Jon Stewart on Obama's Ambassadorial appointements

What a shameful process of selection of Ambassadors
Mike Ghouse

http://samuel-warde.com/2014/02/jon-stewart-on-ambassadors/

Jon Stewart: On Ambassadors And Sending Sean Hannity To Russia

February 13, 2014 | Filed under: Entertainment,Humor,Videos | Posted by: Samuel Warde

Jon Stewart took the selection process for ambassadors, asking: “Is there a rule ambassadors can’t have set foot in the countries they are going to ambassador? Would it ruin the surprise?”

Noting that none of Obama’s recent ambassador selections have ever been to their assigned countries, Stewart suggested that the administration should select “someone we aren’t crazy about and send them away.” A picture then appeared of Sean Hannity behind him, and Stewart noted: “He said he wanted to leave anyway,” to the cheers of the studio audience.
You can watch the segment, Diplomat Buyers Club, from Comedy Central, below:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

You may also like -

Fox's Neil Cavuto makes sense with Michelle Bachman

We do have dumbo's in our congress, here is Michelle Bachman

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/neil-cavuto-michele-bachmann-obama-lawsuit-108316.html

Neil Cavuto, Michele Bachmann fight over lawsuit

By SARAH SMITH | 6/25/14 4:38 PM EDT

Fox News host Neil Cavuto and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) got into a shouting match Wednesday afternoon when Bachmann advocated for defunding the executive branch.
“Think about what you are saying,” Cavuto said on his Fox News show. “The Democrats would be in their right mind to laugh you out.”
Continue Reading

The squabble began while Cavuto grilled Bachmann over Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) lawsuit over President Barack Obama’s executive orders.

(Also on POLITICO: Boehner: Obama hasn't 'faithfully' executed laws)
“Where was your rage when Democrats were going after President Bush on the same use of executive orders?” Cavuto asked. “I think you know in your heart of hearts this is a waste of time now. There are far more important things you guys have to be addressing.”
Bachmann’s priority, though, was reining in the executive branch.
“What we should do right now is defund the executive branch while we have the option,” Bachmann said. “What we can do further is impeach the elected official.”
The segment went to commercial while Bachmann was still trying to talk.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/neil-cavuto-michele-bachmann-obama-lawsuit-108316.html#ixzz35iYvutgw

Cochran Holds off Tea Party challenger in Mississippi

COCHRAN HOLDS OF TEA PARTY CHALLENGER IN MS

There is a huge rivalry going on between Tea Party and regular Republicans. Sadly, most of the tea party representatives lack wisdom, there needs to be change within that party to push the wise guys to lead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/us/politics/thad-cochran-chris-mcdaniel-mississippi-senate-primary.html?_r=0

Today, I am proud of America more than I did in 2008, thank your Mr. President.

Today, I am proud of America more than I did in 2008; the Senate has confirmed the Gay, Black Judges to the Supreme Court.   Don’t you mis-read me, like some of you did when FLOTUS said she was never been proud of America before. We both mean we are proud of the additional significant milestone of the civilization led by America.  

Thank you Mr. President for fulfilling the dream of the founding fathers of this nation, that all Men are created equal.   All it took to bring about the change of accepting the LGBT community as a normal part of the society was your daring and bold utterance in September 2013 to support LGTB marriages. 

Everything gathered momentum from then on, and even the African Americans who had opposed such unions in California turned around, the Conservative Preachers did, and the Muslims joined in too and this Muslims was in the forefront of inclusion of every American.
And this day, much of the value placed in our constitution comes true - that all men are created equal. It will be complete when Hillary becomes the president and a Jewish Gay man or woman become the Vice President, a Muslim becomes the Secretary of State and a Hindu, Atheist, and Native American become Secretaries of defense,  Justice and Home Land security.
 
Then the 2nd biggest dream of MLK, judge not by the color of skin gets enhanced with judge not by the faith, ethnicity or size of the community one represents, but by one's ability.  I am proud of America today even more than in 2008 and each successive day I see an inclusive America.

Mr. President, you made it. Thank you.

I particularly like this paragraph reported in Huffington Post, “The latest confirmations come as the Senate has been plowing through President Barack Obama's nominees, and they reflect the diversity that will remain on the federal judiciary long after he is gone.
A White House aide said Obama has appointed more female judges than any other president, breaking the record previously set by President Bill Clinton. He has also appointed more Hispanic judges than any other president, breaking the record previously held by President George W. Bush. Obama has also appointed more Asian-American judges than all presidents combined and has nominated 12 openly gay federal judges. Last month, the Senate confirmed the first-ever Native American female federal judge in the nation's history.”

