Showing posts with label Presidential Candidates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Presidential Candidates. Show all posts

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Rick Perry's Kingmaker, and David Brooks Wakes Up

Religion Dispatch
Post by Sarah Posner
I went missing last week to an undisclosed location—okay, Wyoming, one of our country's most beautiful states with two of its most spectacular national parks. Reentry into work is always hard, and this time it's no exception, coming back to debt ceiling showdowns and other evidence of the collapse of reason.
Last night, before bed, I read the New York Times on my iPad, and I must have caught David Brooks' column just as it went up. And I thought, ah, he has evolved, he realizes the GOP has gone off the rails. And I anticipated that he would (in Beltway journalist parlance) "win the morning" by saying what everyone else is thinking but is too afraid to say lest they get called a dick by Mark Halperin on TV.

See what I missed while I was hiking in the Grand Tetons! While I was watching geysers erupt in Yellowstone! Is it any wonder that I took a deep breath as I opened my laptop for the first time in 10 days this morning and thought, will everything seem both tiny and blown out of proportion at the same time?
Indeed. But back to work it is for me, with all the tiny and giant inanities that are our political culture. And look who's rising (Texas Governor Rick Perry, with several profiles presaging his presidential run, but not his Christian right bona fides) and who's falling (Godfather Pizza exec and Americans for Prosperity favorite Herman Cain, with campaign staff defections coming "after weeks of swirling rumors between Cain’s staff and volunteers in the Hawkeye State accusing each other of affairs, homosexuality and professional misconduct.")

While Cain's staff walkouts will surely make reporters hyperventilate for prurient, back-stabbing gossip (because even if there were no affairs or homosexuality, the idea that campaign staffers were accusing each other—or him? not clear—of such is somehow irresistible) it's Perry's machinations that are in fact more interesting.

Perry doesn't have boots on the ground in Iowa yet—he hasn't even announced an exploratory committee. And Iowa native and religious right (that's right, not Tea Party) charmer Michele Bachmann is already drawing huge crowds.

As I wrote back in May, Bachmann may be the Huckabee of 2012, wowing Iowa caucus-goers, but fizzling in subsequent states. Enter Perry, another Christocrat favorite whose willingness to substitute prayer for policy rivals Bachmann's. (Applying Brooksian logic, at what point does one deem the GOP not a "normal" party?)

In Time today, Amy Sullivan highlights Perry's ties to the religious right, and zeroes in on David Lane, organizer of Renewal and Restoration Projects, and their associated Pastors' Policy Briefings. When I wrote about Lane's activities back in 2007 and 2008, it was commonly thought (as Sullivan notes) that Lane and his associates played a key role in achieving at least the Iowa victory for Huckabee, to the chagrin of other Republicans. (Lane scoffs at the notion that his mingling of Christianity and politics is in any way inappropriate.) Looking ahead, Texas political columnist Bud Kennedy reported in May that Lane associate Laurence White may be organizing a "Draft Perry" movement by pastors. And they are undoubtedly looking for their anointed one to go the distance this time.


Thursday, February 28, 2008

Obama : The shepherd

OBAMA, THE SHEPHERD
Mike Ghouse, February 27, 2008


This is the first time in our nation's history that some one is speaking the needs, wants and voices of a majority of the people. He is neither a right winger extremist, nor a leftist but a moderate right down the middle embracing and bringing every American together to participate and contribute towards the success, safety and security of America.

An overwhelming majority of us are moderates, people who want to get along with everyone and focus on living the American dream; education, employment, family, children, car, home and a secure retirement. Thank God for Obama, he mirrors the aspirations of millions of Americans and is our new shepherd on the political spectrum. He will lead us to a safe, secure, strong, and respectable and a healthy America.

Obama is for a strong America, where our economic and military strength is leveraged to persuade nations to follow the policy of live and let live and imbibe the democratic principles of honoring the voices and acknowledging the validity of every member of the society. It is in our interest to have peace around us, it is in our interest to create a just world, when others are at peace, and we reap the dividends as well. It is economical to pursue peace than bully around and frighten others. When others are frightened, our peace and safety is on the line as well.

Barak believes in talking with enemy, rather than frustrating the enemy to a point where we have to guard our selves every moment of the day and watch out for the destruction of our own peace, safety and security. Mother Teresa had once said "If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies."

A healthy America is not a social medicine, as my fellow Republicans are brainwashed to believe. Our investment in the health of our people ensures that we have a reliable and productive work force, the healthier we are, the lesser the loss of time on job, more income produces more revenue. Where as an unhealthy America makes us lose on productivity and the costs that go with it. A healthy America is a productive America and it is in our national interest to preserve and strengthen it, this is the other side of coin of a strong America. It is not a charity; it is the best investment a nation can make in her people. The money we blew in Iraq could have done so much better for us at home.

Not all, but the core of the Republican Party is focused on manufacturing fear, building empires and relentlessly making enemies. We don’t need their nightmares. Neither of one of us in the world would live in peace with those attitudes. Their approach to Iraq has given birth to Al-Qaeda that was not there before and our presence in Iraq will produce more of them. It is time to respectfully give them their land and come back home with dignity and respect for the Iraqi’s to manage their own affairs. We are worse off today than we were in 2002. The few extremists in Republican Party frighten the public and then create false security, it is time for the majority of Republicans to speak up or lose in the elections. Barak has the inclination to remove the causes for such fears and his administration will restore our respect in the community of nations. That would be the best thing that can happen. It will make us morally strong again.

The Chinese philosopher Fo-Sho-Hing-Tsan-King meant to pass the following wisdom to our War mongers, “Conquer your foe by force, you increase his enmity; conquer by love, and you will reap no after-sorrow.” Until the hard core Republicans come down from their high horses and believe in humility, compassion, peace and respect for humanity, the Americans will keep them frustrated. The frighteners cannot be saviors.

A strong, safe, prosperous and healthy America should be our goal and Barak is the one who will deliver it.

Please register at: http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=43583

Two part event: 1) Learn and share about Obama and 2) Make phone calls from your cell.


Sunday, March 2, 2008 - 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Banquet hall next door to Barbeque Tonite Restaurant
2540 Old Denton road, suite 173 - Old Denton at Trinity Mills (Bush Frwy)/ (972) 877-9133

Mike Ghouse
A Republican for Obama
(214) 325-1916

Write your comments to: CommentstoMike@Gmail.com
In the subject line please write :: Obama the Shepherd.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SELECTED COMMENTS
PUBLICATION OF AN OPINION IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE OPINION. ALL VIEW ARE INVITED.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Ann Garner:

Hi Mike,

It is wonderful article about Obama. This is the FIRST time that I, as a minister, have openly discussed with MANY people of all faiths in my belief that Obama is the person for us in this hour as a nation.

I just returned from a one-month trip to our farm to Nanih Waiya, Mississippi (I’m part Cherokee Indian). Needless to say, the folks there are strong republicans. Their minds are pretty much SET on voting Republican regardless of issues and things they hear . . . most interesting to Steve and me. We have always been Independents and voted for the person we felt was best qualified for the position. Yesterday, I voted early and was told I had to say if I was a Republican or Democrat. I said proudly, “Democrat.” I received some pretty interesting looks from folks around the room. Again, interesting in light of today’s mixed society.

The black community I grew up with in Mississippi was for Clinton, a shocker for me. None of them could really explain why he/she favored her, so we engaged in a dialogue about the two of them. For the most part, each one appeared to ‘re-think’ his/her position.

