Jon Stewart blasts right-wing cruelty towards immigrant kids

Jon Stewart blasts right-wing cruelty towards immigrant kids

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/16/1314308/-Jon-Stewart-blasts-right-wing-cruelty-towards-immigrant-kids

How stupid can the right wing be?

Republicans really don’t like atheists and Muslims

The article follows my commentary

It's amazing! Yesterday while I was updating my disclosure page on my site, I wrote independent for political affiliation but changed it back to Republican, and it has been going on for a while, almost since 2006. 

When this report came out, a few of my Hindu acquaints seemed happy that the Republicans don't like Muslims.  The poor men don't know that there is always a small percentage of people who don't like others.  I wrote back to him;

Not all of them.

However, they  also don't like Jews (yes), Hindus, Sikhs and African Americans (though on the face they don't. Cantor was the only one Jewish leader in the congress, he was defeated badly, and questions were raised about it, but did not go further. Do you recall Romney was the nominee, they hated Mormons too... it was blatant hate, even now they don't.

If an individual is packed with hate for me, I guarantee you, they have it for you on your back. We have to be careful with the people who malign others to make friends.

Hindus:
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ghouse/senator-williams-offend-hindus_b_1075392.html

2. http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2010/11/texas-faith-should-christians-and-other.html

Jews and Hindus too...

3. http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2011/10/pastor-robert-jeffress-and-his-bigotry.html

I have defended plenty and written plenty on it. I have spoken up on every issue that I am aware of.... do your remember the anti-Hindu School text book issue - it was the republicans...

A small percent of Republicans have an intolerant streak in them, the shameful thing is the good majority does not speak up when the few spew bigotry.

I would say, for every ass in one group, there is another in the other group.

Thank you
mike
Mike Ghouse
...............................................................................................................................
Republicans really don’t like atheists and Muslims
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/16/republicans-really-dont-like-atheists-and-muslims/

By Christopher Ingraham July 16

Photo by Flickr user Rupert Ganzer, used under a Creative Commons license.

 

Republicans express a much wider array of feelings toward people of different religious groups than do Democrats, according to a new Pew Research Center report. Pew asked respondents to rate different faiths on a "feeling thermometer" ranging from 0 (most negative) to 100 (most positive). Overall, Americans had the most positive feelings toward Jews, Catholics and Evangelical Christians, and more negative feelings toward atheists and Muslims.

But there are striking differences between respondents of different political parties. Republicans are much more positively disposed toward Evangelicals and Mormons than Democrats, and they have significantly more negative views of atheists and Muslims. The chart below says it all.

Overall, the Democratic spread between most-liked and least-liked faith groups is 18 points, compared to 38 points among Republicans. This reflects a number of political realities, the first being that Republicans are more than three times as likely as Democrats to be white evangelical Protestants. Republicans are also more likely to say that religion plays an important role in their lives.

Republicans' embrace of a predominately white, evangelical flavor of Christianity is both an asset and a liability at the ballet box. It's been great for shoring up their support among religious conservatives, but their support among the religiously unaffiliated - a rapidly growing demographic - has been eroding for decades.
Today's Pew study indicates that these trends are self-reinforcing. Republicans hold negative views of atheists and Muslims, which causes these groups to leave the Republican party, which in turn leaves the party with a more religiously homogeneous core. Meanwhile, the opposite dynamic is occurring among white Evangelical voters.

Religious identity is less fundamental to the Democratic party, so Democrats' disposition toward religious groups are more muted than Republicans'. In the end this makes for a broader religious coalition, but one with less intensity of feeling.

For more on the Pew poll, read Michelle Boorstein's take: "Which is your favorite faith group? Most Americans answer: My own."

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?