Mike Ghouse committed to building a cohesive America, where every American feels included and no American fears the other.

Huffington Post :: Obama Leaving His Mark On Judiciary As Senate Confirms Gay, Black Judges - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/obama-judges_n_5503075.html
# # #

Obama Leaving His Mark On Judiciary As Senate Confirms Gay, Black Judges

Posted: 06/17/2014 12:11 pm EDT Updated: 06/17/2014 12:59 pm EDT
Huffington Post

Print Article

WASHINGTON -- The Senate made history on Tuesday with its vote to confirm Darrin Gayles to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Gayles, who was confirmed 98-0, is the nation's first openly gay African-American man to be confirmed to the federal bench. His vote came just after the Senate confirmed Staci Yandle to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, by a vote of 52-44. She marks some milestones of her own as the first black lesbian federal judge in two decades and the second one in the nation's history. The first, Judge Deborah Batts, was sworn in during June 1994.

 

"Never before in the course of the history of our state has there been an Article III federal judge who is openly a member of the LGBT community," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said ahead of Yandle's vote. "In short, Staci Yandle's confirmation marks another important milestone in America's journey toward equality of opportunity."

By a vote of 92-4, the Senate also confirmed Salvador Mendoza to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, making him the first Hispanic federal judge to serve in that region of Washington.
The latest confirmations come as the Senate has been plowing through President Barack Obama's nominees, and they reflect the diversity that will remain on the federal judiciary long after he is gone.
A White House aide said Obama has appointed more female judges than any other president, breaking the record previously set by President Bill Clinton. He has also appointed more Hispanic judges than any other president, breaking the record previously held by President George W. Bush. Obama has also appointed more Asian-American judges than all presidents combined and has nominated 12 openly gay federal judges. Last month, the Senate confirmed the first-ever Native American female federal judge in the nation's history.

Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice, an association of more than 100 organizations focused on the federal judiciary, hailed the Senate for making progress in filling out the federal bench, but noted that "shameful Republican obstruction" means there are still too many empty federal courts that don't even have a nominee in the queue. Senators are responsible for kicking off the nominations process by recommending home-state picks to the White House, and some senators simply aren't making recommendations.

"That obstruction continues, as can be seen in the fact that there remain 34 judgeships for which no one has been nominated -- 29 of them in states with at least one Republican senator," Aron said.

6 Lies We Need to Stop Telling About the Situation in Iraq

NO WAR  AND NO SCREWING UP OF AMERICA NEED BE ALLOWED.


6 Lies We Need to Stop Telling About the Situation in Iraq
Courtesy - PolicyMic
By Alastair Sloan  June 16, 2014

6 Lies We Need to Stop Telling About the Situation in Iraq

Image Credit: AP

"No matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as truth," said JFK in an undated 1948 speech to Democrats.

It's true. Look no further than the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, which brought about a long series of lies and exaggerations that shaped the situation in Iraq today.

Rewind to the fall of 2002, when the Bush administration leaked a story to an unfortunate journalist at the New York Times, claiming that Iraq had bought metal tubes clearly intended for use in nuclear weapons.

Over $800 billion, 188,000 dead Iraqis and 4,422 U.S. killed soldiers later, we know today that there was no Iraqi nuclear program. But remnants of some of the lies that helped justify the initial U.S.-led invasion of Iraq are persisting today, making their way into the narrative around the scenes of violence that the country is seeing today.

Here are six lies that we need to stop telling about the situation in Iraq:

1. The 2003 invasion did not cause the Iraq crisis today.

This particular lie comes courtesy of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who recently called claims that the the 2003 invasion was tied to the current crisis "bizarre." 

But there's certainly a link between the two. The invasion and its aftermath set the stage for the tragedy that has engulfed Iraq today.

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the militant group behind the violent insurgency in Iraq, evolved from a group called Islamic State of Iraq, officially formed after the invasion. 

The Obama administration then contributed to a torrid situation by withdrawing their military support nine years before the Iraqi army was ready.

A fascinating study from 2008, "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq" strongly suggests that attacks in Iraq were linked to presence of American troops.

Researchers noted that attacks spiked by between 5 and 10% shortly after negative media reports about the war appeared in the US media, observing that "insurgent groups responded rationally to expected probability of U.S. withdrawal."

