Why is Supreme Court "failing" to decide on anti-Sikh genocide, Gujarat massacre?

By Mike Ghouse* 


Is the Indian judiciary accountable? The people of India have never questioned the authority of India's judiciary. Indeed, they are the only branch of government, who have not been examined for their role in upholding the constitution and the rule of law. It is the time one questions their lackadaisical attitude towards growing lawlessness in the nation and hold them accountable for their action. 

What is holding the Supreme Court from rendering judgment, and bringing closure to the anti-Sikh genocide, Godhra burning, Gujarat massacre, Nellie massacre, uprooting of Kashmiri Pundits, Babri Masjid, and freedom of speech issues? 

The silence of the state when the liberties of the citizens are trampled has gone unpunished. The Supreme Court can put an end to the catalytic nature of these unfortunate and tragic events. 

Many things will be straightened if justice is delivered on a timely basis. If a concerted effort is made and the momentum is built to remind the Supreme Court to take their responsibility seriously, they can put an end to the fear that has grasped the nation. 

The politicians, legislators and the administrators may be corrupt, but the judiciary has remained intact and is still free in India. The decisions by the apex court on the issues of LGTB, Sabarimala, Triple Talaq, and Babri Masjid are good examples, people have accepted their decision with protests but not violence. If we can hold the Supreme Court accountable for preserving the constitution and restoring justice, it will restitute hope to the hopelessness that is prevalent in India. 

Dr Zafar Iqbal writes, “It is an unfortunate fact that many attempts were made to influence Supreme Court judges, still, compared to other institutions, the Indian Supreme Court's record is much better. The SCI is still the best hope we have. The venomous culture being supported and promoted by the people in power is spreading like metastatic cancer.” 

Supreme Court is the last resort and defender of India's constitution, and if they can make bold decisions, they can restore sanity and the rule of law to India. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution and serve as a check to the abuse of powers by the legislative and administrative branches of government. The judiciary is set up to be an independent body free from politicians and the bureaucrats. 

India is a mature democracy when people decide to unseat a tyrant like Indira Gandhi, they have done it through the ballot. Not only Indira, but the Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers of India have honored the verdict of the people and have stepped down every time when they lost the elections, and respectfully handed the keys to the new person elected. 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is no exception; he is one of the most attacked politicians of India, perhaps more than the combined attacks on all Prime Ministers. His biggest mistake is his inability to speak up when bad things happen in the nation. Since it is a pattern with him throughout the ordeals of rapes, lynching, murders, and harassment; one is inclined to think if there was merit in Sanjiv Bhatt’s statement that Modi let the goons have three days to finish killing as many Muslims as they could in a supposed revenge spree in Gujarat. 

Modi is not dumb, he can boldly speak out against miscreants that the rule of law would be applied to all those who lynch, harass, and rape, and will be punished severely. No murderer and rapist will get a ticket from his party to contest the elections. He knows he has the power and if he uses for good governance, it will substantially subside the cow vigilantes, lynching’s, rapes and murders and felicitation of criminals. 

Holding the Prime Minister accountable is the right thing to do. After all, it is the government of the people by the people for the people. Everyone is responsible in a democracy. Thank God, the era of dictators, kings, and tyrants is gone. 

Thanks to the Indian media, the first saviour of democracy, for protecting your rights to be free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Thanks to the “Indian Express”, the “Times of India” and the “Hindu” newspapers for standing up against the bullying by Indira Gandhi during her infamous emergency rule. The editor heroes went to jail instead of temporary protection that comes with sycophancy or silence. 

Now that awakening has come back, and we see the emergence of new heroes in the wire, squint, and other media outlets. They will be the new saviours of our freedom, and we need to celebrate them. Judiciary is a critical part of the governance if we write about the cavalier attitudes of the judiciary, things will start changing for the better. I welcome any criticism of the judiciary and solutions to go with them. 
--- 
*Public speaker, author, interfaith wedding officiant, executive director of the Center for Pluralism in Washington, DC. Click HERE for more 

Published at Counterview - https://www.counterview.net/2018/12/why-is-supreme-court-failing-to-decide.html

Obama Event in Carrollton

Yes we can - Obama Rally
Carrollton, Texas

Sunday, March 2, 2008
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Barbeque tonite Restaurant
2540 Old Denton road, suite 173
Old Denton at Trinity Mills (Bush Frwy)
(972) 877-9133


For the first time in our history, we have a candidate who is representing you, me and every American; he is an all inclusive candidate.