Thursday evening, I attended the speech by Obama in Fort Worth, the first time I’ve ever attended a speech by a Presidential candidate. My next door neighbor and her two teenage children went with me (they’re Muslims from Pakistan). We stooped and picked up a 16 yr old Black Muslim. The young people were ‘bedazzled!’ When Obama came out from behind the curtains, I’ve NEVER witnessed such a response by an audience. I immediately felt a strong ‘anointing’ with him. That’s the acid test for me. I’d felt it when I watched him on TV, but knew that I needed to see and hear him in person. He kept the audience captivated better than ANYONE I’ve ever witnessed. What a Godly and wise man! Several of us were hoping he would walk back to the curtains on our side so we could shake his hand (this I DEEPLY desired so that I could pray for him as I shook his hand). Unfortunately, they did not escort him in our direction : - (

Yesterday afternoon, I went to a small Middle Eastern restaurant for dessert having just eaten a late lunch with my dear Sikh friends who own an Indian Restaurant (across from Arlington High School in Arlington). I also dropped in and saw my Egyptian friend who owns a delightful store “Dollar Smart.” He favored Clinton, but by the time I left the store he was open to discussing the qualities of Obama. Then I went into the electronics repair shop owned by a man from Jordan. Quiet an international shopping center, isn’t it?!

So, when I walked into the Middle Eastern restaurant, I ended up sitting with seven men, three of whom are Imams (Arlington Mosque on Center Street). It was quiet a lively dialogue, especially with the head Imam. He was not in favor of Obama, even after attending the speech Thursday night. We went back through a lot of Obama’s speech and he conceded that indeed he is a Godly man and is not ‘beholden’ to any special interest group. It ended on a good note. In fact, the owner would not charge me for my dessert!

Wish I could attend the meeting tomorrow afternoon but I’m leaving town again Tuesday and have lots of catching up to do.

Keep up the GREAT service to humanity dear brother!

Onward, upward and inward,

Ann

# # #

From Saeed Qureshi

Dear Mike,

Jesus Christ was not a white man. He was the forbearer of the Jews and Palestinians (they look alike) as one race or ethnic group and not two different religious entities.

Yet white races believe in him as the savior, son of god, Messiah and the redeemer and indeed a shepherd. So non-white person can be a redeemer. America belongs to all the Americans irrespective of their ethnic, race background or pigment.

Obama can be a savior and a shepherd for American nation, turned adrift and directionless under the ultra orthodox or conservatives. The conservatives (neo cons) despite being the followers of Jesus have plunged the US and the world at large in a furnace of hatred and in a quagmire of crises. American nation has never been so traumatized and lost as has been rendered to under the 8 years iron fisted and myopic rule of the Republicans. When Obama questions the rationale behind war in Iraq, he is absolutely right so.

Obama is for change and he inspires hope for this nation like Christ who spoke against the Jewish wickedness in his times and thus turned the tide for a better religion called Christianity. It is another thing that Christianity of the present day world is engaged in a process of self destruction just to save Judaism and state of Israel despite countless monstrosities by the Jews against the humanity. Holocaust did not make Jews more humane but more macabre.

Obama is the only hope in these turbulent times for this great nation. He is the one who can restore the fading glory of America. He has new approach towards national or international issues. He aims at building bridges of understanding and conduits of trust between America and the nations treated as hostile. His approach based on peace and amity among nations augurs well for the future of mankind as well as that of America.

God bless America.

Saeed Qureshi

# # #

Ann Sanders

Hi Again Mike,

Yesterday was indeed a busy day religiously as well as culturally. Couple of other things to note . . .

After going to the post office yesterday morning, I dropped by a print shop to get a bid on a printing project. While waiting for the man, I noticed a large black and white old print of Al Capone, the infamous mobster, with a few people in the picture. I asked the man where he got the picture. “My father gave it to me before he died. I’m not sure where he got it.”

Then he suddenly looked inside his brief case and took out another large picture of him with President Bill Clinton which was signed by Pres. Clinton. “That’s interesting . . . do you know him personally?”

“Yes, I’ll be seeing Mrs. Clinton at dinner tonight.”

“Hmmm . . . how much are you paying to sit and eat in the same room with her for a short time?”

“$5,000.”

“ZOWIE! Little plain folks like me could not do that. Is there any chance of me ever meeting her if I paid $20.00 OR gave my emergency $100 bill to them?”

“Nope . . . no chance at all in my opinion.”

“Well, I do find it interesting that Mr. Obama commented the other night that his average contribution is slightly over $100. Do you think Mrs. Clinton could say the same thing?”

“I’m not sure.”

“One other thing . . . a VERY upsetting thing about President and Mrs. Clinton. Most people have had issues with their ‘flesh person.’ He certainly has had that . . . and she obviously kept tuning her eyes away. We must begin to hold our politicians to a higher moral standard. More is ‘ exacted’ by those who purport to be leaders. Do you approve of him having that VERY young woman come to his oval office for he fleshly desires, knowing that, in my opinion, Mrs. Clinton was probably aware of the situation?” He looked down at the floor and would not answer my question.

“If you have the courage, please tell Mrs. Clinton what I’ve said and let her know that I interact with LOTS of folks around the planet.”

We shook hands and I left the shop.

On my way home, I dropped by City Hall to get our third recycle bin (another pet peeve of mine since we ob serve ‘perpetual Christmas decorations’ of plastic bags hanging from the trees on the creek bank that runs through our property . . . we use cloth and/or recycled plastic flat-bottomed bags for ALL shopping). I tried to go to the mayor’s office and discuss it with him and/or staff. The elevators were being guarded by plain-clothed policeman (Yes, I can tell when I see a policeman/woman, CIA, FBI or Homeland Security person . . . to me they’re pretty obvious, even when in ‘ disguise.’ But, that’s OK since they’re here to protect us). I asked several staff people what was going on and each one said he/she did not know . . . simply that there was an upcoming rally being held in a short time. Finally, I walked over to the policeman and teased them, holding out the two recycle bins (an extra one for our neighbors as well) and asked, “Do you want to be recycled?” They laughed and I asked about the rally. They then told me it was for the young black couple here in Arlington who se garage door had been painted with racial slurs. Also, she was attacked by a white woman. I came home and quickly ate a snack and went back up there. I’m glad I went. It gave me deep insights into what people of color still face today. I took lots of pictures but cannot attach them because of apparent ongoing difficulties with AT&T.

Ongoing Blessings,

Ann




Please register your attendance at:

http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=43583

Two part event: 1) Learn and share about Obama and 2) Make phone calls from your cell.


Sunday, March 2, 2008
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Barbeque Tonite Restaurant
2540 Old Denton road, suite 173
Old Denton at Trinity Mills (Bush Frwy)
(972) 877-9133

Mike Ghouse
A Republican for Obama
(214) 325-1916
http://www.mikeghouse.net/

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

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com or (214) 325-1916

Obama - The Power of Words

Obama and the Power of Words
By STEPHEN F. HAYES
February 26, 2008; Page A19
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120398899374792349.html

Bible, Qur'aan, Torah, Gita, Guru Granth, Avesta, Vedas and all the other holy books are mere words that have lasted for centuries and will continue to inspire people. The Crusades, the Wars and the conflicts germinate in words. The words of Bush and Ahmedinejad were a game to those two, but were dangerous to the peace of the world and had the potential to Kill another million people, thank God the words of the intelligence agency robbed the war from these two war mongers. Obama's choice of words are powerful, uplifting and inspirational. It is the message of hope that keeps us living and moving - The purpose of religion is bring peace to oneself and what surrounds him. Mike Ghouse

These are words that move and uplift, that give hope to the hopeless. These words inspired millions of voters nationwide to join the grand experiment called democracy, casting votes for their candidate, their country, their destiny:

"More than anything else, I want my candidacy to unify our country, to renew the American spirit and sense of purpose. I want to carry our message to every American, regardless of party affiliation, who is a member of this community of shared values . . . For those who have abandoned hope, we'll restore hope and we'll welcome them into a great national crusade to make America great again!"

