff, email him atlakoff@truthout.org.

Saving the Republican Party

As Americans, we have an obligation to maintain the checks and balance in our governing system. If not, we will be re-paving the way for the mistakes we have made in the past; Putting all governance in one basket; the Republican Party.

.

Our loyalty should be to America and our Democracy first, and then perhaps to the party. Together, let's work on getting the Republican Majority at the Senate, even though some of them are ugly Republicans who supported the destruction of American economy and did not have the guts to speak out against their party, they put their Party first and America next. It will be a mistake to give all the three branches to one single party. Continue

Republicans, please put America first

A majority of the Republicans are like you and I, capable of seeing another point of view, but the ones who run the party do not see the need to enlighten themselves, only God can help them. I am addressing to those principled Republicans in this essay, who are a majority. I am a Republican in my heart supporting Obama, the only hope for America. It is time for you, the good principled Republican senators, congressmen and women and all those committed to the principles of the party to wake up and rescue the party from being hijacked again by those extremists who want power devoid of republicanism. Continue

If the world were to vote in US elections

It is an incredible report produced by the economist in the link below.

The world does not hate us, they hate our administration, just as we hate Putin, Taliban or Saddam but not Russians, Afghans or the Iranian people.

If you are a Neocon Republican, please do not read this, however, I believe a majority of the Republicans are good people, but good for nothing when they do not have the guts to speak up against their own party, they equate that to unpatriotic behavior.

The dumb Neocon Republicans will never get it, the public dumped the extremists neocon Republicans enmasse in November 2006, they still don't get it. Them boys, the axis of Cheney-Bush-Rowe-Rice-Guiliani-Romney-Palin-McCain huddle and talk about annihilating other nations, it is a game to them to kill people, wage wars and be destructive.

The only thing that comes out of their mouths is war, destruction, bombing, annihilating, or getting even... Except Ron Paul, is there a Republican out there whose actions are peace oriented? Who believes and acts peace? I hope there are a few at least.

The Neocon gang of Republicans use the word "peace through strenght" meaning peace would come to the world when they bully any one who does not agree with them. That dumb idea has done nothing but wrong in the world, where ever Neocons are involved in the world stage, they have misled the Americans to believe peace comes through destruction.

The axis of those huddle boys and girls, do not understand that we cannot have security when we frighten others, we cannot have peace when we are violent. Americans are not made like these boys, they will do the right thing at the end. The world does not hate us, they hate our administration, though we are responsible to put this axis in place and now time to dump them in November.

Check this link out:
http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12285939&fsrc=nwl

Are you still a Republican?

Are you still a Republican?

I am not.

Way back in December last year I wrote “Which way, republican or democratic?" http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Republican-or-Democrat-which-way.asp

Last night I listened to Hilary, and Michelle the night before, like me, I hope, Americans know which way to go now. They talked about you and I, the common folks, they talked about the human aspirations and hope and how to get there. Hilary made a soft passing remark about terrorism among three other major things, poverty, global warming and inequalities, because that is all the attention it deserves, no more.

Next week when you hear the Republicans, you are guaranteed to hear this:

McCain will talk about his obsession about terrorism, war, destruction and all the negatives of the world, quadrupling and exaggerating it to make us all let it loose in our pants, because that is all McCain has to offer, and he is full of it. He spews hate for others, and he will express that in terms of enemies, that is all his language revolves around, that is all he can think, that is all he is capable of; imagining enemies, goading others to become enemies and then digging in the heels and going for confrontation, threatening others for the next four years. He is our decorated hero, he has endured a lot of suffering for us, we can build a bronze stature in front of the Capital hill to honor him, but we cannot afford to give him a free pass to commit our resources to self destruct and others in the world. Do we need him to continue to frighten us for the next four years?

Then the others like Rowe, Cheney, Bush will join him in imagining WMD in every nook and cranny, they can fake the intelligence report. It is a shame that the few among the Republicans have cornered their Pulpit, there are more moderate Republicans out there than we can imagine, but they are chickens; don't have the guts to speak up. I have talked with many of them, they sound conservative, but in their heart they are not, they don't like polices of fear and exclusion that Bush, Cheney and their baby McCain is pursuing.

McCain can keep that speech to himself, we don't need that, we need peace, dialogue, hope, poverty reduction, saving the planet, education, jobs, first here at home and not squander our resources in their imaginary wars. I would like to hear positive upbeat hopeful governance for us Americans, we deserve it.