“as the son of an immigrant, his experience can affirm that the American dream is still intact for everyone, regardless of where one's parents were born. His dedication to his family, strong work ethic, opposition to the war in Iraq and deep faith are all qualities that are important to Latino voters." Indeed, he represents the hopes of every American; born, naturalized, white, Black, brown or yellow, Atheist, Bahai, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Muslim, Native Indian, Sikh, Shinto, Wicca, Zoroastrian and every American. Obama has become a powerful symbol of pluralism and inclusiveness.

Join us between 4 and 6 PM on Sunday, March 2 at Barbeque tonite, in Carrollton at the SE Corner of Old Denton and Trinity Mills (Bush Frwy or I-90). Be a part of the change to put American on the path of peace, progress and co-existence.

Mike Ghouse
http://www.mikeghouse.net/

Obama, the right choice

Obama is the right candidate.

Mike Ghouse

Expect the most complaisant attitude when you are not the norm. Norm here meaning some one people are not acclimated with.

Biden’s remarks that Obama is “articulate and clean” can be viewed from that attitude that hits you when you are not the norm. Being an Indian American, I have heard comments from both Black and White folks “Where did you learn your English, you are so articulate.” Likewise, if you are a woman; black, white or otherwise, you hear similar comments if you bring a project to fruition. If you are a Kid running a big corporation, you do get your share of cordialities.

Senator Obama’s response is worth exploring here. “Obama, however, spoiled the promise of that fight by never seeming to take offense.” Don’t we need a person in the white house who thinks and whose aptitude is molded do act right, rather than react from the seat of his pants?

He did not want to pick a fight, neither did he want to spend his time on trivial things. He knew there is a room for making the mistake, chance of slip of the tongue, and as long as that comment did not turn America upside down, he did not see the need to make a big deal out of it. That is the kind of person we need running our nation.

Victoria Brownworth wrote in the Journal –Register “If you want to succeed in high level politics in the U.S. as an African American, then you had better look and sound and act as white as possible.” I wanted to understand this statement in depth and started imagining a predominantly black neighborhood homeowners association’s meeting, where the homeowners got together to discuss the improvements they want to make in the neighborhood. There are a few who are adamant and wanted the funds to be spent on certain improvement; where as the other group had their own vested interests. When things were not going anywhere, there comes a woman (or man) who speaks about the need for doing things that benefit most people without compromising the basic needs of any group. The chances of that resolution passing are far higher than the other. Is that betrayal of one group over the other? If Senator Obama is that woman who propagated this workable solution, then should either group accuse him of acting as white as possible?

Should a white candidate represent only the interest of white people? Should the candidate be accused because he or she is representing the interests of majority of the Americans? The African Americans have a reason to take pride and support Obama, he is one of their own, who for the first time in history has a real chance to represent the interests of all Americans.

You have heard this too many times that the President of India is a Muslim, the Prime Minister is a Sikh and the head of the ruling party is a Christian in a Hindu majority nation. Since, all Indians are of the same race and same DNA, religion is used as a discerning factor. All the three have national interest in their hearts, they are proud of their community and will always be loyal to them, but they will not compromise on national interest. Is each one of them is sold out? Absolutely not! A week ago President Kalam attended the Muslim congregational Friday prayers and the Imam wanted to present gifts to him, he declined. He demonstrated an outstanding sense of integrity.

Victoria Brownworth further writes “he has a centrist message that is barely distinguishable between white and black.” Thanks God he does have a centrist message. He is an all inclusive candidate, White or Black is secondary to him. Thank God he is not on the extreme either, he opposed the un-wanted war, his clarity was crystal clear. He spoke against it while most others did not have the guts to speak up. He did his patriotic act of speaking up and saving America, this the kind of candidate we need to lead America in to the future and earn the respect from among the community of nations.