So Ronald Reagan proclaimed on July 17, 1980, as he accepted his party's nomination for president at the Republican National Convention in Detroit, Mich.


Earlier that day, the New York Times ran a long profile of Reagan on its front page. The author, Howell Raines, lamented that the news media had been unsuccessful in getting Reagan to speak in anything other than "sweeping generalities about economic and military policy." Mr. Raines further noted: "political critics who characterize him as banal and shallow, a mouther of right-wing platitudes, delight in recalling that he co-starred with a chimpanzee in 'Bedtime for Bonzo.'"
Throughout his campaign, Reagan fought off charges that his candidacy was built more on optimism than policies. The charges came from reporters and opponents. John Anderson, a rival in the Republican primary who ran as an independent in the general election, complained that Reagan offered little more than "old platitudes and old generalities."
Conservatives understood that this Reagan-as-a-simpleton view was a caricature (something made even clearer in several recent books, particularly Reagan's own diaries). That his opponents never got this is what led to their undoing. Those critics who giggled about his turn alongside a chimp were considerably less delighted when Reagan won 44 states and 489 electoral votes in November.

One Reagan adviser had predicted such a win shortly after Reagan had become the de facto nominee the previous spring. In a memo about the coming general election contest with Jimmy Carter, Richard Whalen wrote Reagan's "secret weapon" was that "Democrats fail to take him very seriously."

Are Republicans making the same mistake with Barack Obama?

For months now, Hillary Clinton has suggested that Mr. Obama is all rhetoric, no substance. This claim, or some version of it, has been at the center of her campaign since November. One day after losing to him in Wisconsin and Hawaii -- her ninth and tenth consecutive defeats -- she rather incredibly went back to it again. "It's time we moved from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions," she said -- a formulation that could be mistaken for a sound bite.

As she complained about his lack of substance, tens of thousands of people lined up in city after city, sometimes in subfreezing temperatures, for a chance to get a shot of some Mr. Obama hopemongering. Plainly, her critique is not working.

And yet, Republicans are picking it up. In just the past week, conservative commentators have accused Mr. Obama of speaking in "Sesame Street platitudes," of giving speeches that are "almost content free," of "saying nothing." He has been likened to Chance the Gardner, the clueless mope in Jerzy Koscinski's "Being There," whose banal utterances are taken as brilliant by a gullible political class. Others complain that his campaign is "messianic," too self-aggrandizing and too self-referential.

John McCain has joined the fray. In a speech after he won primaries in Washington, D.C., Virginia and Maryland, Mr. McCain said: "To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude." After Wisconsin, he sharpened the attack, warning that he would expose Mr. Obama's "eloquent but empty call for change."

The assumption behind much of this criticism is that because Mr. Obama gives a good speech he cannot do substance. This is wrong. Mr. Obama has done well in most of the Democratic debates because he has consistently shown himself able to think on his feet. Even on health care, a complicated national issue that should be Mrs. Clinton's strength, Mr. Obama has regularly fought her to a draw by displaying a grasp of the details that rivals hers, and talking about it in ways Americans can understand.


In Iowa, long before the race became the national campaign it is today, Mr. Obama spent much of his time at town halls in which he took questions from the audience. His answers in such settings were often as good or better than the rhetoric in his stump speech, and usually more substantive. He spoke about issues like immigration and national service in a thoughtful manner -- not wonky, not pedantic, but in a way that suggested he'd spent some time thinking about them before.
More important for the race ahead, Mr. Obama has the unique ability to offer doctrinaire liberal positions in a way that avoids the stridency of many recent Democratic candidates. That he managed to do this in the days before the Iowa caucuses -- at a time when he might have been expected to be at his most liberal -- was quite striking.

His rhetorical gimmick is simple. When he addresses a contentious issue, Mr. Obama almost always begins his answer with a respectful nod in the direction of the view he is rejecting -- a line or two that suggests he understands or perhaps even sympathizes with the concerns of a conservative.

At Cornell College on Dec. 5, for example, a student asked Mr. Obama how his administration would view the Second Amendment. He replied: "There's a Supreme Court case that's going to be decided fairly soon about what the Second Amendment means. I taught Constitutional Law for 10 years, so I've got my opinion. And my opinion is that the Second Amendment is probably -- it is an individual right and not just a right of the militia. That's what I expect the Supreme Court to rule. I think that's a fair reading of the text of the Constitution. And so I respect the right of lawful gun owners to hunt, fish, protect their families."

Then came the pivot:
"Like all rights, though, they are constrained and bound by the needs of the community . . . So when I look at Chicago and 34 Chicago public school students gunned down in a single school year, then I don't think the Second Amendment prohibits us from taking action and making sure that, for example, ATF can share tracing information about illegal handguns that are used on the streets and track them to the gun dealers to find out -- what are you doing?"

In conclusion:
"There is a tradition of gun ownership in this country that can be respected that is not mutually exclusive with making sure that we are shutting down gun traffic that is killing kids on our streets. The argument I have with the NRA is not whether people have the right to bear arms. The problem is they believe any constraint or regulation whatsoever is something that they have to beat back. And I don't think that's how most lawful firearms owners think."

In the end, Mr. Obama is simply campaigning for office in the same way he says he would operate if he were elected. "We're not looking for a chief operating officer when we select a president," he said during a question and answer session at Google headquarters back in December.

"What we're looking for is somebody who will chart a course and say: Here is where America needs to go -- here is how to solve our energy crisis, here's how we need to revamp our education system -- and then gather the talent together and then mobilize that talent to achieve that goal. And to inspire a sense of hope and possibility."
Like Ronald Reagan did.

Mr. Hayes, a senior writer for The Weekly Standard, is the author of "Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President," (HarperCollins, 2007).
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal1.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Obama - Safety issues

Obama - Safety issues
Register to attend "Yes we can Obama Rally" on Sunday, March 2
in Carrollton between 4 PM and 6:30 PM


I am duly concerned about the safety of Obama, whenever good emerges in a nation; evil forces get activated and attempt to harm the good. It is in our interest to safeguard the new hope for America; Obama.

This is the first time in our nation's history; some one is speaking the needs, wants and voice of the majority of the people. He is not a right winger extremist, nor a left winger but right down the middle, touching every mind and soul on either side. A majority of us are moderates, people who want to get along with all, people who do not want to breed hate, anger and dirt in our hearts, people who do not want to earn our living by frightening others.

Thanks God for Obama, he is our new shepherd on the political pluralism.
Here are a few articles that bring out the issue to the fore;

1. Secret Service leaves Obama at Risk
2. Police concerned about order to stop screening
3. Leaving Obama Vulnerable Leaves National Security At Risk
______________________________________________

February 22, 2008 at 11:44:12

Headlined on 2/22/08:
SECRET SERVICE LEAVES OBAMA AT RISK /

RAISES GRAVE CONCERNS

by Allen L Roland

http://www.opednews.com


The U.S. Secret Service ordered Dallas police not to screen for weapons an hour before a recent Dallas Obama rally not only putting Barack at unnecessary risk but raising grave concerns about his safety ~ as his populist movement continues to gain momentum: Allen L Roland

My one growing concern as the Obama movement continues to gain momentum is that the Military / Industrial complex will do anything in their power to remove threats to their power ~ and that certainly would include political leaders who do not believe in Bush's illegal war, occupation and economic rape of Iraq.


