What a contrast!
Mike Ghouse
Mike Ghouse
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Sunday, March 6, 2016
The most dangerous presidents on Day # 1
Mike Ghouse
Cruz, Rubio and Trump are the three most dangerous men that America has ever given birth to, and they are set to ruin American economy and the American way of life on Day # 1 in their office. Do we want to put them in?
The article is submitted to Huffington Post, and until it is published, I am supposed to wait, it will be out out Tuesday AM, if it is delayed, I can publish it at www.TheGhouseDiary.com and www.CenterforAmericanPolitics.comMonday evening, right here... let's hear your opinions.
Thank you
Mike Ghouse
(214) 325-1916 talk/text
Dr. Mike Ghouse is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer, news maker, and a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India, Israel-Palestine and foreign policy. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Visit him in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net for his writings at TheGhousediary.com and several blogs listed there in.
Mike Ghouse
(214) 325-1916 talk/text
Dr. Mike Ghouse is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer, news maker, and a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India, Israel-Palestine and foreign policy. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Visit him in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net for his writings at TheGhousediary.com and several blogs listed there in.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Republican Party will not be the same
Presidents do change the character of the party. Bill Clinton brought the Democratic Party to the center; Obama took it a tad to the left. Bush took further to the right, and now Trump will bring it ‘towards’ the center. Most Republicans are conformists and are willing to surrender their freedom for the party, and when an Authoritarian like Trump is at the helm of affairs, all will start bowing to him, one by one. It was embarrassing to watch Chris Christie kiss ass Trump, and others will follow the suit.
Trump said that he will work with Paul Ryan, the speaker of the house, but if he is not willing he is going to pay a price, a heavy price. This is how Trump will make others kneel to him and of course, the Republicans will do that, they love authority figures.
Trump will change the character of the Republican Party. More about Trump in an article “The rise of American Authoritarianism,” atwww.CenterforAmericanPolitics.com
Relax, no need to be tense, Hillary Clinton will be the 45th President of the United States of America, and not Trump and she will set the country on a moderate course, which is reflective of most Americans.
Thank
you
Mike Ghouse
(214) 325-1916 talk/text
Dr. Mike Ghouse is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer, news maker, and a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India, Israel-Palestine and foreign policy. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Visit him in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net for his writings at TheGhousediary.com and several blogs listed there in.
Adam, Conservatives and Progressives
ADAM, FREEDOM AND CONSERVATISM | TheGhouseDiary.com
As our founding fathers have laid it out; life liberty and pursuit of happiness are our inalienable rights. The freedom to speak, think, act and assemble is our inalienable right; this right was given by the creator to us upon birth, and it is as much a part of our life as brain, heart, kidneys, blood and other elements of the body are.
As our founding fathers have laid it out; life liberty and pursuit of happiness are our inalienable rights. The freedom to speak, think, act and assemble is our inalienable right; this right was given by the creator to us upon birth, and it is as much a part of our life as brain, heart, kidneys, blood and other elements of the body are.
I don’t have the full knowledge of genesis of creation in Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Zoroastrian, Sikh, Baha’i, Wicca, Native and other traditions, but it is embedded in the Abrahimic Traditions.
Adam’s story makes a point that is so relevant today; he was offered a choice to be a conservative or a progressive. He was told, if you do nothing, status quo will not change, you’ll continue to live in your comfort zone (conservative) in the heaven here with me. Or if chose to eat the forbidden fruit, you’ll bear the consequences, a change (progress) will dawn upon you, that you don’t know what to do with it, your body system will produce crap and you’ll have to find a place to dump it. I don’t like the smell of it, and will throw you out of here.
Adam deliberated on it, there was a challenge for him and consequences for the choices he would make, do I want to remain a conservative or a progressive? He took the bold step, he ate the forbidden fruit.
What did God do? He could have slapped Adam to behave and be obedient, but he chose to keep his word and set an example. He gave Adam complete freedom to choose and Adam chose to live with the temptation.
Adam deliberated on it, there was a challenge for him and consequences for the choices he would make, do I want to remain a conservative or a progressive? He took the bold step, he ate the forbidden fruit.
What did God do? He could have slapped Adam to behave and be obedient, but he chose to keep his word and set an example. He gave Adam complete freedom to choose and Adam chose to live with the temptation.
Thank God for giving us the inalienable right to be free, right to choose and the right to act freely. Thanks to Adam for choosing to be a progressive, otherwise we would not have experienced anything all, we might as well have been dead creatures living in that garden called paradise doing nothing, speaking nothing, eating nothing. What a bore!