He is the beneficiary of the civil rights act and is a perfect example of the dream of Martin Luther King. Obama would be a dream come true.


Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer. His articles can be found at http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/ , www.FoundationforPluralism.com , www.MikeGhouse.net and http://mikeghouse.sulekha.com/ and he can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com


BLACK IN WHITE AMERICA
by Victoria A. Brownworth

copyright c 2007 Journal-Register Newspapers, Inc.

When Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) kicked off his presidential campaign by plunging his foot into his mouth with his comments about fellow candidates Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and former senator and vice presidential candidate John Edwards, the media focused its attention solely on his comments about Obama.

The reasons for this were political: racism trumps sexism in America (and everywhere else) and one white guy going after another white guy looks like an equal playing field. So only the Obama insults got noticed by the mainstream media.

Why? Because it’s politically incorrect to even mention race in America, it’s a quagmire far deeper and messier than Iraq.

Biden said, in the course of an interview with a reporter from a conservative New York newspaper (perhaps Biden’s first mistake), that Obama was something new to politics, a “first” as a presidential candidate, an articulate and clean African American.

This is encapsulating what Biden said, which might not be completely fair, but that’s politics for you. The fact is the only words that mattered in what he said were those two: articulate and clean.

Some, like myself, think that should have been when Biden dropped back out of the race, but he sallied on, with a series of apologies to Obama and the country, each more convoluted than the last.

Conservatives were salivating over the incident, just waiting for the Democrats to eat their own, as they are known to do. Obama, however, spoiled the promise of that fight by never seeming to take offense. Obama accepted Biden’s apology and said he wasn’t offended and that there were more important things to address than Biden’s gaffe.

Obama’s response would have appeared saintly, if it hadn’t been followed with the surprising agreement of two former African American candidates for president (Biden apparently also forgot that Obama was hardly the first).

Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton also waved off Biden’s comments as a verbal misstep, nothing to be outraged about. Jackson was particularly conciliatory. Although Sharpton noted that he thought he was pretty clean, both men said it was a mistake to be forgiven and forgotten.

Polls were taken and African Americans were interviewed on the street. A good 80 percent didn’t care what Biden said.

Does this mean that racism is over in America? Or just that blacks are used to white politicians making racist comments and when compared with Trent Lott saying the nation should have stuck with segregation, it didn’t seem so egregious?

Regardless of whether Obama, Jackson and Sharpton are willing to shrug off what Biden said, what the Senator declared does matter–not merely because he is a presidential candidate, but because he said what many Americans actually think about Obama–that he’s anomalous. That he simply isn’t like any other black candidate they remember.

He isn’t. Obama is a fresh face in politics, and as such has gotten a lot of buzz. Fresh faces always get buzz. Until they have been around for a while. Tabula rasa goes far in American politics while experience and baggage are interchangeable terms, politically. Since the fresh face will only last so long, let’s look at Obama in the context of the American racial divide.

Eight years ago people were talking about Colin Powell the same way they talk about Obama today: fresh, new, and let’s face it–in the context of the American black/white racial divide–not scary to white people.

This is what Biden really meant by what he said. It was subtextual, of course–he used his own euphemisms and he may not have realized what he was articulating either overtly or subconsciously. But it was clear: Obama attracts voters of all races because he never raises his voice, he has a centrist message that is barely distinguishable between white and black.
The course of American politics–national and local–supports the subtext of Biden’s comments, however. Consider the Philadelphia Mayor’s race. The best candidate is State Rep. Dwight Evans (D-Phila.), currently in last place in the polls. Why is Evans–the most visionary and accomplished of the candidates–in last place in a field with two other African American candidates and two white candidates?

Because he is the *blackest* candidate in the race. He’s dark skinned. He sounds black. In short, he can’t pass for the house Negro.