Most Republicans understand our mistakes, but don’t have the balls to speak up. The public will speak up through the ballot though. Many of those good republicans will pay a price on November 4th for silently approving the wrong doings.

I am willing to bet that McCain and his gang will frighten us with their devilish hallucinations about enemies. They don’t understand that we cannot have peace if others can’t, we cannot be secure if we keep threatening others.

There is always that hope, the hope that these guys can learn the message of Christ, of peace, mitigating the conflicts, nurturing goodwill, reaching out and removing barriers and creating a world of kindness. May God ease their arrogance out and bring humility and make them better humans. Amen!

Mike Ghouse is a Republican at heart, but cannot align with any visible Republican out there. Mike is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He is the founding president of World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: Good for Muslims and good for the world. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website http://www.mikeghouse.net/. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com

Would McCain start WWIV

http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2008/07/would-mccain-start-wwiv.html

Would John McCain start wwiv?
Mike Ghouse

Most Americans understand the message of Jesus, where he says, even if you are slapped, work on mitigating the conflict rather than slapping back and continuing the slap cycles to eternity.

Cheney, Bush, McCain, Lieberman and Giuliani do not get that message, they are either insecure and want to keep fighting an imaginary enemy cooked by them or simply they don't understand that if by aggravating the conflicts, the opposite of what they imagine happens; insecurity to one an all. If others are not secure, we cannot be safe either.

We become a great nation by earning the respect from the community of nations, by being just and fair to the parties where there is conflict. We have to earn our name back as a nation that gives and cares where help was needed.

From a business point of view, the gang is downright stupid. Had we invested half of that money we blew in Iraq and Afghanistan on education, jobs, friendship and exchange programs, we would have had greater returns, we would have fewer enemies and the world would have been a safe place for us Americans as well as the people of the world. I am sure some one will come out with the statistics. Do we have more people frustrated at us American now, than before Bush’s misadventure? Brzezinski speaks sense, when he says, McCain could start the WWIV.

It is time to have leaders who reflect the sentiments of Americans, and make sure our democracy remains, government of the people, by the people for the people.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com

Brzezinski: McCain would start WWIV
Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:26:50

Former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski
Former White House national security adviser says if John McCain becomes the next US president the world will move toward World War IV.

Former US President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski criticized US officials in Senator McCain's camp for pushing the presumptive Republican nominee toward a radical foreign policy on issues such as Iran.

Brzezinski described McCain's presidency as an 'appalling concept' as it would lead to the World War IV, arguing that from the viewpoint of figures surrounding the Arizona senator the Cold War counted as World War III.

"Well, if McCain is president and if his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his Secretary of Defense is [Rudolph] Giuliani, we will be moving towards the World War IV that they have been both favoring and predicting," Brzezinski cautioned.

Earlier in October 2007, President George W. Bush, who has endorsed John McCain, warned of the eruption of World War III should Iran continue uranium enrichment.

Republican or Democratic?

Which way, Republican or Democratic?
Mike Ghouse, December 20, 2007

In land of the plenty, paucity of good candidates for President is amazing and stifling. The undecided majority of Republican voters are confused; which way do I go; Republican or Democratic?

Two decades ago, when I chose to become an American, I found myself in tune with the Republicans; liberty, less government, fiscal responsibility, capitalism, security and peace through strength. Today, the party is not the same and it does not reflect those values any more. I am disappointed.

Under the Republican administration in the last seven years our government has become bigger. We have added layers of bureaucracy with Homeland Security, FBI, CIA and God only knows who else to handle one single item - Safety of Americans. In Iraq we have embarked on building the largest embassy in the world. We are not paying for Iraq war from the current budget, but from money borrowed from potential adversaries, with the largest national debt, ever in history.

Our Liberties are curbed, government secrecy has grown monumentally and the American public is treated as imbeciles. Wire tapping, violation of Geneva conventions that we pioneered, incarcerating indefinitely without charges, where is the ideal of innocent until proven Guilty? Where is the pledge, with liberty and justice for all? Secrecy of any kind breeds evil men and democracy is put in harms way.

While other nations are balancing their budgets and building surplus reserves to ensure financial security, our administration has loaded us with immense debt and has a bad record on fiscal responsibility. Senator Bentsen had challenged a presidential candidate once. Yeah, you can charge on the credit card carelessly and put up a good show of prosperity, when the bill hits home, who is going to pay?