2. The situation in Iraq is a civil war.

In November 2006, news network NBC set political forums alive when it reclassified the Iraq conflict as a "civil war."
The U.S. Army uses five criteria to recognize civil war:
1) The contestants must control territory.
2) There must be a functioning government.
3) Each side must enjoy some foreign recognition.
4) The sides should have identifiable and regular armed forces.
5) They should engage in major military operations.
Back when the narrative shifted to one of "civil war," the situation in Iraq only met the first criteria on the list, according to David A. Patten, a sergeant who'd swapped his professors gown (philosophy) for three sergeant stripes.
Today, with the capture of Mosul, it looks like criteria two and five have been met, which means that Iraq's supposed slip into civil war began just last week, according to the U.S. army.
In an essay "Policing Mutual Genocide," existential philosopher James Leonard Park explains that Iraq's situation can't be called a civil war, or the always seductive narrative: a 1,200 year old battle between two Muslim sects, Sunnis and Shias. In actuality, there's a wider picture here:
"There are two main kinds of 'Muslims' who want to kill each other. But there are also many factions within each major group, which will continue to struggle for some kind of dominance now that the U.S soldiers are gone."
It's also important to remember here that Iraq's Sunni minority is not synonymous with ISIS or its murderous tactics.

3. The Iraq war was the “moral” choice.

Last August, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that the invasion of Iraq was a "just" and moral decision.

The language of morality was certainly present during the decision-making around the invasion. On the eve of the invasion, 46 U.S. religious leaders, including 20 Bishops from George Bush's own United Methodist Church.

"It is a moral and ethical matter of the highest order, one that we have made a priority for many months as the possibility of war has loomed on our national horizon," adding for that reason they had made it a top priority to "slow the rush to war."

The leaders represented tens of millions of Protestant and Orthodox Christians across the country, and told Bush their views were supported by their congregations. In contrast, the pope later joined them in condemning any invasion, then Archbishop Desmond Tutu attacked the war in 2004 as "immoral."
None of that moralizing has found root in the neo-con subconscious. Ultra-right bastion of interventionism Breitbart London (yes, we now have our own version), is already tying itself in knots to make a new moral case for intervention, knowing empirically that interventions of that kind have never worked.

4. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was "right."

Via: AP

If you'd asked Iraqis in 2007 if they preferred life under democratically elected Maliki or brutal dictator Hussein, polls at the time suggested half would have said the former, and only a quarter the latter.

If you're an Iraqi Kurd, an Islamic extremist, a western private security contractor or arms company, removing Hussein had its bonuses, be they new-found wealth or the eventual establishment of a Sunni caliphate.

All the feuds between families, sects and tribes built to near bursting under the occupation were close to spilling into rivers of blood in Iraq's cities, factories and fields, where Shia and Sunni work side by side. That kind of blood-letting ruins a nation: Ask Lebanon or Syria.

If it turns out that removing Hussein has led to the world's first heavily armed and well-funded jihadist caliphate, that will count as one of the greatest military blunders in history.

5. The U.S. couldn't have predicted the recent rise of extremism in Iraq.

Clinton was speaking a few days ago to excuse her own administration's withdrawal of troops in 2011, which some Republicans are saying has accelerated the rise of ISIL.

Hindsight is a glorious gift, but American generals didn't have the luxury of that back in 2006 when they predicted al-Qaida would eventually regenerate in Iraq if the withdrawal was too hasty.

Using good ol' common sense, Major General Jeffrey Buchanan warned his leaders:

"If the Iraqi security forces are not able to put pressure on them, they could regenerate."

Lieutenant General Babaker Zerbari, Iraq's most senior military officer, later announced:

"At this point, the withdrawal is going well, because they are still here."

"But the problem will start after 2011," he argued. "The politicians must find other ways to fill the void after 2011. If I were asked about the withdrawal, I would say to politicians: The U.S. army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020."

6. The U.S. didn't have anything to do with the rise in Jihadists

Via: AP

Like it or not, the adverse side-effects of American commercial, defense and diplomatic activities in the Gulf and Israel need to be discussed. It has been akin to jabbing a stick into a hornets nest for 60 years, and the resulting backlash hasn't been pretty. If there has been a war on terror, we've now lost comprehensively.

The American government, led by the U.S. Department of State and the CIA, risked the safety and security of European and American civilians in favor of a corporate elite keen to exploit the Middle East's oil riches.
American leaders and businessmen knew the jihadists were well-armed, well-financed and zealous. They felt provoked, and without heeding the warnings, they poked and they poked and they poked.
And the jihadists eventually fought back, claiming the lives of thousands of Americans in New York City on September 11th 2001.