Colin Powell did pass. So has Condoleezza Rice. And now, Barack Obama. The real state of race in America is that bald and raw, still. If you want to succeed in high level politics in the U.S. as an African American, then you had better look and sound and act as white as possible. Because it isn’t black Americans who elect a black candidate; with only 12 percent of the population, blacks aren’t even the largest minority group in America anymore and fewer than half of eligible black voters actually vote. It’s white voters who elect b lack candidates.

Racism is still the elephant in the room in this country; whites fear a black candidate who doesn’t seem to share their values. That means a black man in a loud suit or with Little Richard hair, like Sharpton, scares them. Or a black man who sounds like he came from the streets, like Evans, scares them.

Last week there was a discussion about the field of Democratic candidates for president on NPR with several political pundits. Polls indicate that the majority of African Americans, like the majority of Democrats, support Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama. Sen. Clinton runs at 40 percent in the polls; Obama at 12 to 15, depending on the poll.

The pundits had several explanations for this. First, they noted former President Bill Clinton’s cachet with African Americans. (Nobel Prize winner and African American writer Toni Morrison once wrote in the New Yorker magazine that Clinton was “the first black president.”) Then they noted that many African Americans knew nothing about Obama, who has only been in national politics for two years. It was also noted that Obama may have won the election in Illinois because the Republican favored to win was forced to drop out right before the election, due to a sex scandal, and the sudden replacement brought in by the Republican Party was the far right wing lunatic (albeit African American), Alan Keyes (another former presidential candidate, by the way), who wasn’t even a resident of the state (yet still received 30 percent of the vote).
Finally, it was suggested that Obama might not have as much cachet with African American voters for the very reason he was attractive to white voters: while he’s literally an African American in that his father was African (from Kenya) and his mother a white American (from Kansas), he did not grow up in the mainland U.S. He was born in Hawaii, and then lived with his mother and her Indonesian second husband in Jakarta for several years. He returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents for his high school years.

Obama is black, but unlike previous black candidates for president like Shirley Chisholm, Jackson and Sharpton, he isn’t from urban America, he isn’t from “the hood,” he doesn’t have a political history grounded in the civil rights movement. He’s an anomaly.

And that’s the point Biden was really making: that Obama is not like any other black candidate Americans have seen before. He doesn’t stoke the ingrained racism that a Sharpton or a Jackson inspired in white voters, because he isn’t controversial.

From the fact that Obama, a life-long smoker, never produces a cigarette in public because it wouldn’t look right for a candidate to be smoking, to the fact that he never says anything objectionable, Obama doesn’t stir controversy. He’s always calm, collected and smooth. He doesn’t outrage anyone, like Sharpton and Jackson have, because he never says anything outrageous.

In short, Obama is a black candidate that white people feel comfortable with, much like Chakah Fattah in Philadelphia. Both candidates tow the party line, don’t provide any visionary (and thus possibly scary) ideas to constituents. They are, as one African American columnist noted, Dr. Huxtable, the lovable Bill Cosby character that white America embraced. As a consequence, in the privacy of their own homes (rather than to a reporter as Biden did), white voters can say that they like Obama (or Fattah), *even though he’s black.*

I like Obama. Other than the smoking, what’s not to like? He’s charismatic, he’s attractive, he says the right things. But given the choice between a rabble-rousing, challenging, in-your-face, old-school Democratic black candidate like Sharpton or Jackson and the mild-mannered, ruffle-no-feathers Obama, I’d take the rabble-rousers over the calm centrism of Obama any day.
This factor characterizes the black/white racial divide in America today: The only acceptable candidates of color are ones who don’t read as black to white voters, the ones who, in a different time in America would have been the “house Negroes”–the slaves who were deemed innocuous enough to be allowed to work in the house with the white folks, rather than in the field, with the other slaves.

It shouldn’t be that way in 2007; it’s time to smash this racial glass ceiling in America. We might need the Obamas and Fattahs to exude their charisma and charm in politics, because that has its place, too, but we surely need the Sharptons and the Jacksons to scream and yell and make demands, as well.

What Biden said was only the tip of the racial iceberg, because what Biden said doesn’t elucidate the flip side: that white America is terrified of *real* black America.

