Showing posts with label bomb bomb McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bomb bomb McCain. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama


On this particular blog, I usually post my own writings. However, this particular essay is a compelling reading. With the attitudes McCain and Palin are displaying, you have to declare them losers, i.e., LOOSERS. They know they are losers and have got nothing to lose further, instead tear the other one down. When you corner some one, and when they do not have any choices, they are inclined to destroy everything while going down. Republican party needs to guard themselves from this Maverick making a mess out of their party.

I wrote the following piece warnig the Republicans, of their consequneces if they don't reign in on McCain and Palin. I hope they care and take the action. The party needs to rid of the extremists from them. http://www.mikeghouse.net/Articles/Republicans-Please-put-America-First.asp

Mike Ghouse

Op-Ed Columnist
The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama
By FRANK RICH
Published: October 11, 2008

IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

Obama can hardly be held accountable for Ayers’s behavior 40 years ago, but at least McCain and Palin can try to take some responsibility for the behavior of their own supporters in 2008. What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena.

Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.

It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally while in full uniform.

From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.

McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.

The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals.

There are no black faces high in the McCain hierarchy to object to these tactics. There hasn’t been a single black Republican governor, senator or House member in six years. This is a campaign where Palin can repeatedly declare that Alaska is “a microcosm of America” without anyone even wondering how that might be so for a state whose tiny black and Hispanic populations are each roughly one-third the national average. There are indeed so few people of color at McCain events that a black senior writer from The Tallahassee Democrat was mistakenly ejected by the Secret Service from a campaign rally in Panama City in August, even though he was standing with other reporters and showed his credentials. His only apparent infraction was to look glaringly out of place.

Could the old racial politics still be determinative? I’ve long been skeptical of the incessant press prognostications (and liberal panic) that this election will be decided by racist white men in the Rust Belt. Now even the dimmest bloviators have figured out that Americans are riveted by the color green, not black — as in money, not energy. Voters are looking for a leader who might help rescue them, not a reckless gambler whose lurching responses to the economic meltdown (a campaign “suspension,” a mortgage-buyout stunt that changes daily) are as unhinged as his wanderings around the debate stage.

To see how fast the tide is moving, just look at North Carolina. On July 4 this year — the day that the godfather of modern G.O.P. racial politics, Jesse Helms, died — The Charlotte Observer reported that strategists of both parties agreed Obama’s chances to win the state fell “between slim and none.” Today, as Charlotte reels from the implosion of Wachovia, the McCain-Obama race is a dead heat in North Carolina and Helms’s Republican successor in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole, is looking like a goner.

But we’re not at Election Day yet, and if voters are to have their final say, both America and Obama have to get there safely. The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder. The onus is on the man who says he puts his country first to call off the dogs, pit bulls and otherwise.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Republicans, please put America first

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

Monday, May 5, 2008

Diplomacy: Home v. Abroad

http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2008/05/diplomacy-home-v-abroad.html

The following article is a contrast in political maturity at home and abroad. It is good to see export of our ideas of diplomacy to other nations, but sad to see it obliterate in its own place of birth; America.

Our political process is the greatest in the world and I am delighted to see the Obama-Clinton contest continue, it shows the amount of deliberations Americans are making in chosing the right leader, especially after the rottenest period in our history of governance. Look at the slam dunk arrogant mindest within our party (Republican)and see where it has gotten us; a loss of respect in the community of nations.

“How to win friends and influence people” is the number one selling book in the World and will continue to keep its edge for millennia to come. The concept got expressed well here in America, and within a century, our leaders are set to destroy it.

The Turkish Prime Minister talks about winning friends and objectively criticizes Israel's excessess in Gaza... and look what we have; one wants to bomb and bomb Iran and other wants to obliterate it. As an immigrant American myself, I am amused to ask, where the heck these two come from?

What does our smart President say? " There are 350-million middle class people in India. They are more than the population of America. When you get wealth, you start demanding better nutrition, more food. They want to eat well so our food prices are rising," George Bush said. He once said something similar to this " we export our items to foreign countries, because they are outside of our country"

As a Pluralist and a supporter of the right of divinity of every faith, I stand against the ten commandment monument in the public square. The public space cannot be monopolized by any one. I agree with the Prime Minister Erdogan when he says “Our Government demonstrates that a religious person can protect the idea of secularism”

I could not agree with him any more “Our policy is to win friends, and not to make enemies. Because of our good relations with both Syria and Israel we were asked by both of them to effect better communications.” We need to send Mr. Bush and Mr. Omert to diplomacy 1o1 or at least a Dale Carnegie 101. Mother Teresa caps this well “ If you want to make friends, go talk with your enemies, you don’t need peace with your friends.”