Radical ideology has undoubtedly played a part, but that ideology is not allied to an absolute good or an absolute evil.

The exact same ideology was exploited by the Americans and the Saudi government in the '70s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. American Senator Charlie Wilson, when he wasn't womanizing or doing blow, later became famous for arming the same jihadists that would later turn on the United States.

Meanwhile, the rulers of Saudi Arabia were keenly supporting the Afghanistan jihad with mass financial aid, so comprehensive that flights for honeymoon couples, who wanted to work in the refugee camps in Pakistan rather than take up arms, were heavily subsidized.

The subtle twist that Bush made to interpret the events of Sept. 11, 2001 was to present jihadism as opposed to western values.
But jihadism might have more to do with frustration with oppression of Muslims, whether it's by Russian Communists, American neo-liberals or neo-cons.

We can't fight Russia because they have nuclear weapons. The Middle East, like it or not, has al-Qaida. And we can't beat them with more bombs. Is it time to negotiate?

No Arms to Iraq, instead get them to talk.

NO ARMS TO IRAQ, INSTEAD GET THEM TO TALK NOW

Center for American Politics

How naive can we be? Do the bloody  war mongers believe that by supplying arms and parking our fleet in the gulf we will scare the ISIS? Hell, we’ll egg them on, they got nothing to lose.

Obama has been right, and now he needs to go it alone, as he did all along by voting against Iraq War, pulling our troops and recovering America. Had we supported him then, we would have not witnessed the disaster. 

No arms to Iraq and no troops, and let our efforts be spent in bringing them to sit down and talk. Isn’t worth it? Isn’t it better? Let’s not be arrogant saviors, they can take care of themselves. 

No doubt talk is cheaper than war!
Indeed war is for thrill seekers. 

Mike Ghouse, Americans Together

 Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and a book with the same title is coming up. Mike has a strong presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links.

Republican: If a Woman Has Right to an Abortion, a Man Should Have Right to Force Himself on a Woman

REPUBLICANS NEEDS CLASSES IN BIOLOGY AND MATHS

Almost every stupid comment ever made about women and rape are by Republicans.

Republican: If a Woman Has Right to an Abortion, a Man Should Have Right to Force Himself on a Woman

Read more at http://issuehawk.com/igor/2014/03/04/republican-if-a-woman-has-right-to-an-abortion-a-man-should-have-right-to-force-himself-on-a-woman.html#IlYhffpAtV1uuG1v.99

President Obama's economic record

Obama is doing the right thing about Syria

Why I'm No Longer a Republican

My story is similar, and incredibly similar to Gerry Myers,  except that I am still wearing the Republican cloak, and my dilemma began in 2008 and continues till today - to be a Republican or not. I cannot relate with most of them extremists radicals in the leadership, but I do not align with democrats either, but I can relate with almost all of the Democratic leadership, they make sense.

Republican leadership is incapable of talking peace, they are bloody war mongers and are on a constant war against women, GLBT, Muslims, Hindus, and Hispanic undocumented immigrants. They operate from fear and paranoia that if they stop bitching, they will be slaughtered. You will rarely find Republican in interfaith and peace organizations, they just don't fit in, if the are there, they cannot discuss their real self with others.

I have questioned myself all along - am I a damned idiotic loyalist to the Party because I liked its original face? But, I am glad, when it comes to America, my party becomes secondary and as such I have voted for and campaigned for Obama.

Mike Ghouse
Center for American Politics.
# # #

Why I'm No Longer a Republican

Gerry Myers

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerry-myers/why-im-no-longer-a-republ_b_5474464.html

In 1988 when I voted for George H. W. Bush for president, there was nothing unusual about it. From the time I turned 21, I had always voted Republican. But, after he broke his promise not to raise taxes and the country was in the midst of a recession, I reconsidered my position in 1992.

As Bush floundered, the brilliant and charismatic campaign and message of William Jefferson Clinton hit the scene and I voted for my first Democrat.

During the next eight years, I watched how President Clinton oversaw the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history; how the nation enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate in decades; how the home ownership rate grew to the highest it's ever been in the country's history; how he improved economic equality that led to a strong economy and a surplus federal budget. Though his tenure was plagued with scandals and impeachment, it is important to remember, he was acquitted of all charges.