The Republican party needs an attitude adjustment, Investing in human development is not a charity, it is indeed capitalism. Uplifting the down trodden onto a level playing field and enlarging the consumer base is not a charity, it is an investment in human capital. Blowing billions of Dollars and funding other nations is charity, which is needed after we have take care of our citizenry. Where are our priorities?

Our reckless war mongering is not a war on terrorism, but a terrorizing war, which has spawned more enemies around the globe. Look at the UN resolutions record; we stand aloof and often isolated among the community of nations.

The idea of peace through strength is trashed by this administration. They believe that we have become bullies, forcing others to obey our almighty guns.

Congressman Armey couldn't have said it any better. "Republican lawmakers forgot the party's principles, became enamored with power and position, and began putting politics over policy."

Indeed, we the Republicans became arrogant, believing that America is ours to rule without any one questioning it. The President wanted "yes men and women"; the Republican controlled house and the senate obliged. We had the audacity to demean any one who questioned "our policies", to label them un-patriotic.

I trust the American people will always do the right thing when things veer off the path of democracy. Republican approval ratings are in shambles, yet we refused to see the writing. Democracy was in peril with us controlling the executive, judicial, legislature. The checks, he legislature is supposed to provide to the executive overreach is a must and the essence of democracy essential. Our representatives became a rubberstamp.

November 7, 2006 was an important day in our history, the day democracy was re-stored, thanks to fellow Americans for putting down their foot and voting out us, the Republican congress who supported unilateralism.

I am haunted by a question, which way do I go; Republican or Democratic? Loyalty to country and democracy trumps loyalty to party.

All I hear from the crop of the Republican candidates, with the exception of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, is "Arrogance". I don't relate with these warmongers any more. They don't get it and the Americans are looking for sanity in all these wrong candidates.

Do we need to continue to put America on peril with wars, wars and wars?

We need to focus on the impending dangers from China's surplus trade balances, Dollar value, education, health care, uplifting the Americans who are down and earning back the lost respect from the community of nations for continued leadership edge.

John McCain says bomb, bomb and bomb, Giuliani cannot think beyond 9/11 reference. Romney wants to keep things secretive, a bad thing for democracy. Huckabee is perhaps scheming to put puppets in Supreme Court who can cancel out Roe V. Wade. Dictators like Musharraf can do that, not our Presidents. These guys are singing Cheney's tune on "intelligence". All they arte peddling is fear, they will be wrong again, again and again.

A New York Time columnist writes, "The Republican pack is one extremely unappealing bunch of politicians, and it is no wonder the poor voters have developed buyer's remorse before they've come near the cash register".

On the Democratic side, Hilary Clinton plays the Republican tune well, she is Bush lite; she should be with the Republican gang and probably would get the nomination.

Obama and Edwards talk sense. Obama has shown the propensity to make compromises to get elected, what will he do once the pressure is mounted on him after he is elected?

As Americans, which way do we go? I hope the candidates will interact with the public more often and eventually mature with sound policies for our nation.

CommentstoMike@Gmail.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker and a Writer. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He is the founding president of World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: Good for Muslims and good for the world. His comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com

For a full bio: http://www.mikeghouse.net/ProfileMikeGhouse.asp

Bush Rove Cheney Troika

Bush Rove Cheney, a Chaotic Troika

I am not a democract and have always found in tune with the Republican ideals- Less government, more freedom to individuals, fiscal responsibility and talk sense. Well, that idea of what the party stood for died years ago with President Reagan, Senior Bush was alright though.

One of Texas's past democratic senators had argued " It is easy to charge on the credit card and spend bullishly". Who is going to pay the card?

Now, listen to every Republican candidate. All they talk is bomb, bomb and bomb. I don't relate with these war mongers any more.

The chaotic troika draws their entertaiment by keep every one on the edge. Do they talk about Peace? Nope's.

John McCain said bomb, bomb. He shoud be ashamed of himself for making those mistakes again, again and again, based on manufactured intelligence. Some one pays these guys to keep the chaos going, war going, as some one is getting rich to do this. They have to bark, if they stopped, it feels odd to them.

God bless America, and lets hope these war mongers don't make it in November 2008. American public will dump them.

By the way, I am still sticking around as a Republican, a moderate one. People think it is a joke, but I know there are plenty of good for nothing Republicans out there, who are moderate and are afraid to speak up.