The Secret Service apparently ordered the Dallas police to shut down their weapons screening an hour before a major Obama rally on Wednesday putting Obama at risk ~ which obviously surprised many police officers.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

Jack Douglas, Dallas-Star Telegram reported yesterday that " Several Dallas police officers said it worried them that the arena was packed with people who got in without even a cursory inspection."
"How can you not be concerned in this day and age," said one policeman.

For myself and millions of Americans this raises grave concerns about Obama's safety as his populist movement continues to gain momentum.
______________________________________________

Allen L Roland http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2008/02/22.html

Police concerned about order to stop screening

By JACK DOUGLAS Jr.
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_news/story/486413.html

STAR-TELEGRAM/RODGER MALLISON
Barack Obama speaks Wednesday at a Democratic rally in Dallas' Reunion Arena. Police were told to stop screening people for weapons before the rally began.
DALLAS 02/21/08 Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order ~ apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service ~ was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on.

"Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd."

The Secret Service did not return a call from the Star-Telegram seeking comment.

Doors opened to the public at 10 a.m., and for the first hour security officers scanned each person who came in and checked their belongings in a process that kept movement of the long lines at a crawl. Then, about 11 a.m., an order came down to allow the people in without being checked.

Several Dallas police officers said it worried them that the arena was packed with people who got in without even a cursory inspection.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because, they said, the order was made by federal officials who were in charge of security at the event.

"How can you not be concerned in this day and age," said one policeman.

Allen L Roland http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2008/02/22.html

______________________________________________

Leaving Obama Vulnerable Leaves National Security At Risk
by Gail Minor Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

Let's get one thing straight. This is a new day, and I would hate for it to take a horrific event for some to come to terms with this point. I don't care how clueless the person calling for the change in security protecting Presidential hopeful Barack Obama may be. If it is malicious in intent or a circumstance of poor judgement that results in harm to this man, those responsible for this reduction in security will get a crash course I am sure their butts and this nation are not ready for.

Black folk this time will not be burning their own neighborhood as occured upon the Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And, the National Guard will not be able to do anything to quail what will result or protect those that appear to be responsible. Let's not forget, the Blacks in the hood and the Whites on the farms that are ALL supporting Obama may not be card carrying members of the NRA...but they are packing and they will handle business.



This is not the sixties, and as much as Obama reminds all of us of the Kennedy's and King...times are very different and history will not look the same this time around. Not only are Blacks and Whites, Native Americans and Latinos, Asians and others all unified on this candidate. Not only are people anxious to live the dream and promise he so eloquently describes to us. Not only are they passionate about Obama's leadership and sick and tired of the old Washington and it's evil. The lives of so many people are depending on Barack Obama keeping his promise of "Change We Can Believe In." And it is this passion that would fuel the likes of a backlash never felt before in America.

Let's not forget...so many people are in desparate need for Obama's promise to be real, for it to improve peoples lot in life. Killing this spirit and hope would make folk feel they have personally been assaulted or are under attack. Expectedly and in self-defense, they will fight back..their reaction, while unpredictable, would certainly be frightening. Today's American citizens have a dark, vigilante side to them that in instances like this, we should worry about. Here are some points of proof.

First of all, we are no longer a nation prone to tears. We start with our infants, giving them no more tears shampoo. We attend courses and listen to motivational speakers that tell us we can not be a victim. There are more children being taught that if someone hits you or pushes you, you push or hit back. You hardly hear mention of the idea of turning the other cheek anymore...unless of course your child attends a Christian school.

Second, let's look at the cinama. Good guys who break the law to injure the bad guy, to bring him to justice or distribute their own brand of payback is acceptable in the eyes of many. And all we see on television and in movies are stories like this...showing those who are breaking the rules to correct an injustice...the vigilante cop, mom, rape victim.

Third, there was a time in our history when people trusted government to protect them, act in their best interest and be fair. Those times are gone. Today Americans are suspicious and untrusting when it comes to Government. They have resolved themselves to the fact that they must take care of themselves...and by any means necessary.

Barack Obama changed that. He has reawakened hope and trust.
People are believing again, trusting again, and open to the possibility that government is not only by the people, but for the people. So protecting him is paramount and there is no room for short cuts or laziness or excuses to reduces security on him. His dreams and promise cannot be lost or deferred--we can't afford it.

In a poem, Langston Hughes asked,

"What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up Like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sagslike a heavy load.
Or does it explode?"

If harm comes to Barack Obama, we all will find out.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Obama rally in Carrollton

Obama - Rally in Carrollton

Register to attend "Yes we can Obama Rally" on Sunday, March 2 between 4 PM and 6:30 PM - Please register at: http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/event.html?event_id=43583
.

.Sunday, March 2, 2008
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Barbeque tonite Restaurant
2540 Old Denton road, suite 173
Old Denton at Trinity Mills (Bush Frwy)
(972) 877-9133



For the first time in our history, we have a candidate who is representing you, me and every American; he is an all inclusive candidate.

“as the son of an immigrant, his experience can affirm that the American dream is still intact for everyone, regardless of where one's parents were born. His dedication to his family, strong work ethic, opposition to the war in Iraq and deep faith are all qualities that are important to Latino voters." Indeed, he represents the hopes of every American; born, naturalized, white, Black, brown or yellow, Atheist, Bahai, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Native Indian, Sikh, Shinto, Wicca, Zoroastrian and every American. Obama has become a powerful symbol of pluralism and inclusiveness.

Join us between 4 and 6 PM on Sunday, March 2 at Barbeque tonite, in Carrollton at the SE Corner of Old Denton and Trinity Mills (Bush Frwy or I-90). Be a part of the change to put American on the path of peace, progress and co-existence.

Mike Ghouse (214) 325-1916
http://www.mikeghouse.net/

Friday, February 15, 2008

Democrats' Choice: Obama

The Democrats' Choice: Barack Obama

By PREETA D. BANSAL

Preeta Bansal, former Solicitor General of the State of New York, is a partner at a leading Wall Street law firm in New York and a Commissioner and Past Chair of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan federal agency. She previously served as a special counsel in the Clinton White House and Justice Department and was a law clerk to United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. A law school contemporary of Senator Obama – she wrote this moving endorsement of Senator Obama in an op-ed in the upcoming issue of India Abroad:

[The following op-ed will appear in the coming edition of India Abroad.]

This is a Presidential race like no other. On the Democratic side, we have the choice of exceptional candidates : intelligent public servants who are passionate in their commitments to a strong and inclusive America. But we have neither the luxury nor constraint of making our choice this time based purely on policy differences, because the Democratic candidates have laid out detailed plans and prescriptions that are largely similar. So instead, in this election, other qualities – especially a candidate’s character and ability to unite Americans of all persuasions around common policy goals – play a larger role than usual.

Indeed, we are offered, for the first time in many decades, the choice of a candidate of extraordinary character, leadership, judgment, integrity, and inspiration – a combination and range of qualities that is rare to find in someone operating at the highest political levels. And so we can make our choice in this election based on a rare convergence of both our minds and our hearts.

Barack Obama is the right man for the Presidency, and his time is now. He has been a phenomenon for more than 20 years, when I first encountered him at Harvard Law School. But he is not the kind of flash-in-the-pan phenomenon that some of his rivals had been hoping for and expecting. He is the real thing.