In 1996, I still didn't consider myself a Democrat, even though I voted to reelect Clinton. I was an Independent who voted for the best person. But, when the Republican Party nominated George W. Bush in 2000...I began to think of myself as a Democrat.

Living in Texas, I saw Bush's policies and ignorance first hand. I could foresee many problems the country would face if he was elected and, unfortunately, he didn't prove me wrong. Against strong counsel from his own financial advisors, he cut taxes while starting two wars; something no other president had ever done. These decisions began the immeasurable damage to our country that would take decades to recover from.

He took a substantial surplus, and turned it into a huge deficit; he changed America's standing in the world, by trying to force his views on other cultures; he chose to invade Iraq first, rather than Afghanistan, allowing Osama bin Laden to continue his reign of terrorism for years; he destabilized the Middle East which led to more insurgents. Bush and Cheney did not listen to Americans or our Allies and millions of lives were lost.

As the neocons continually promote just one more war to spread democracy, I believe we should fix America's democracy first before we try to change the cultures of other countries to mirror our own.

Near the end of Bush's disastrous two-term Presidency, it was an easy decision for me to vote for Obama over McCain. But, it was the creation of the Tea Party facet of the Republican Party in 2010 that turned me into a loyal Democrat, rather than an Independent. I don't feel I abandoned the Republican Party but, I do feel the Republican Party abandoned me. Their emerging views on government, religion, women's rights, workers' rights, income inequality, violence against women, equal pay for women, minorities' voting rights, made me move away from these radical ideologues as quickly as possible.

In 2014, the Republican Party is now split between the old GOP idealists and the new GOP obstructionists; between those who know their message is losing voters and want to change it and, those who would rather suppress and buy the vote, than change the message. The GOP no longer stands for Grand Old Party, but for Greedy Old Plutocrats.


Democrats must rally their base. There are many smart and educated Republicans who believe their Party's lies, support their Party's positions and who will come out to vote Republican at any cost. In America that is their prerogative. But, it is up to the rest of us to make sure these extremists are defeated in 2014, in 2016 and beyond. It is critical to this country's future, maybe more than any other election in our history that you vote in November. Choosing not to vote because you think your vote doesn't matter is just plain wrong. I worry that if people do not stand up for what they believe in, and vote, then our future right to vote may vanish.

I support the Democratic message because I'm for job creation, rather than obstructionism. I support healthcare for all, rather than repealing the ACA with no alternative plan. I think we should keep the safety net for those who need it and have paid into it all their lives. I support Social Security, and believe the system could be solvent for years if the income cap was removed and people paid into the system for every pay check they received. And unlike many Republican Governors, I also support Medicaid expansion which saves lives, adds billions in federal funds, and creates jobs.

I'm for keeping America safe and strong, but not for sending Americans into harm's way when it isn't necessary. I'm for helping veterans when they return from serving our country, rather than cutting their benefits. I'm for lowering Congressional pay and perks, so that elected officials' jobs aren't about becoming millionaires, but rather are about their responsibility to serve their constituents and their country.

I believe in food stamps for the hungry, but not subsidies to big agricultural firms. I believe in healthy school lunches for our children, but not Republican supported junk food lobbyists. I believe in putting people to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and bridges, rather than blocking the vote on job development, and asking "where are the jobs?" I believe in energy independence, but not at a cost to our society and way of life. I believe we should do something about man-made climate change, not deny it exists. I believe we should leave America, and the planet, a better place for my kids and my grandkids, rather than a worse place.

I'm for easy to vote elections, rather than designing restrictions that make it harder for minorities, the poor and the elderly to vote. I'm for term limits for all elected officials, rather than lifetime politicians. In other words, I'm for democracy...a democracy that is quickly diminishing under the current Republican leadership.

Follow Gerry Myers on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glmyers
More:

Republican response towards Obama about Bergdahl

REPUBLICAN RESPONSE TOWARDS OBAMA

My response to a note from a friend, “we need to be fair and rational about it. President Reagan had done the same thing - remember Contra deals? Others have done too, why pick on Obama? Are we Republicans don’t have anything substantial to offer to the nation that we pick on him?

This is one of my friends writing, “Hey Mike, I had a request from a friend who to ask you what you think about Obama trading Bergdahl - who is a deserter, for the five worst Taliban terrorists. She had seen you on Hannity at some point and knew that I knew you. So I told her I would ask.

This is the one thing that could cinch it for Obama to be arrested for Treason because he also paid the group where Bergdahl had gone to $5 million to release him and they were NOT the Taliban.

Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net