Well, here is a request from move-on.
----------------------------------------

Dear MoveOn members,

How did President Bush respond to the bombshell last week that Iran had stopped its nuclear program? Here's how one of his top military commanders put it: "There has been no course correction."1

For years, Bush and Cheney and Rove have governed using fear—talking up war and terrorism to win elections and push their agenda. They used this method to get us into the war in Iraq, and now the President's at it again—trying to rally support by marching the nation toward war with Iran.

Someone's got to call him out. Our ad team has come up with a unique twist on the issue. We want to run this as a full-page ad in The New York Times. Can you help out with $25 to help run the ad? We think you'll like it—take a look.

http://pol.moveon.org/donate/bushlegacy.html?id=11791-6812817-sAGbKN&t=2

We need to expose not just the President's lies but his political motivations behind them. To do that, we need the media to be asking tough questions. Running this ad now can force those answers to be made public.

Consider this: Days after the White House's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reported that Iran stopped developing nuclear weapons years ago, President Bush and his proxies are still out stumping for war.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that "Iran seeks to create chaos" everywhere they go.2 And leading neocon and Giuliani adviser Norman Podheretz, has even accused the intelligence community of lying in its report.3

It's an old political trick, and one that got us mired in the war in Iraq. Back in 2002, Karl Rove advised Republican candidates to use the fear of war to win their campaigns.4 And right-wing commentators openly brag about how Bush used the war to win the election in '04.5


This time, the report's revelations about Iran's lack of nuclear weapons give us just the opening we need to expose their lies and force the media to question the motivation behind their march to war. This is just the ad to do it. Can you chip in to make sure that this story gets told?

http://pol.moveon.org/donate/bushlegacy.html?id=11791-6812817-sAGbKN&t=3

Thanks for all you do,

–Ilyse, Adam G., Marika, Karin and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Wednesday, December 12th, 2007

1. "Pentagon plans unchanged by Iran report: general," Reuters, December 7, 2007
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3261&id=11791-6812817-sAGbKN&t=4

2."Gates Says Iran Seeks to Cause Chaos," Associated Press, December 8, 2007
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3262&id=11791-6812817-sAGbKN&t=5

3."Dark Suspicions about NIE" Commentary Magazine, December 3, 2007
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3263&id=11791-6812817-sAGbKN&t=6

4. "General Karl Rove, Reporting for Duty," Time, September 29, 2002
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,356034,00.html

5. "Five-Tool Player," National Review, August 14, 2007
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3265&id=11791-6812817-sAGbKN&t=7

Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you'd like to support our work, you can give now at:

http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.html?id=11791-6812817-sAGbKN&t=8

------------------------------------------

Impeach VP Cheney?

Impeach VP Cheney?

I just came across this and glad to see that Dennis Kucincih is standing up for the truth. Nearly 3800 Americans have died, a Million Iraqi Citizens are gone and several million are made homeless... all based on lies. Please watch the presentation in the house of representatives about impeachment.

The half hour video at the Capitol Hill:
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/199.html

Full text of the bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110qGr59O

Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to... (Introduced in House)

HRES 333 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 333

Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 24, 2007

Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:

(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.

(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.

(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.

(F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.

(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts.

(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.

(3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.

(A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'.

(B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'.

(C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article II

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:

(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.

(B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.

(C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa.

(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.

(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:

(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'.

(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'.

(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article III

In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:

(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.

(B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.

(C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.

(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:

(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.

(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:

(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.

(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.

(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.

(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.

(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.

(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.

(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.

(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.

The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Republicans are waking up

Republicans are finally waking up.
Reference: http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2007/05/republicans-are-screwed.html

I am pleased to see the responses from the Republican Presidential hopefuls, thanks God they are waking up. I hope, with that awakening, they will show that they do have the guts to speak up.

Speaking up when some one is wrong is the most patriotic thing one can do, instead of letting our nation get the stains, let's fix ourselves. The essence of democracy is checks and balances and that comes with our loyalty in the following order: America, Democracy and Republican Party.

Mike Ghouse
_________________________________________

Republicans Fault Bush on Iraq, Style
2008 Hopefuls Spar Over Security, Immigration
By GLEN JOHNSON
http://news.aol.com/elections/president/story/_a/republicans-fault-bush-on-iraq-style/20070605161309990001?cid=435

MANCHESTER, N.H. (June 6) - President Bush drew sporadic, startling criticism Tuesday night from Republican White House hopefuls unhappy with his handling of the Iraq war, his diplomatic style and his approach to immigration .

"I would certainly not send him to the United Nations" to represent the United States, said Tommy Thompson, the former Wisconsin governor and one-time member of Bush's Cabinet, midway through a spirited campaign debate.