The creator or the process of evolution would not have endowed us with the ability to talk, if it was not meant for us to use. This is all God’s plan. We must honor free speech no matter how difficult it is and we must be progressive to see and experience the world, and conservative enough not to fall of the stratosphere in taking bold risks.
The creator or the process of evolution would not have endowed us with the ability to talk, if it was not meant for us to use. This is all God’s plan. We must honor free speech no matter how difficult it is and we must be progressive to see and experience the world, and conservative enough not to fall of the stratosphere in taking bold risks.
Thank you
Mike Ghouse
(214) 325-1916 talk/text
Dr. Mike Ghouse is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer, news maker, and a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India, Israel-Palestine and foreign policy. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Visit him in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net for his writings at TheGhousediary.com and several blogs listed there in.
Mike Ghouse
(214) 325-1916 talk/text
Dr. Mike Ghouse is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer, news maker, and a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India, Israel-Palestine and foreign policy. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Visit him in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net for his writings at TheGhousediary.com and several blogs listed there in.
Friday, March 4, 2016
What makes America Great?
What makes America great? It is the exercise of freedom without fear that makes America, the greatest nation on the earth.
The CIA guy says, "“If some future president is going to decide to waterboard, he’d better bring his own bucket, because he’s going to have to do it himself,” Hayden said last November in an ABC TV documentary, The Spymasters."
and "“I pity the poor SOB who is President Trump's CIA director and gets the order to do interrogation techniques ‘worse’ than waterboarding,” Rizzo said, “not to mention the CIA general counsel or Justice Department attorney general who has the legal issue dropped in his or her lap.”
and, "If they don’t resign, the former general counsel suggested, they’d better get ready for a world of hurt in the media and the courts and on Capitol Hill."
This is the America I cherish. Men with conscience, conscience above the boss, job or income. This is what give me hope about humanity, too many good people over a few evil men.
Mike Ghouse
www.CenterforAmericanPolitics.com
U.S.
CIA WOULD REFUSE TRUMP TORTURE ORDERS, TOP FORMER OFFICIALS SAY
BY JEFF STEIN ON 2/12/16 AT 12:29 PM
Courtesy - Newsweek
Donald Trump would face huge resistance at the CIA if he were elected president and ordered the spy agency to resume waterboarding—or “worse,” as the Republican candidate has repeatedly pledged.
John Rizzo, who was a top CIA lawyer during the time the agency used “enhanced interrogation techniques,” or EITs, on prisoners, predicts CIA officials would rather resign than obey orders to revert to “hard measures” like waterboarding and beatings.
“I think certainly many of those who were connected to the EIT program over its six years’ span—and hundreds are still there—would? resign or retire rather than have to go down that perilous road again,” Rizzo tells Newsweek. “Who could blame them?”
Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week
Trump, the leading Republican candidate after his presidential primary victory in New Hampshire, has repeatedly pledged to reinstate waterboarding and ”a hell of a lot worse” if he wins the presidency.
“It works, OK?” the New York real estate mogul has claimed. “It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work." Even if it doesn’t work, he said in November, it should be used because terrorist suspects “deserve it anyway, for what they're doing."
The issue of waterboarding’s effectiveness—not to mention whether it amounts to torture—has been hotly debated for years. Former CIA and FBI interrogators have said publicly that such measures not only violate Geneva Convention prohibitions on torture, but are not as effective in the long run as breaking down prisoners with other techniques. Frazier Thompson, who heads the federal unit that interrogates key terrorism suspects, added his voice to that message this week, telling NPR that "rapport-based techniques elicit the most credible information."
No less than John Yoo, one of the George W. Bush administration officials who wrote legal memoranda green-lighting harsh measures, said this week that Trump completely misunderstood their use.
"I'm afraid Mr. Trump thinks of waterboarding, or worse, as a kind of punishment, like a sentence [or] revenge or reprisals," he told Fox News on Tuesday. "That's not what its purpose is. The purpose of it is not to take revenge for past acts. It's to figure out what to do now to get intelligence to stop future attacks."
After revelations surfaced a decade ago that the CIA was using such rough techniques on prisoners in secret sites around the world, the agency was embroiled in a years-long global uproar and a controversial Senate Intelligence Committee investigation.
It was such an ordeal for the CIA that one of its former chiefs, General Michael Hayden, declared recently that the agency would never do it again. Likewise, the nation’s current top spy official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, said this week that the CIA should stick with the stricter Army Field Manual on interrogations, because it “comports with American values.”