I worked in the Clinton White House and Administration, and was very proud to do so. But I left Washington for New York after the first term in 1996 because I came to feel that it would be easy within our nation’s capital to become a “moon” – one who basks in the reflected light of others and feels important because one is in an important position, around important people, or dealing with important issues. I felt that it was hard (and rare), hanging around the Beltway, to become a “sun” who had discovered and cultivated the inner light within oneself, and who came to Washington
having something truly unique and creative to offer and wanting to extend that light outward to others.

Now, twelve years later, I can truly say that we have the option of electing a sun, and he is Barack Obama. Much has been said about Senator Obama’s extraordinary gifts of oratory and inspiration. But less has been said about the inner strengths and qualities that are manifested in his outer sheen. Unlike his rival, who “found [her] own voice” just a few weeks ago in the snows of New Hampshire,
Barack has lived his life of service from the inside out. He knows who he is, and has a moral compass that will guide him and our nation well. He pursues politics not as an end or as an art form in itself, but as a necessary means to achieve higher ends. He understands that the Presidency is not simply about being battle-tested and ready to take on old opponents from day one, but is also about having the self-awareness and reach to achieve results by inspiring new participants and creating new majorities and alliances.

And so this campaign for the Presidency is not – as he frequently says in his public appearances – about him; it is about us. It is not a vehicle for him to find his voice; it is a catalyst for inspiring Americans to overcome our doubts and fears to express our collective voice. He talks not about what “I will do for you,” but about what “we will achieve together.” He will help all of us, together, usher in a whole new era of politics, one in which we can truly be inspired to reclaim our sense of active, empowered citizenship. In a world that has experienced too often the failures and dangers of top-down political structures, the prospect of revitalizing American democracy through active, common-sense citizen involvement from the bottom up, is the change we need to see in the world. We hear much about candidates’ relative experience and inexperience in terms only of their years in Washington or in politics. But we hear little of candidates’ life experiences outside of politics, or the grit and stamina and grace they may have displayed in getting to where they are from where they came.

More than any other major figure on the American political scene, Senator Obama’s political outlook is shaped by truly having been a citizen of the world. He was born to a black Kenyan father, and a white mother from Kansas. A self-made man, he was raised by his single mother and maternal
grandparents in an environment without many material advantages. His paternal African grandmother still lives in a Kenyan hut without running water and electricity. Raised in the multicultural environments of Hawaii and Indonesia, Senator Obama can passionately engage with, actively listen to and respectfully speak with people of all backgrounds and faiths.

Senator Obama is a man of faith, but an inclusive sense of faith – a faith that tempers his great intellect with humility, not a faith that aims to cover up a lack of intellect with false certitude. His office displays a portrait of Gandhi, and he is moved by theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr, who coincidentally expressed my favorite sentiment ever: that power without love is brutality, but love without power is mere sentimentality. As someone who travels the world as a U.S. diplomat, including to many predominantly Muslim countries, I can attest just how critical Senator Obama’s unique life experience is in formulating and projecting a forceful but intelligent American foreign policy that above all protects America but also commands the respect of the world. As one noted commentator wrote recently, even apart from his articulated policies for enhancing America’s standing in the world, his mere election to the Presidency would lead to an immediate “rebranding” of America and increase
immeasurably our “soft power” in the world.

The Senator’s unique life experience, combined with his correct and consistent judgment about the Iraq war from the beginning, hearken back to another great leader who was challenged as having a “thin” resume because he had served in the Illinois state legislature, practiced law, and returned to politics to serve only one term as a representative in Congress before deciding to run for President. That leader, of course, was Abraham Lincoln. But after making a name for himself in the presidential campaign by exhibiting the courage to speak out against the deeply accepted practice of slavery, Lincoln was able, as president, to take the side of the nation’s better angels and to change the course of American history. In contrast to many of his opponents, who have built their lives and ambitions in Beltway politics, Senator Obama is not someone who approaches politics as an end. He is a true public servant who, despite dazzling intellectual achievements – including being President of the Harvard Law Review and at the very top of his class at Harvard Law School – gave up every lucrative and prestigious opportunity to go back to Chicago where he had been a community organizer for many years.

Yet while rooted in the experience of organizing working class communities in Chicago – and while personally and deeply aware of conditions of global poverty – he has the intelligence and judgment to speak comfortably with leaders in London, Mumbai, Brussels or Wall Street about economic theory and foreign policy.

Senator Obama – through the multitude of his life experiences and the calm, respectful style of his leadership – is someone who naturally and instinctively bridges so many divides. He connects and brings together the global background of his youth with the local communities he organized as an adult; the ordinary experiences of working class people in America and globally with the perspectives of highly educated academics, policymakers and professionals; the blue states of Democrats with the red states from which his mother and grandparents came. Because governing and tackling the
major challenges facing our nation these days require more than a bare majority of support, it is essential that we elect someone who in style and substance is able and willing to reach out beyond the traditional Democratic “base”, and who can inspire large numbers of American citizens to transcend the often-bitter attempts in our politics to divide us.

Let me add, finally, that there is sometimes an attempt to perceive or create divisions between immigrants and African Americans. But we are all beneficiaries of the struggles to overcome this nation’s racial injustices. The very reason for our presence in this country is the 1965 Immigration
Act, which eliminated the last remaining formal color line in the US laws – the exclusion of Asians that appeared in the immigration laws since the late 1800s. Those legal hurdles came down following the successes of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act.

So as we try to work to clean up America’s image and policy toward the world and its policies at home, I can think of no better leader than Senator Obama, who – in part because of who he is and where he came from, but also because of what he believes and what he has accomplished – would give America a whole new fresh chance. He truly believes in Gandhi’s approach that we must lead by the example of our ideals and our actions – including by fostering economic opportunity for each individual, and by respecting pluralism and restoring the rule of law at home and abroad. His light has a transformative potential at this critical juncture in our nation’s and our world’s affairs. He has the character, intellect, judgment, experience, integrity, and leadership to lead our nation well.

http://www.safo2008.com/news_view.aspx?ArticleID=47

Obama preaching hope

Rafael Anchía: Obama is preaching the politics of hope - not division
05:24 PM CST on Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mike: For the first time in our history, we have a candidate who is representing every American, he is an inclusive candidate. In the California debates, Hillary baited him to respond to the statement that she will be making history as the first "Woman President" as if he was going to pigeon hole himself as "Black Candidate".... my wife and I debated and agreed that he will not fall into the Hillary trap, sure enough, he did not even address her, he simply went on with his appeal to all Americans giving hope.

Rafael in his article in Dallas Morning News rightly points out that "Obama is referred to as a "black" candidate, in truth he is of mixed race, as are many Latinos. And, as the son of an immigrant, his experience can affirm that the American dream is still intact for everyone, regardless of where one's parents were born. His dedication to his family, strong work ethic, opposition to the war in Iraq and deep faith are all qualities that are important to Latino voters." Indeed, he represents the hopes of every American; born, naturalized, white, Black, brown or yellow, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or others. Obama has become a powerful icon of pluralism and inclusiveness.

Elections 2008 coverage

During recent weeks, I have watched with increasing dismay the media suggestions that Latinos will not vote for Barack Obama in the Democratic primary because of underlying racism or tension that exists between African-Americans and us.

What surprises me most is the overly facile and inaccurate juxtaposition of Latino vs. African-Americans as a "race" conflict. I chair the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund and, in that capacity, work with Latinos at every level of government across the country.

