Rick Perry embraces Muslims, a gutsy political first

Rick Perry embraces Muslims, a gutsy political first http://centerforamericanpolitics.blogspot.com/

Abstracts from my upcoming article, pending publication

Addison, Texas – June 4, 2015 – It takes guts, a lot of guts for a Presidential candidate to embrace Muslims from the word go!  Perry has got that. Given the unabashed bigotry displayed by a number of Presidential candidates against Muslims, Rick Perry took the bold step in paving the way for inclusionary politics in the GOP. 
This is a historic event in the annals of America’s evolution of pluralistic politics. Perry may turn the tide and knock out bigotry in other candidates minds, even if it is in their hearts. 

I hope to interview all the presidential candidates to see how pluralistic they are, and how much they really understand about the need to have a strongly woven social fabric for a safe, secure and prosperous America. We cannot have a candidate who is prejudiced towards fellow Americans.   

Click on the pictures to see a larger version

What a joy it was to see two Muslims with Perry on the first 
day of announcement - Amir and Arman Rupani

A few minutes with Sean Hannity

After the event

Among the array of 2016 candidates, four will pass the initial test; Hilary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Rick Perry. 

I don’t know how many of the Presidential candidates we have to be forgiven for ‘they know not’ about fellow Americans.  In the 2012 run, the following candidates displayed their shameless bigotry towards Muslims and some of them have said they will not hire a Muslim in their administration, and they are;  Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Michelle Bachman. Carson, Huckabee, Santorum and Jindal will not even make it through the primaries, they are too biased to lead an America of different faiths, races and ethnicity - there is enough material to nail them, they may be good for a Hospital, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Louisiana respectively, but not for America. 

Sean Hannity was at the announcement for an exclusive interview with candidate Perry, and prior to that he asked me, if I was supporting Perry, I said, not yet, not until I talk to him about what kind of America he envisions, is he committed to a cohesive America?  Sean asked me what I mean by it.   I said it is an America where every American is given equal access to employment, entrepreneurship, and governance in his or her pursuit of happiness, and where no American has to live in apprehension or fear of the other. 

What is a cohesive America – please watch this 10 minutes trailer of a documentary coming up - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMXsTo4VYh8

Full article is pending publication in Huffington post; your thoughtful comments will be included in the comments section of the blog http://centerforamericanpolitics.blogspot.com/

Mike Ghouse is a thinker, writer and a public speaker, and is committed to building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. All about him in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net

WMD Lies - Jeb Bush Says His Brother Was Misled Into War by Faulty Intelligence. That's Not What Happened.

It was a despicable lie. It's hard to swallow that our president and vice president can lie and get away with it.  Mike Ghouse

He and other Republican presidential contenders have a new and bogus spin on how the Iraq War began. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/jeb-bush-marco-rubio-iraq-war-intelligence 

—By David Corn

| Tue May 19, 2015 10:09 AM EDT

Pablo Martinez/AP

Last week, Jeb Bush stepped in it. It took the all-but-announced Republican presidential candidate several attempts to answer the most obvious question: Knowing what we know now, would you have launched the Iraq War? Yes, I would have, he initially declared, noting he would not dump on his brother for initiating the unpopular war. "So would almost everyone that was confronted with the intelligence they got," Bush said. In a subsequent and quickly offered back-pedaling remark—on his way to saying he would have made "different decisions"—Bush emphasized that a main problem with the Bush-Cheney invasion was "mistakes as it related to faulty intelligence in the lead-up to the war." And as his Republican rivals jumped on Bush, they, too, blamed bad intelligence for causing the war. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), insisting that he would not have favored the war (if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction), commented, "President Bush has said that he regrets that the intelligence was faulty." And former CEO Carly Fiorina noted, "The intelligence was clearly wrong. And so had we known that the intelligence was wrong, no, I would not have gone in."