“If some future president is going to decide to waterboard, he’d better bring his own bucket, because he’s going to have to do it himself,” Hayden said last November in an ABC TV documentary, The Spymasters.
“I agree with Mike,” says Rizzo, who recounted the agency’s turmoil over waterboarding and other issues in a 2014 memoir, Company Man: Thirty Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA.
And woe to the CIA director, Rizzo added, who gets orders to resume waterboarding “or worse” from a President Trump.
“I pity the poor SOB who is President Trump's CIA director and gets the order to do interrogation techniques ‘worse’ than waterboarding,” Rizzo said, “not to mention the CIA general counsel or Justice Department attorney general who has the legal issue dropped in his or her lap.”
If they don’t resign, the former general counsel suggested, they’d better get ready for a world of hurt in the media and the courts and on Capitol Hill.
The CIA guy says, "“If some future president is going to decide to waterboard, he’d better bring his own bucket, because he’s going to have to do it himself,” Hayden said last November in an ABC TV documentary, The Spymasters."
and "“I pity the poor SOB who is President Trump's CIA director and gets the order to do interrogation techniques ‘worse’ than waterboarding,” Rizzo said, “not to mention the CIA general counsel or Justice Department attorney general who has the legal issue dropped in his or her lap.”
and, "If they don’t resign, the former general counsel suggested, they’d better get ready for a world of hurt in the media and the courts and on Capitol Hill."
This is the America I cherish. Men with conscience, conscience above the boss, job or income. This is what give me hope about humanity, too many good people over a few evil men.
Mike Ghouse
www.CenterforAmericanPolitics.com
U.S.
CIA WOULD REFUSE TRUMP TORTURE ORDERS, TOP FORMER OFFICIALS SAY
BY JEFF STEIN ON 2/12/16 AT 12:29 PM
Courtesy - Newsweek
Donald Trump would face huge resistance at the CIA if he were elected president and ordered the spy agency to resume waterboarding—or “worse,” as the Republican candidate has repeatedly pledged.
John Rizzo, who was a top CIA lawyer during the time the agency used “enhanced interrogation techniques,” or EITs, on prisoners, predicts CIA officials would rather resign than obey orders to revert to “hard measures” like waterboarding and beatings.
“I think certainly many of those who were connected to the EIT program over its six years’ span—and hundreds are still there—would? resign or retire rather than have to go down that perilous road again,” Rizzo tells Newsweek. “Who could blame them?”
Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week
Trump, the leading Republican candidate after his presidential primary victory in New Hampshire, has repeatedly pledged to reinstate waterboarding and ”a hell of a lot worse” if he wins the presidency.
“It works, OK?” the New York real estate mogul has claimed. “It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work." Even if it doesn’t work, he said in November, it should be used because terrorist suspects “deserve it anyway, for what they're doing."
The issue of waterboarding’s effectiveness—not to mention whether it amounts to torture—has been hotly debated for years. Former CIA and FBI interrogators have said publicly that such measures not only violate Geneva Convention prohibitions on torture, but are not as effective in the long run as breaking down prisoners with other techniques. Frazier Thompson, who heads the federal unit that interrogates key terrorism suspects, added his voice to that message this week, telling NPR that "rapport-based techniques elicit the most credible information."
No less than John Yoo, one of the George W. Bush administration officials who wrote legal memoranda green-lighting harsh measures, said this week that Trump completely misunderstood their use.
"I'm afraid Mr. Trump thinks of waterboarding, or worse, as a kind of punishment, like a sentence [or] revenge or reprisals," he told Fox News on Tuesday. "That's not what its purpose is. The purpose of it is not to take revenge for past acts. It's to figure out what to do now to get intelligence to stop future attacks."
After revelations surfaced a decade ago that the CIA was using such rough techniques on prisoners in secret sites around the world, the agency was embroiled in a years-long global uproar and a controversial Senate Intelligence Committee investigation.
It was such an ordeal for the CIA that one of its former chiefs, General Michael Hayden, declared recently that the agency would never do it again. Likewise, the nation’s current top spy official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, said this week that the CIA should stick with the stricter Army Field Manual on interrogations, because it “comports with American values.”
“If some future president is going to decide to waterboard, he’d better bring his own bucket, because he’s going to have to do it himself,” Hayden said last November in an ABC TV documentary, The Spymasters.
“I agree with Mike,” says Rizzo, who recounted the agency’s turmoil over waterboarding and other issues in a 2014 memoir, Company Man: Thirty Years of Controversy and Crisis in the CIA.