I live in real black America. In real black America there are schools with no textbooks, no libraries and no computers and although all the students were born here, none can speak proper English and their teachers, weighed down by the myriad dangers of being a teacher in an inner city school, don’t correct their grammar. Which means they leave their schools with far less chance of getting a good job than their white counterparts.

In real black America, where I live, drugs and AIDS and teen pregnancy are pandemic. In real black America, where I live, guns are easier to get than health care and fatherless boys are easy lures for gangs and drug runners.

In real black America we need black politicians who will work to fix the problems of real black America, not assuage the racial fears and biases of white America.

It’s Black History Month. Not African American history month, but *black* history month. America still sees color before it sees anything else. If it didn’t, Biden would never have even thought the things he said about Obama.

The best way to celebrate Black History Month would be to acknowledge how much work we still have to do to bridge the divide between black America and white America and that the answer might not be for black politicians to act more white but for white politicians to be more concerned about black Americans.

##########

Obama for President

Senator Obama has an impressive record of having the vision and making the right decisions. Much before he announced his candidacy. He gave a speech on June 28, 2006 on Faith and politics (http://wisdomofreligion.blogspot.com/2007/02/faith-and-politics-obama.html). A must read piece. I had that listed on the website http://www.foundationforpluralisim.com/ since June of 2006.

He is one person who has an interest in a pluralistic America. I am pleased to take the step forward to join his mission and support his candidacy.

India has an immense proven diversity in its system. India has led the way in looking at the candidates and not their religion or gender. I do hope Americans see the value in the persona of Obama and elect Obama as our President.

Mike Ghouse

Can Barack Obama Become President?
By Allan Hunt Badiner

The man with an increasingly good chance of becoming America's first black president officially announced his candidacy on a cold Springfield morning just as newly deceased Anna Nicole Smith and newly shorn Brittney Spears inflicted serious competition for TV viewers.

Nevertheless Barack Obama, the 45-year-old son of Kenya and Kansas, has penetrated the media's foggy obsession with tabloid stars and has become, in short order, a celebrity himself. He has jump-started interest in the presidential race and zinged from something like 12 percent name recognition to being a close second for the Democratic nomination. With the campaign's starting gun only just fired, Obama is already perceived as a powerful threat to Hillary Clinton's well-funded political juggernaut and John Edwards' carefully planned strategies, and has emerged as the presumptive speaker for the conscience of the country in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes.

Many are excited just to be passionate again about a presidential campaign, even if it turns out be the classic brief dance of an underdog. But with lightning swiftness, an Obama nomination seems tantalizingly possible. Even sitting presidents can't always raise the $1.3 million taken in by the Obama campaign during a single fundraising event in Los Angeles on Feb. 20 sponsored by Hollywood moguls Steven Spielberg, Jeff Katzenberg and David Geffen.

The field reports on Obama are also impressive: He recently addressed the largest ever pre-presidential-primary crowds in New Hampshire, Iowa, Ohio and Texas and has been endorsed by Iowa's attorney general and state treasurer -- pragmatic characters practiced at backing obvious winners in their state. The Iowa caucuses early next year will be among the nation's first electoral tests of presidential candidates. Inside the offices of MoveOn.org, there is agreement that Obama is far and away the favorite among its members and has been for the past six months. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has endorsed him, saying that Obama "personifies the future of Democratic leadership."

What do we know about this first-term U.S. senator who wants to be our president? The Obama resume is formidable: Harvard Law School graduate and president of the Harvard Law Review, civil rights lawyer, constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, author of two best-selling books, grass-roots organizer and Illinois senator for eight years, where his style has been described as methodical, inclusive and pragmatic. Factors such as his stalwart opposition to the Iraq war, a growing appreciation for his self-effacing charm and crossover appeal, and Americans' desire for fresh and future-focused leadership all seem to bode well for Obama's continuing momentum.

Race in the race
So now that Obama has burst on the scene as a real contender, the question becomes: Is America ready to elect a black man to its presidency?