And guess what? We are black, indigenous, white and everything in between. We are also blond-haired and blue-eyed, we are Catholic and Protestant, Republican and Democratic, and, as far as I have been able to determine, we are not unanimously supporting one candidate more than another. The idea that all Latinos speak with one political voice is a false dichotomy and makes flawed assumptions that show a basic ignorance of Latinos and our very diverse culture.

As the son of a Mexican mother and Spanish father who grew up in a Cuban and El Salvadoran neighborhood, I have lived this diversity and recognize that Latino Democratic primary voting trends are much more about familiarity with the candidate and much less about race.

Hillary Clinton has done well among Latinos during the early Democratic primary season and figures to continue that success in Texas. However, rather than suggest she might win a greater share of the Latino vote in Texas because of racism, a more responsible view would acknowledge that the Clinton brand is still strong here. She campaigned in South Texas for George McGovern in the 1970s, was the first lady of a neighboring state in the 1980s and was the first lady to a president popular among Latinos for most of the 1990s.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, however, Texas provides Sen. Barack Obama with a huge opportunity to court Latinos. Texas Latinos have a recent history of supporting non-Latino African-American candidates. Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk and Houston Mayor Lee Brown were elected and then re-elected against Latino challengers (Margaret Donnelly and Orlando Sanchez, respectively) with sizeable support from Latinos.

After beating Latino candidate Victor Morales in the Democratic primary runoff in 2002, Mr. Kirk actually did as well as or better among Latinos in the Rio Grande Valley during his senatorial bid than Laredo gubernatorial candidate Tony Sanchez.

And while Mr. Obama is referred to as a "black" candidate, in truth he is of mixed race, as are many Latinos. And, as the son of an immigrant, his experience can affirm that the American dream is still intact for everyone, regardless of where one's parents were born.

His dedication to his family, strong work ethic, opposition to the war in Iraq and deep faith are all qualities that are important to Latino voters. A recently released analysis of Super Tuesday results by the Willie Velasquez Institute shows that Mr. Obama is making important strides among Latino voters, including among late-breaking undecided Latinos.

Super Tuesday results also showed that Mr. Obama makes up big ground among all voters who see him and are exposed to his message. With the Texas Democratic primary still several weeks away, there is time for Barack Obama to further connect with Texas Latinos.

With all the distracting talk of an African-American-Latino electoral divide, it is easy to lose perspective of the ultimate goal of electing a president who can bring the United States together.

Our main focus should not be on who can appeal to which racial or ethnic group more than another, but which candidate can unite all races, ethnicities, age groups, faiths and economic classes as a nation to address our common challenges and to restore our historic position as a respected leader of the free world.

I am the Latino son of immigrants, but, rather than engaging in the contrived politics of division, I want Barack Obama, a black man of mixed ethnicity, to be my president. How's that for the politics of hope?


Rafael Anchía is a state representative from Dallas, the 2005 LULAC "National Man of the Year" and chairman of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-anchia_15edi.State.Edition1.1e38d00.html

Friday, February 8, 2008

Will John McCain Apologize?

Will John McCain have the decency to apologize?
Mike Ghouse, Dallas

I turned the TV off on McCain this afternoon.

Every TV appearance I have watched in the last two months, even if it was for two minutes, Senator McCain unfailingly delivered his vitriol, "The greatest danger facing the world is Islamic Terrorism" and Governor Romney, who is off the radar now, used "Islamic Jihaad" to appease the right wing of the Republican party.

Senator McCain in his lust for power looses the basic American decency and courtesy to show respect for his fellow Americans who number 6 Million and I am one. It is an ironic number to remember.

When I turned the TV off, the words of Edmund Burke's quote came alive as a sad image, which was pointed out by a speaker at the Holocaust Museum recently. “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Well my friends, I am doing my part. Indeed the world needs to be informed again and again about the Holocaust and how it began. Martin Niemöller's poem (first they came for the Jews…) resonates with me every day, when I see the eerie silence on the part of Media when a linguistic atrocity is committed right in front of their eyes.

When our President claimed they hate us for our freedom, not one media person asked for the proof or the polls, they consumed it gullibly. They, whoever they might be, do not hate America or Americans. Just as we do not hate any people but their governments, others do the same.

Manufacturing hate and fear to earn the support is shameful, but unfortunately that is the reality concocted by the Bush administration and the rightwing Republicans have imbibed it.

I am a Muslim and I am for America like 6 million other Muslims. We are Republicans and Democrats, we are religious as well as not religious, we are conservatives and liberals but mostly moderate just like most of the Americans.

Each one of us is contributing towards the peace and prosperity of our nation. We are taking the initiatives and putting in our efforts for one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.

On 9/11, I manned a Radio station for eight hours getting the Dallas community on the air, grieving with fellow Americans, organizing blood drives, wrote articles to prove to the enemies like Osama Bin Laden that all Americans are on the same side, irrespective of personal faith.

Since then every year, with the support of the Muslim community, I have dedicated my time on 9/11 to unite people, to bring people of all faiths, races and ethnicities to come together and pray for the safety and security of America, and rededicate our pledge to one nation under God with liberty and justice for all. To call Islam or Muslims as terrorists is offensive to me; I am not one, neither the six million of us are. If there is one, we are going to turn them over to the FBI, safety and security of our nation is as important to the 6 millions of as it is to the 294 Million others.

The fear mongers manufacture enemies to polarize the electorate for crass political advantage; Native Indians, African Americans, Jews, Wicca, Atheists and now Muslims are being targeted by them. Such short term gains are deleterious to peace and long term prosperity. As Americans, we need to stand up for each other for the good of every American.

Our leaders should demonstrate their leadership in building goodwill among all Americans and make America a model nation for coexistence and harmony. We need to make peace and prosperity as our goal and our leaders should take that pledge to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill. Every one will win at the end.

I expect Senator McCain to drop the hate rhetoric and apologize to Muslims in America, or at least have the decency not to use the words "Islamic Terrorism" or "Muslims Terrorism". Call Terrorism for what it is, do not suffix or prefix or hang my religion to the evil acts; fear mongering is also evil. I am a Muslim and all the Muslims that I know in America are working hard to keep us safe and secure. If you do not have moral courage to apologize, the least you can do is restore decency in your language.

Two decades ago, when I chose to become an American, I found myself in tune with the Republican party; 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. When the Presidential candidate and a few (or more) Republicans resort to this divisive rhetoric, it puts many Republicans like me to re-evaluate being Republicans.

Additional comments:

I have received a ton of emails today from several clergy men and women who have undertaken it upon themselves to forward this article to many of their friends. However, I have received the following concern from a dear friend "Indeed, Islamic terrorism is one of the greatest dangers facing the world today. I'm mystified if you don't see that and agree with that. You are usually a strong campaigner against Islamic terrorism. You did not suggest that McCain said that Muslims or Islam is the greatest threat. You quote him as saying Islamic extremists are the greatest danger."

Here is the idea behind writing this piece.

My contention is that we must call Terrorism for what it is; a disgraceful evil. Let's not dilute it by suffixing or prefixing with another word like religion, in this case Islam or Muslim. This mistake leads to development of attitudes that are detrimental to peace and co-existence in our nation. A criminal father kills his daughter for not being able to have the animalistic control on them... on the same day there were other similar incidents in the paper... but one becomes Muslim Fascism or Islamic terrorism and others didn't even hit the radar. It is building of these attitudes that we need to guard the public from. This was a malignant attitude and it is not good for social health of our society.