But here's the truth Jeb Bush and the others are hiding or eliding: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, & Co. were not misled by lousy intelligence; they used lousy intelligence to mislead the public.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Throughout the run-up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and their lieutenants repeatedly stated assertions to justify the war that were not supported by the intel. They also hyped or mischaracterized existing intelligence to bolster their case for war. The book I wrote with Michael Isikoff,Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, chronicles the elaborate Bush-Cheney campaign to misuse and misrepresent the intelligence. Certainly, there was some information within the intelligence community (which turned out to be wrong) indicating that Saddam Hussein was trying to revive programs to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. As the Bush White House was selling the possibility of war, the intelligence agencies did quickly produce a National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002 that said Iraq had "continued its weapons of mass destruction program." But there was other intelligence and analysis—some of it mentioned in that intelligence estimate—casting plenty of doubt on this. In fact, on many of the key elements of the Bush administration's case for war, the intelligence was, at best, iffy. Yet in this post-9/11 period, Bush and Cheney frequently declared there was no uncertainty: Saddam was pursuing WMD to threaten the United States, and, worse, he was in league with Al Qaeda.

Here are a few examples of how Bush and Cheney cooked the books:

• In an August 2002 speech that kicked off the administration's campaign for war against Iraq, Cheney asserted, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." But earlier in the year, Vice Adm. Thomas Wilson, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, had told Congress that Iraq possessed only "residual" amounts of WMD. There was no confirmed intelligence at this point establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation. As Cheney made this claim, Anthony Zinni, a former commander in chief of US Central Command, was on the stage. He was stunned to hear Cheney say that Iraq was actively pursuing WMD. As he laterrecalled, "It was a shock. It was a total shock. I couldn't believe the vice president was saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD, through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program." In other words, bad intelligence did not cause Cheney to make this categorical, bold, and frightening statement. He just did it.
• In September 2002, Cheney insisted there was "very clear evidence" Saddam was developing nuclear weapons: Iraq's acquisition of aluminum tubes that were to be used to enrich uranium for bombs. But Cheney and the Bush White House did not tell the public that there was a heated dispute within the intelligence community about this supposed evidence. The top scientific experts in the government had concluded these tubes were not suitable for a nuclear weapons program. But one CIA analyst—who was not a scientific expert—contended the tubes were smoking-gun proof that Saddam was working to produce nuclear weapons. The Bush-Cheney White House embraced this faulty piece of evidence and ignored the more-informed analysis. Bush and Cheney were cherry-picking—choosing bad intelligence over good—and not paying attention to better information that cut the other way.
• Cheney repeatedly referred publicly to a report that maintained that 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta had met secretly in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer—even though the CIA and FBI had dismissed this allegation. This is a damning example of Cheney citing discredited intelligence to score points. Intelligence experts had said there was nothing to this tale, but Cheney kept on mentioning the alleged Atta-Iraq connection to suggest Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission later reconfirmed that this report of a Prague meeting was bunk.
• The Atta allegation was part of a wider effort mounted by the Bush-Cheney administration to link Saddam to 9/11. In November 2002, Bush said Saddam "is a threat because he's dealing with Al Qaeda." Weeks earlier, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had claimed he had "bullet-proof" evidence that Saddam was tied to Osama bin Laden. In March 2003, Cheney asserted that Saddam had a "long-standing relationship" with Al Qaeda. The intelligence did not show this. As the 9/11 Commission later concluded, there had been no intelligence confirming significant contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Once again, Bush and Cheney were not being fooled by flawed intelligence; they were were pushing disinformation.
• At a press conference at the end of 2002, Bush declared, "We don't know whether or not [Saddam] has a nuclear weapon." He clearly was suggesting that Saddam might already possess these dangerous weapons. Yet no intelligence at the time indicated that the Iraqi dictator had by then developed such weapons. The administration also insisted Saddam had been shopping for uranium in Africa, even though the intelligence on this point was dubious.

Bush and Cheney did not invade Iraq because they had been hoodwinked by bad intelligence. They claimed the intelligence was solid—when it wasn't. And they made stuff up. Days before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush told the American public, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Yet plenty of doubt existed. Intelligence analysts had registered uncertainty regarding all of the significant aspects of Bush's case for war. Moreover, Bush and Cheney had for months tossed out a series of claims that were not supported by any confirmed intelligence.