Justice is the basis for peace and security,when it is obliterated, you cannot expect it to be around. I agree with the statemen like statement from the Prime Minister, “My biggest hope [for peace] is that Israel stops its excessive use of force in the West Bank. Civilians are being killed in Gaza; children and old people. We have to be just—we cannot say that it's right if one side [uses force] but condemn the other side for doing the same”

Mike Ghouse

# # #

‘We Are Not Rooted In Religion’
http://www.newsweek.com/id/135291

May 12, 2008 International Edition By Owen Matthews

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan talks to Owen Matthews about Islam, modernity and Turkey's role in Israel-Syria communications

Despite a landslide election win last summer, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's prime minister, is fighting for his political life. Turkey's Constitutional Court is considering an indictment accusing Erdogan and 70 other figures from his party, the AKP, of "seeking to undermine the secular state." Prosecutors demand that the accused be banned from politics for five years and the AKP closed down. The morning that the party submitted its defense to the court, Erdogan spoke to NEWSWEEK's Owen Matthews in Ankara. Excerpts:

Matthews: Can Islam and modernity coexist?

Erdogan: Turkey has achieved what people said could never be achieved—a balance between Islam, democracy, secularism and modernity. [Our government] demonstrates that a religious person can protect the idea of secularism. In the West the AKP is always portrayed as being "rooted in religion." This is not true. The AKP is not a party just for religiously observant people—we are the party of the average Turk. We are absolutely against ethnic nationalism, regional nationalism and religious chauvinism. Turkey, with its democracy, is a source of inspiration to the rest of the Islamic world.

You have made speeches calling for new thinking in Islam.

We as politicians cannot enter into debates about modernizing Islam. As politicians we do not have the right. Nor do Islamic scholars. But we can speak about the place of Muslims in modern society and their contribution to a modern way of life. We can speak about the place of women. For example, in Turkey today the AKP is the best way for women to take an active part in political life. We have the largest number of female M.P.s.

If you have such a liberal vision, why is it that you are being prosecuted for allegedly being too Islamist?

I cannot comment while the case is still being considered by the court.

How have religious attitudes changed in Turkey during your lifetime?

The rules of religion stay the same, but people's attitudes towards religion have changed. The urbanization of the country has brought increased wealth and a different understanding of life. In the past, people had no alternatives. Now we have given people freedom of choice. We have also enhanced the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims. For instance we have made changes to the building codes so that they do not refer to "mosque" but to "place of religious worship." We put government money into restoring the Armenian church on Lake Van. And we have changed the law to help religious foundations [regain property confiscated by the state].

But you haven't reopened the Orthodox seminary on Halki island [near Istanbul].

That is an educational problem, not a religious problem. We have to overcome some mutual problems with Greece, such as questions about the education of ethnic Turks in western Thrace. We hope to overcome these issues soon.

What is Turkey's role in facilitating recent negotiations between Israel and Syria?
For 40 years Turkey had no diplomatic relations with Syria. When [the AKP] came to power we decided to normalize these relations. Our policy is to win friends, and not to make enemies. Because of our good relations with both Syria and Israel we were asked by both of them to effect better communications. We've been speaking to the leaders of both countries. It's important for us to try to gain some ground—if we can help achieve peace in the Middle East, that will have a major positive impact on the region.
Is it your belief that Israel wishes to attack Iran?

For a politician to speak about other countries' intentions is a big mistake. But I don't want to see anything like that happen. If it did, I cannot comprehend what will happen in the Middle East. We shouldn't even think about this. My biggest hope [for peace] is that Israel stops its excessive use of force in the West Bank. Civilians are being killed in Gaza; children and old people. We have to be just—we cannot say that it's right if one side [uses force] but condemn the other side for doing the same.
© 2008

### President Bush's guffaw:

Indian politicians tell Bush to back off
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/indian-politicians-tell-bush-to-back-off/64500-3.html

New Delhi: One may dismiss it as another Bushism, but the Indian politicians aren't willing to do so.

After US President George Bush expressed concern over a prosperous Indian middle class eating so much that it is causing food to become more expensive in American supermarkets, the Indian political leaders are an angry lot.

If the Bush's brand of economics is to be believed, then India's growing middle class is responsible for food prices shooting up in the US.

"There are 350-million middle class people in India. They are more than the population of America. When you get wealth, you start demanding better nutrition, more food. They want to eat well so our food prices are rising," George Bush said.

His comment almost exactly echoed his Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice earlier this week.

But Bush's comments have not gone down well with the Indian politicians.

"We must certainly send out a message to the United States of America that we are going to look after the welfare of our own people," says Communist Party of India-Marxist Politburo member Brinda Karat.

And the Congress, accused by the Left of being soft on America, can't stomach Bush's reasoning either.

Union Minister of State for Power Jairam Ramesh and Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh says, "George Bush has never been known for his knowledge of economics. I think this just proves how comprehensively wrong he is."

Both US and India are in the threshold of elections and inflation is certainly a key factor in deciding which way the votes will swing.