Arizona Sen. John McCain criticized the administration for its handling of the Iraq War, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said, "I think we were underprepared and underplanned for what came after we knocked down Saddam Hussein ."

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said the current administration "has the slows" when it comes to building a security fence along the border with Mexico.

Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado recalled that White House aide Karl Rove had once told him "never darken the door of the White House." The congressman said he'd tell George W. Bush the same thing.

The criticism of Bush was more in keeping of the type of rhetoric that could be expected when Democratic presidential contenders debate.

Its prominence at the GOP event - while Bush was traveling overseas - was a reflection of his poor poll ratings and the need of even members of his own party to campaign on platforms of change.

The Republicans sprinkled the criticism of Bush throughout a two-hour debate that ranged over topics from war to immigration legislation pending in Congress to religion. The debate was the third of the accelerated primary campaign.

None of the 10 men on the debate stage raised their hand in agreement when moderator Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked if anyone favored allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Hunter both said they would pardon Vice President Dick Cheney's former aide Lewis I. "Scooter" Libby, sentenced to 30 months in prison earlier in the day for lying and obstructing a CIA leak investigation.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a former prosecutor, said the sentence was excessive, which "argues in favor of a pardon."

Giuliani had the central role in an unscripted moment of humor.

Asked about a Rhode Island Catholic bishop who criticized him for supporting abortion rights, Giuliani began to respond when a lightning strike briefly interfered with the debate hall sound system.

"Look, for someone who went to parochial schools all his life, this is a very frightening thing that's happening right now," he said to laughter.

The debate drew the announced Republican presidential contenders _ but not former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, an actor apparently poised to join the race in a month's time.

"My name is Thompson. I'm the candidate, not the actor," said Tommy Thompson in a jab at the man who wasn't there.

Fred Thompson, appearing on Fox News after the debate, said he had watched part of the give-and-take among his potential rivals. "They did all right from what I saw," he said.

Much of the debate focused on Iraq.

McCain and Brownback both admitted they voted to authorize the U.S. military invasion of Iraq without reading the formal, nearly 90-page National Intelligence Estimate in advance.

The confession drew a jab from former Gov. Jim Gilmore of Virginia. Members of Congress "ought to read at least that kind of material," he said.

Hunter said he had, the only member of Congress on the debate stage to make the claim.

Both McCain and Brownback said they had received numerous briefings on the situation in Iraq before they cast their votes in 2002.

National intelligence estimates are compilations of the best thinking of U.S. intelligence agencies, meant to provide the broadest guidance to government policymakers.

But they can be wrong. A 2002 assessment, for example, concluded that Iraq had continued its development of weapons of mass destruction, held arsenals of chemical and biological weapons and "probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

McCain drew loud applause from the partisan debate audience when he turned a question about the war in Iraq into criticism of the leading Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"When Senator Clinton says this is Mr. Bush's war, President Bush's war," she is wrong, he said. "When President Clinton was in power, I didn't say Bosnia was President Clinton's war," the Arizona senator said.

"Presidents don't lose wars. Political parties don't lose wars. Nations lose wars," he added.

The criticism of Clinton and the Democrats was standard campaign fare for Republican candidates, and as they have before, the GOP hopefuls lavished praise on the late Ronald Reagan.

McCain has long criticized Bush for fumbling the aftermath of Saddam's fall, and Romney has recently begun to make some of the same criticisms.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee added his voice to those criticizing the war effort. He added that the Bush administration "lost credibility" with its response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Thompson's answer was the most startling, coming from a man who had once served in the president's Cabinet as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Bush's decision to invade Iraq caused hard feelings with longtime allies in Europe, and elsewhere around the world.

Bush's support for the pending immigration legislation is the source of Tancredo's criticism, and the issue figured prominently in the debate.

McCain, alone among the contenders on the St. Anselm College debate stage, supports the measure, and he sought to fend off criticism from some of his rivals.

"We cannot have 12 million people washing around America illegally, my friends," he said.

But Giuliani said the legislation was flawed, "a typical Washington mess."

---------- More below

As protesters rally against President Bush during his visit to Europe, members of his own party are giving him a similar treatment at home. On Tuesday, Republican presidential candidates took turns at a debate criticizing the president. Just one example: "The president ran as a conservative and governed as a liberal," said Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. And though he still has prominent support for some of his policies, Bush faces a very tough political environment. What's your outlook for Bush? And how does he compare to some who want his job? More Coverage: The G-8 Summit