And woe to the CIA director, Rizzo added, who gets orders to resume waterboarding “or worse” from a President Trump.
“I pity the poor SOB who is President Trump's CIA director and gets the order to do interrogation techniques ‘worse’ than waterboarding,” Rizzo said, “not to mention the CIA general counsel or Justice Department attorney general who has the legal issue dropped in his or her lap.”
If they don’t resign, the former general counsel suggested, they’d better get ready for a world of hurt in the media and the courts and on Capitol Hill.
Election Math for 3/15/2016 by Steve Kornacki
Steve Kornacki predicts the following outcomes
Some rough math for the 4 possible delegate count scenarios after 3/15, with OH
and FL as the variables:
Scenario-1 Rubio Wins Florida, Kasich wins Ohio
548 Trump
394 Rubio
371 Cruz
104 Kasich
Scenario 2 – Rubio wins Florida, Trump wins Ohio
394 Rubio
371 Cruz
104 Kasich
Scenario 2 – Rubio wins Florida, Trump wins Ohio
614 Trump
394 Rubio
371 Cruz
38 Kasich
394 Rubio
371 Cruz
38 Kasich
Scenario 3 – Trump wins Florida, Kasich wins Ohio
647 Trump
371 Cruz
295 Rubio
104 Kasich
647 Trump
371 Cruz
295 Rubio
104 Kasich
Scenario 4 – Trump wins Ohio, Florida
713 Trump
371 Cruz
295 Rubio
38 Kasich
713 Trump
371 Cruz
295 Rubio
38 Kasich
The Presidential Penis: A Short History
I can see normal men talk about the size of their Penis, but to have to come out on the public stage with 15 million people watching was incredible.
A sentence made me laugh, "With the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming the first penis-free president, it’s not surprising that her Republican rivals want to remind the world that their genital anatomy is the traditional norm."
In India, it's subtle - masculanity is expressed in 56" size chest as claimed by PM Modi
Guess who is at the bottom?
By the way, I was reluctant to post this, but this site is about politics
Mike Ghouse
www.CenterforAmericanPolitics.com
The Presidential Penis: A Short History
Courtesy - New Republic
An obsession with the president's phallus is a feature of American history long pre-dating Donald Trump.
BY JEET HEER
March 4, 2016
Every American president has had a penis. The possession of a generative member is, in fact, the one trait they all share. Some have been Whigs, some Democrats, and some Republicans. There have been slave-owning presidents and abolitionists, bearded presidents and clean-shaven ones, Easterners and Southerners. Almost all have been white, but at least one has been black. Yet all have been men.
With the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming the first penis-free president, it’s not surprising that her Republican rivals want to remind the world that their genital anatomy is the traditional norm.
Donald Trump’s claim during the Republican debate in Detroit that he was amply endowed might have shocked many, but it belongs to a venerable history. Structurally, the president occupies the same position in American politics as kings and queens do in monarchies. The monarch’s body is, traditionally, the microcosm of the state, hence closely monitored. It’s not just of prurient interest to know whether the king is sleeping with the queen (or a consort). It’s a fact upon which the fate of the realm, and the royal lineage, hangs. Hence the ancient tradition of royal gossip, which in the American republic has been replaced by a concern for the presidential penis.
Stephen Jaffe/Getty Images
It’s not an accident that during the vicious presidential campaign of 1800 Thomas Jefferson accused John Adams of having a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Hermaphrodites are, of course, defined by their sexual organs.
The Founding Fathers created a framework for American politics that resulted in a repeated focus on the the penises of aspiring presidents and presidents alike. Was Abraham Lincoln interested in sleeping with black women, as Stephen Douglas alleged? Did Grover Cleveland have a child outside of wedlock? Did John F. Kennedy have more mistresses than there are stars in the sky? Such questions have been the very fabric of American public life.
Lyndon Johnson was always eager to let those around him know that he had an usually large penis. Reviewing a biography of Johnson in the New York Review of Books, historian Marshall Frady noted:
He early became fabled for a Rabelaisian earthiness, urinating in the parking lot of the House Office Building as the urge took him; if a colleague came into a Capitol bathroom as he was finishing at the urinal there, he would sometimes swing around still holding his member, which he liked to call “Jumbo,” hooting once, “Have you ever seen anything as big as this?,” and shaking it in almost a brandishing manner as he began discoursing about some pending legislation. At the same time, he would oblige aides to take dictation standing in the door of his office bathroom while he went about emptying his bowels, as if in some alpha-male ritual assertion of his primacy. Even on the floors of the House and Senate, he would extravagantly rummage away at his groin, sometimes reaching his hand through a pocket and leaning with half-lifted leg for more thorough access.