Osama Bin Laden is not only an enemy of America, he is a bigger threat to Islam and Muslims around the world as he has put so many lives on jeopardy and gone completely against the principles of Islam, where saving one life is like saving the whole humanity. His followers or those who subscribe to his criminal mind set are terrorists.

By giving a label of Islam to a criminal like him, we are diluting the strength of the purpose in getting that criminal. Osama is our target and we need to go after him and his gang Al-Qaeda, the specific group. By adding the word Islam or Muslim, we are wrongly implicating the religion and its followers, and impotenting our ability to hit the target, we are not focused any more.

It is our President's escapism and gutlessness to deal with the terrorist that he jumped from Afghanistan to Iraq, and then he wanted to yet jump on Iran. He wanted to get some success some where, by God, go get him. And now, John McCain shamelessly claims that he will get Osama, the question is why did he not get him or put the plan to the President and push for it and save our nation a trillion dollars and 4000 lives and a Million Iraqi lives on our conscience? If you have the time understand our failures in dealing with the terrorism, here is an essay for you. http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/05/laser-barking-at-terrorists.html

Let our words mitigate conflicts be it within the family, friends, community or the society at large and that is what it takes to gradually build sustainable peace and attitudes of co-existence.

References:
  1. http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Republican-or-Democrat-which-way.asp
  2. http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/John-Mcain-the-Bush-lite-Neocon.asp
  3. http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/UnitydayUSA_2007.asp
  4. http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Did-Senator-McCain-Betray-America.asp
  5. http://worldmuslimcongress.blogspot.com/2007/05/laser-barking-at-terrorists.html

Additional Articles on the subject added on 2/9/08 below:

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@aol.com or (214) 325-1916

Additional Articles:

Opinion
Islam’s Role in the Elections

Opinion

Islam’s Role in the Elections

By Sadia Ahsanuddin and Dilshoda Yergasheva

January 14, 2008

Throughout the 2008 presidential elections, several candidates have sought to utilize anti-Islam prejudices to their advantage.

In January of 2007, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign team deliberately turned the public’s attention to Senator Barack Hussein Obama’s Muslim heritage in order to harm his popularity. Obama, in turn, worked very hard to distance himself from any past or present affiliation with Muslims and Islam, citing the Bible in his speeches and emphasizing his personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Republicans, for their part, haven’t been much better. Formulaic prefaces from candidates about how “the enemy” is radical Islam hardly veil more broad based, antagonistic sentiments they harbor against Muslims generally. The Christian Science Monitor, for example, reported that Mitt Romney discounted out-of-hand the possibility of appointing a Muslim to his cabinet, were he to take office. In a recent speech to Republicans in New Hampshire, Mike Huckabee, speaking about energy reform and US reliance on foreign oil, stated, “We [will] no longer let the Middle Eastern people hold us hostage, wrecking our economy as well our environment.” More to the point, John Deady, co-chair of Veterans for Rudy, said: “[Rudy Giuliani] has got, I believe, the knowledge and the judgment to attack one of the most difficult problems in current history, and that is the rise of the Muslims.

“Make no mistake about it,” he continued, “This hasn’t happened for a thousand years. These people are very, very dedicated. They’re also very smart in their own way, and we need to keep the feet to the fire and keep pressing these people until we defeat them or chase them back to their caves, or, in other words, get rid of them.”

Islam is not antithetical to all things American. Yet, rather than try to build bridges and work towards engagement and understanding, since September 11, 2001 politicians have preferred to exploit people’s insecurities and biases in order to stoke fears about the supposed threat that Muslims pose to free and democratic societies. The ubiquity of anti-Muslim attitudes in American political rhetoric, even if it is only implicit, not only alienates Muslims around the world, but emboldens intolerant sects of American society. So far, this strategy has sadly shown itself to be politically successful. Being perceived as sympathetic towards Islam and Muslims is taken as evidence of spineless foreign policy where intolerance and fiery diatribes are to a candidate’s credit.

Is this the sort of America we want to live in? How can a nation founded on the precepts of equality and tolerance elect leaders in part based on their perceived ability to malign a religion that over one-sixth of the world’s population subscribes to?

Many Americans, as a result, have developed the false sense that Islam and the West are destined to clash. This misconception of a binary opposition that hawkish politicians use to paint the picture of the current balance of world power allows politicians to sell an overly simplistic picture of America’s interaction with the Muslim world. By reducing America’s relationship to the rest of the world to such black and white terms, politicians are able to derive power as crusaders against a perceived sinister force.

One only needs to watch the recent campaign ads to see these themes pandered to the masses. One such ad, approved by Giuliani, depicts a violent, irrational, out of control Muslim world. The voiceover forebodingly declares, “an enemy without borders,” and, “a people perverted,” in sync with footage of crowds of Muslims, fire, and explosions .This is all set to unearthly, frightening background music. The message is quite clear: Muslims are evil and they’re coming to get you. The ad ends with a case for Giuliani as the strong and capable defender of America: “In a world when the next crisis is a moment away, America needs a leader who’s ready.”

Such dramatic presentations create an artificial sense of unquestioned moral authority, where America and its interests constitute the “good guys” and everyone else is the “bad guys,” resulting in a populace that desires leaders who will take strong action against an evil force.

This sort of demonizing, hate-filled rhetoric is discrimination at its worst. Pitting voters against an illusory common enemy both abroad and at home, campaigners are jeopardizing the safety of six to seven million Muslim, who live among other Americans who are increasingly likely to perceive them as a threat. In doing so, campaigners are compromising the values upon which this nation was founded. Wasn’t this country established by individuals who sought refuge from the religious oppression that pervaded their homelands? Are we not a nation that takes pride in its diversity and inclusiveness? By allowing presidential campaigns to antagonize a minority group within our population, we as Americans are not fulfilling our duty to safeguard the values of equality and tolerance our predecessors fought for.

Sadia Ahsanuddin ’09 is administrative editor of “Ascent Magazine: Harvard and MIT Students on Islam and Society,” and is a history concentrator in Dunster House. Dilshoda Yergasheva ’09 is internal chair of the Harvard Islamic Society and is an applied mathematics concentrator in Cabot House.

This article can be found on the web at: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521544

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Bush-Lite McCain


John McCain, the Bush-Lite Neocon

Our Senator, John McCain wants to Bomb, Bomb and Bomb other nations and entangle our Armed forces for another 100 years. He bases that on false information, just as he did with the Iraq invasion. Yet there is no apologies.

Our lies and our presence in Iraq has caused this much horror;

Number of Iraqis Slaughtered In U.S. War on Iraq 1,168,058

Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed in U.S. War and Occupation 3,926

Cost of U.S. War and Occupation of Iraq $486,769,250,980

2 Million Iraqis have been chased out to seek a safe heaven

Half a Million Women are out on the streets with no jobs and no one to support and they may resort to flesh trade bringing immorality and carrying viruses.

John McCain has repeatedly said this for the last two weeks. “I’ll get Osama bin Laden. I’ll get him even if I have to follow him to the gates of hell” and he has been repeating this from the New Hampshire Primaries, all the way to Nevada and now South Carolina.

Senator McCain, did you not betray America?
Senator, then why did you not get Osama?
Why do you have to wait to be elected to do that?
Isn’t that a betrayal to your party and to your President?
Isn’t that a betrayal to our nation?

Senator, what you and your Neocon buddies do not understand is the simple formula of peace: We cannot have peace when we chaos surrounds us. Your irresponsible statements cause much resentment and hatred around the globe. I guess you don't give a damn, if that hatred you sow, becomes the reason to mistreat our soldiers, like the tragic mis-treatment you suffered. I hope you learn a lesson to nurture Geneva conventions. You do not have the courtesy to apologize your bombing statements, even after you found out it was another manufacture of our administration to create Chaos. Do we need you to be another Bush-Lite?