The Iraq war at its heart was not an intelligence failure. Bush, Cheney, and their comrades were hell-bent on invading Iraq—not because of inaccurate intelligence, but because of their own assumptions and desires. The war did not happen because of bad intel. Consequently, asking whether the invasion should have happenedknowing what is now known is an irrelevant exercise. For the Bush-Cheney gang, it truly did not  matter what the intelligence said. They were not victims. They were the perps.

DAVID CORN

Washington Bureau Chief

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and Facebook. RSS | TWITTER

Jeb Bush, beat it! You are dead politically.

JEB BUSH DEAD POLITICALLY | Center for American Politics
http://centerforamericanpolitics.blogspot.com/2015/05/jeb-bush-beat-it-you-are-dead.html

Note to the Media: Media is welcome to post this by simply giving credit to the writer and the site. Thanks

Jeb Bush, these are your words, "A 'tolerant country' should allow discrimination based upon 'religious beliefs." You said that.  Nincompoop is a word I can slap it on you.

In case, you don't know it, America is God's own country, a miniature universe represented by all of God's intentional creation.  We need to take pride in our country.  I don't want you to mess with it, men like you have come and gone messing up the balance in a given society.  

Among us, we see God as one, none and many; and in every form; male, female, genderless, existent and non-existent, being and non-being, nameless and with innumerable names.

We are also blessed with every season, rivers, snow, desert, forests among things, and every race, ethnicity, language, culture and native traditions among people.

We are indeed Americans, honoring and respecting each others' pursuit of liberty, justice and happiness. We are the land of the free and the brave.

All of us have worked hard to make this truly a God's country and you are causing it to be unGodly again? That we can discriminate based on faith? 

You have never been a minority of any kind, so you simply don't have the brains or empathy to understand that. If you really understand the anguish and apprehension the Black Americans, Jewish Americans, Gay Americans, Hispanic Immigrants and Muslim immigrants feel, and what the Mormons, Catholics and even the Baptists felt here - you'd appreciate the collective wisdom of our founding fathers, that we are all created equal.

We are a safe and secure nation and we have made significant progress. I don't want America to go back to 16th century, let alone the days prior to Abraham Lincoln. 

The people of faith - yes, the same people of faith you are talking about had justified  (I am not using the shameful language here) abusing Black Americans, genocides of Native Americans, mistreating Catholics, Mormons, keeping the Jews out of the midst, and mass murdering people who did not believe like they did.  Every representation of faith has done that in one place or the other,  whether it is Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, Buddhists or others.

It is time to leave behind our shameful history and rejoice what we have created; respect, dignity, equal opportunity and equal access for every human in public square.

Keep your religion at your home and behave in the public for the common good. America will continue to prosper and will remain a model for other nations to emulate. 

We should have the freedom, but should not have the freedom to discriminate, watch first 7 minutes of this video to understand what an "authorized discrimination would do?

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMXsTo4VYh8 

"In a sit-down interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on Saturday, potential GOP presidential nominee Jeb Bush explained that a "tolerant country" should make room for "people of faith" to discriminate against others. Saying the best of all religious beliefs is when people of faith act on their values to help others, Bush nonetheless defended the rights of those same people to deny "services" to people whose lifestyles they oppose." Raw Story

Here is the Bush Video - http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/jeb-bush-a-tolerant-country-should-allow-discrimination-based-upon-religious-beliefs/

Thank you

mike
Mike Ghouse, Speaker
Motivation | Pluralism | Human Rights | Religion.
(214) 325-1916 text/talk
...............................................................................................................................
Mike Ghouse is a public speaker, thinker, writer and a commentator on Pluralism, Islam, India, Israel-Palestine, Politics and other issues of the day. He is a human rights activist, and his book standing up for others will be out soon | He is producing a full feature film " Sacred" to be released on 9/11 and a documentary "Americans together" for a July 4 release.  He is a frequent guest commentator on Fox News and syndicated Talk Radio shows and a writer at major news papers including Dallas Morning News and Huffington Post. All about him is listed in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net and his writings are at www.TheGhousediary.com - Mike is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. 

Who is the right candidate to vote, here is the answer

Whoever aligns with your own thoughts is the right candidate for you, and you must VOTE to see that person is elected.  Who do I align with the most?