The December 2000 issue of Esquire.
Thanks to various sex scandals, we have detailed descriptions of Bill Clinton’s penis. According to Robert Bennet, Clinton’s lawyer in the Paula Jones case, “In terms of size, shape, direction, whatever the devious mind wants to concoct, the president is a normal man. There are no blemishes, there are no moles, there are no growths.” The Independent offered a more prosaic account: His erect penis is about five inches long, has the circumference of a quarter, and heads off at an angle, presumably rather like a finger bent at the joint.
Americans might be cringing at Marco Rubio’s nudge-nudge-wink-wink comment about Trump having “small hands” and Trump’s reassurances that both his hands and penis are in good shape. Yet this locker-room banter belongs to an old tradition running from Adams to Bill Clinton. The only way to stop American presidents from alluding to their penises is to elect a woman, which is likely to happen in November.
Jeet Heer is a senior editor at the New Republic.
@HeerJeet
A sentence made me laugh, "With the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming the first penis-free president, it’s not surprising that her Republican rivals want to remind the world that their genital anatomy is the traditional norm."
In India, it's subtle - masculanity is expressed in 56" size chest as claimed by PM Modi
Guess who is at the bottom?
By the way, I was reluctant to post this, but this site is about politics
Mike Ghouse
www.CenterforAmericanPolitics.com
The Presidential Penis: A Short History
Courtesy - New Republic
An obsession with the president's phallus is a feature of American history long pre-dating Donald Trump.
BY JEET HEER
March 4, 2016
Every American president has had a penis. The possession of a generative member is, in fact, the one trait they all share. Some have been Whigs, some Democrats, and some Republicans. There have been slave-owning presidents and abolitionists, bearded presidents and clean-shaven ones, Easterners and Southerners. Almost all have been white, but at least one has been black. Yet all have been men.
With the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming the first penis-free president, it’s not surprising that her Republican rivals want to remind the world that their genital anatomy is the traditional norm.
Donald Trump’s claim during the Republican debate in Detroit that he was amply endowed might have shocked many, but it belongs to a venerable history. Structurally, the president occupies the same position in American politics as kings and queens do in monarchies. The monarch’s body is, traditionally, the microcosm of the state, hence closely monitored. It’s not just of prurient interest to know whether the king is sleeping with the queen (or a consort). It’s a fact upon which the fate of the realm, and the royal lineage, hangs. Hence the ancient tradition of royal gossip, which in the American republic has been replaced by a concern for the presidential penis.
It’s not an accident that during the vicious presidential campaign of 1800 Thomas Jefferson accused John Adams of having a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Hermaphrodites are, of course, defined by their sexual organs.
The Founding Fathers created a framework for American politics that resulted in a repeated focus on the the penises of aspiring presidents and presidents alike. Was Abraham Lincoln interested in sleeping with black women, as Stephen Douglas alleged? Did Grover Cleveland have a child outside of wedlock? Did John F. Kennedy have more mistresses than there are stars in the sky? Such questions have been the very fabric of American public life.
Lyndon Johnson was always eager to let those around him know that he had an usually large penis. Reviewing a biography of Johnson in the New York Review of Books, historian Marshall Frady noted:
He early became fabled for a Rabelaisian earthiness, urinating in the parking lot of the House Office Building as the urge took him; if a colleague came into a Capitol bathroom as he was finishing at the urinal there, he would sometimes swing around still holding his member, which he liked to call “Jumbo,” hooting once, “Have you ever seen anything as big as this?,” and shaking it in almost a brandishing manner as he began discoursing about some pending legislation. At the same time, he would oblige aides to take dictation standing in the door of his office bathroom while he went about emptying his bowels, as if in some alpha-male ritual assertion of his primacy. Even on the floors of the House and Senate, he would extravagantly rummage away at his groin, sometimes reaching his hand through a pocket and leaning with half-lifted leg for more thorough access.
The December 2000 issue of Esquire.
Americans might be cringing at Marco Rubio’s nudge-nudge-wink-wink comment about Trump having “small hands” and Trump’s reassurances that both his hands and penis are in good shape. Yet this locker-room banter belongs to an old tradition running from Adams to Bill Clinton. The only way to stop American presidents from alluding to their penises is to elect a woman, which is likely to happen in November.
Jeet Heer is a senior editor at the New Republic.
@HeerJeet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)