Rewarding this rhetoric is robbing America with another Trillion dollars; while 45 Million of Americans go without health care costing billions of dollars in loss of productivity, while those who have served in wars come home depressed and not live a full life besides killing another million of other humans and thousands of our own.

John McCain is good for defense industry investors and oil companies and he is no good for America. Think about the candidates who want to save lives, save the nation from deficit and spend their energy and put our name for peace making. It is cheaper and more productive to work for peace than Bomb, Bomb and Bomb.

Say no to any candidate who wants to ruin our country with recklessness.

COMMENTS:

In a message dated 1/19/2008 10:09:21 A.M.

justicequestxxxx@yahoo.com writes:

McCain and his admiral Father helped to cover-up the treacherous Israeli attack on the USS Liberty as well:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/Hughes0712.htm
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com/

###

The Hundred-Year War / McCain wants us in Iraq permanently

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=412312#412312

###

WARRIORxxxx@msn.com writes:

McCain as a veteran of the Viet Nam War should indeed know better - God's curse and vengeance will be on America IF McCain - or Hillary or Rudy - is elected President.

Kristol - being the Zionist Jew supporter of Israel and TRAITOR to the US - does indeed see the destruction of Iraq as 'victory' for Israel - and it is!

A war fought against a country's population can NOT be won.

We did NOT 'win' the Viet Nam War - and - we lost our soul in the process.

As a veteran of the Viet Nam War myself - I served aboard the USS Oriskany in 1966, the year before McCain was shot down flying off the Mighty O - I agree with Lee and Sherman:

"War is all HELL" - Sherman

"It is good that war is so terrible less we grow too fond of it" - Lee

McCain indeed should know better!

###

So This Is Victory, Mr. Kristol?
By Joe Conason

This article appears in the January 21, 2008, edition of The New York Observer.
As America marks the first anniversary of the troop escalation in Iraq, at least one thing has become clear. Although the “surge” is failing as policy, it seems to be succeeding as propaganda. Even as George W. Bush continues to bump and scrape along the bottom of public approval, significantly more people now believe that we are “winning” the war.

What winning really means and whether that vague impression can be sustained are questions that the war’s proponents would prefer not to answer for the moment. Their objective during this election year is simply to reduce public pressure for withdrawal, which is still the choice of an overwhelming majority of voters.

So long as the surge appears to be working, political space is created for the Republican candidates who support the war—especially Senator John McCain, the hawk’s hawk, who said recently that he, might keep U.S. soldiers in Iraq for “a hundred years.” Although that remark was not well received in the Arab world, they may have taken comfort in the fact that no matter how determined the Arizona senator is to carry out that threat, he is unlikely to do so since he is already over 70 years old.

But the revival of Mr. McCain’s moribund candidacy over the past few weeks would have been impossible without the media’s endorsement of “progress” in Iraq. Indeed, war propaganda itself has surged lately on the strength of casualty statistics from December 2007. Consider the work of William Kristol, the indefatigable publicist who played an important role in selling the war as editor of The Weekly Standard and on the Fox News Channel. From his new perch on The New York Times’ Op-Ed page—which proves that being hideously wrong is no obstacle to scaling the heights of American punditry—he proclaims that “we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq” and achieved “real success.”

According to Mr. Kristol, who once mocked concerns about religious strife in Iraq as “pop sociology,” the drop in violence last month may have marked the lowest overall number of deaths for both civilians and military forces since the war began, in March 2003. Declining casualties for a month or two means progress, which in turn means that the war must continue, and that the president’s policy is correct.

What has fallen far more sharply than the casualty statistics in Iraq is the standard for success there, as defined by neoconservatives like Mr. Kristol. In the original promotional literature produced by them and their associates, and recited by the president, this war was supposed to remake the Middle East into a showcase for democracy, with ruinous consequences for our terrorist enemies, cheaper oil for us—and all for free because the Iraqi petroleum industry would cover all the costs.

When that happy future never arrived, to put it very mildly, the war’s proponents scrambled to reduce expectations. So when the president announced the surge, he set forth a series of benchmarks for progress in Iraq that were supposed to result from our increased troop presence. The objective was not a temporary reduction of sectarian killing but real movement toward reconciliation of the contending factions, including the passage of laws on sharing oil revenues and political power among the Sunni, Shia, Kurdish and other communities. President Bush declared that the escalation would create space for the Iraqis to act on behalf of their own country.

Even those minimized objectives have yet to be met. The oil-sharing statute is stalled in the Iraqi parliament while Kurdish regional authorities make their own separate deals with foreign oil companies. The Sunni militia organizations that we have armed to fight Al Qaeda have been rejected by the Shia central government. The statute passed by the Iraqi parliament last week to reduce sanctions against former members of the Ba’ath Party, which was supposed to mollify the Sunni leadership, appears only to have alienated them further because they consider it fraudulent.

Worst of all, despite the undoubted courage and commitment of our troops, the level of violence in Iraq has increased since the New Year began. Killings of civilians by car bombs and snipers averaged more than 50 per day during the first two weeks of January, and U.S. military deaths are averaging slightly more than one per day, or nearly 50 percent higher than last month.
At that level, if American troops stayed for another 10 years, let alone a century as Mr. McCain suggests, our casualties would double. What would winning mean then?

Joe Conason is national correspondent for the New York Observer, where he writes a weekly column distributed by Creators Syndicate. He is also a columnist for Salon.com, and the Director of the Nation Institute Investigative Fund. His latest book, It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush was released in February 2007. His writing and reporting have appeared in many publications, including Harpers, the Guardian, The Nation, and The New Republic.
This article can be viewed online at: http://www.observer.com/2008/so-victory-mr-kristol

Write your comments to: CommentstoMike@Gmail.com
In the subject line please write :: John McCain the Bush-Lite

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion, Terrorism, India and civic issues. His comments, news analysis, opinions and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website www.MikeGhouse.net. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com or (214) 325-1916

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Republicans are waking up

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


Friday, May 25, 2007

Patriotism - Ron Paul

There are ver few Republicans who have the courage to speak up, most of them are sycophants or chickens. I believe they do know the truth, but are afraid to speak up. I have written a similar piece on Patriotism, it is our duty to speak and prevent the nation from getting abused. Our first loyalty should be to our nation and the values it stands for, and not the blind allegiance to the party.

See Ron Paul talk about on video, by clicking the link below

Mike Ghouse
--------------------------------------

On Patriotism
by Rep. Ron Paul
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=11015

For some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government's abuse of the people's rights.

I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.

What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state.
Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.

Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.

Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?

Randolph Bourne said that, "War is the health of the state.'' With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a "war psychology'' to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.

Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.
This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism; that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.

Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.

The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.

Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.

Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code's unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state's pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.

Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it's with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.

If there is a war going on, supporting the state's effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties, which they are told is necessary.

The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.

We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.

Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is, our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world's policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.

We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.

Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.


The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.

The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.

Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.

We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.

These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.
We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.

The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.

The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long-planned invasion of Iraq.

The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.

The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time to study it. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.

The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to library and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens' use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.

The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.

Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.

A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government's list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one's name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver's license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver's license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.

Some of the least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.'' This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called "other conditions.'' The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors' approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.

The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King's abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliché "Support the Troops'' is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.

Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm's way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of "patriot''?
Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.

But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.