This quiz will help you determine to go Republican, Democrat or Independent.  http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

Mike Ghouse, Independent voter
http://centerforamericanpolitics.blogspot.com/  or www.facebook.com/CenterforAmericanpolitics 

Click on image to see larger version

Thank you
mike
Mike Ghouse
(214) 325-1916 text/talk
...............................................................................................................................
Mike Ghouse is a public speaker, thinker, writer and a commentator on Pluralism at work place, politics, religion, society, gender, race, culture, ethnicity, food and foreign policy. He is commentator on Fox News and syndicated Talk Radio shows and a writer at major news papers including Dallas Morning News and Huffington Post.  All about him is listed in several links at www.MikeGhouse.net and his writings are at www.TheGhousediary.com and 10 other blogs. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. 

Hillary Clinton Wins High Popularity, Majority Support for a 2016 Bid

On November 11, I wrote that Hilary will win 2016 and Republicans will be on the side lines for 16 years! http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2012/11/2016-presidential-elections-master-page.html   And today, I read this:

Hillary Clinton Wins High Popularity, Majority Support for a 2016 Bid

Kevin Lamarque/AP Photo

Carried by a new high in personal popularity and broad approval of her work as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton closes out her diplomatic career with majority support as a candidate for president in 2016.

Fifty-seven percent in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll say they’d back a run by Clinton to succeed Barack Obama, vs. 37 percent opposed. That includes a broad gender gap – 66 percent support for Clinton among women, dropping to 49 percent among men.

See PDF with full results, charts and tables here.

Clinton is expected to step down soon from her leadership of the State Department, a position she accepted after narrowly losing the Democratic presidential nomination to Obama in 2008. She’s demurred on the prospect of another bid for the presidency.

Clinton’s fared well during her tenure at State; 68 percent approve of her work, second only to Colin Powell among the last five secretaries of state. (He managed a remarkable 85 percent approval in 2002 and 2003.) Similarly, two-thirds in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, see Clinton favorably overall, numerically a new high in her long public career as first lady, U.S. Senator, presidential candidate and top U.S. diplomat.

Clinton’s recovered from personal favorability as low as 44 percent in April 2008, during her presidential run; she also dropped that low in June 2003, when she was discussed as a possible candidate in the 2004 presidential race, and in June 1996, during the Whitewater controversy. Those dips underscore the potential risks should she climb back into the political fray.

In another sign of the challenges of a political candidacy, intensity of sentiment is better for Clinton personally, and as secretary of state, than it is for her as a candidate. Her “strongly” favorable rating and strong approval of her job performance outnumber her strong negatives, in both cases, by more than 2-1 margins. Strong support for her as a candidate also outweighs strong opposition, but much more narrowly, by 9 percentage points, 36 to 27 percent.

2016 and GROUPS – Politics are comparative, so actual support for Clinton as a candidate would depend more than anything on her opponents, in the Democratic primaries and general election alike. That said, having 57 percent willing to give you a look (55 percent among registered voters) is not a bad starting point – and the differences among groups are telling.

In addition to the gender gap there are sharp differences between age and racial groups, generally similar to Obama’s support patterns. Young adults, age 18 to 29, support Clinton for president by nearly 2-1; that falls to an even split among seniors. And while she gets 52 percent support among whites, that jumps to 70 percent among nonwhites, a strongly Democratic group.

Clinton does less well among nonwhites than did Obama, who won re-election with 80 percent of their support last month. That said, while majorities of white men and married men say they’d oppose a Clinton candidacy, she’s backed by more than six in 10 white women and married women – two groups that Obama lost.

Among other groups, support for Clinton in 2016 tops out at eight in 10 Democrats and liberals, vs. 23 and 24 percent of Republicans and strong conservatives, respectively. About two-thirds of moderates and six in 10 independents say they’d support a Clinton candidacy.

It’s hard to see Clinton winning 23 percent of Republicans in an actual campaign; no Democrat has come close to that mark in exit polls dating back 36 years. That’s another sign that, while currently her numbers are positive, actually running for president can be messier than it looks from a popular perch at Foggy Bottom.

METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cell phone Nov. 28-Dec. 2, 2012, among a random national sample of 1,020 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 4 points. The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York, N.Y., with sampling, data collection and tabulation by SSRS/Social Science Research Solutions of Media, Pa.