For sure an Obama nomination would be a powerful update on the black condition in America and signal wide acceptance of the enormous diversity of its population. Yet, on the other hand there are pockets of resistance and reluctance in the African-American community to get on the Obama bandwagon. Some question Obama being the product of a mixed marriage -- his mother is white, his father from Kenya. Obama's origins were not the slave experience shared by many African-Americans, especially its senior political class. But that may not have as much impact in the rank and file, and among younger African-Americans.

Meanwhile Bill Clinton has been by far the most popular president among black voters, and Hillary Clinton has her share of their support. The initial reluctance among black voters should have been no surprise -- the Clintons have earned their close friendship with African-Americans. But as the viability of Obama's run becomes more apparent, a dramatic growth of his support in black America is to be expected.

Surely Obama's ideas and positions will play well in black communities: universal healthcare, technological improvements for poor and rural communities, reform for the political system, energy independence and ending the war in Iraq. The fact that racial minorities make up a disproportionate percentage of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan is not lost on people of color in this country.

For many, Sen. Obama represents a modern and positive image of blackness. He is a worldly, well-educated man married to a well-educated professional black woman. Another way that the race issue may ultimately work in Obama's favor is that it helps force those who are loudly critical to base their stand on his record and positions and steer clear of personal attacks that could be construed as racist.

But what about the election? The voting booth provides ample coverage for secret racists. Yet a newly announced Gallup poll found that 94 percent of Americans would vote for their party's African-American nominee for president before their party's woman nominee. And it's safe to assume that the same people who would reject Obama on the basis of his skin color would probably reject his progressive views even if he were white.

The votes he may "lose" due to race alone are votes he would not have had anyway. With his early and impressive following among young people, some experts are predicting an unprecedented increase of eligible young voters coming to the polls to support Obama in 2008.
Other well-known figures have paved the way for Obama's run. The first black woman to be elected to Congress, Shirley Chisholm, ran for president in 1972 and established the importance of the black vote. In 1984 and 1988, Jesse Jackson was taken seriously as a possible presidential candidate and won more states in the 1988 primaries than anyone thought possible. Throughout the 1990s former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was riding a wave of success after the first Gulf War, was widely lauded as presidential material. Had he run in 1996, he may well have won. As with Obama, his racially mixed background was seen as a plus. Finally, in 2004 both Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton ran full-blown campaigns for president.
It is unlikely that there will be a moment during the nomination process when everyone suddenly decides that the time is right for a black president. If history is any guide, these cultural shifts take on a life of their own, and only after the fact does everyone agrees it was time.

The experience paradox

In 2008, given the disastrous state of political affairs in America and its standing in the world community, the candidates with the most Washington experience appear to be headed for trouble in some popularity surveys. Polling consistently shows that many Americans want a fresh approach, a leader who is not representative of the system that has brought us to the crisis point. "Most voters want something new," says Democratic consultant Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000. "They want less D.C. experience and more good values."

Nevertheless, Obama does have significant experience under his belt -- eight years in the Illinois state Senate and a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his first two years in the Senate. Senator Obama has been notably productive in Washington -- he's the primary sponsor of 152 bills and resolutions, including three Senate resolutions, and 14 bills that he co-sponsored have become law. He introduced the Spent Nuclear Fuel Tracking and Accountability Act, which works to deter nuclear proliferation; the Drinking Water Security Act of 2005, which reduces pollutants in our water; and the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006, which secures health benefits for our veterans.

Obama's perspective on the topic of experience is instructive: "Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have an awful lot of experience, yet they have engineered what I think is one of the biggest foreign policy failures in our recent history. So I would say the most important things are judgment and vision ... and passion for the American people and what their hopes and dreams are." He is on record as believing that given a certain necessary level of experience, sound judgment is always more important than time on the job.

Can Hillary hold on?

Many Democrats agree that their '08 candidate should be a unifier, someone who can give voice to the issues Americans agree on and reach across independents and some Republicans for votes. Hillary Clinton, despite her high name recognition, acumen for raising money, political markers transferred from Bill and popularity among the Democratic elite, will have to prove that she is not the polarizing figure that many of rank-and-file Democrats worry about. Intelligent and articulate, she nevertheless lacks the ability to connect with people that made Bill so magnetic. To quote Bill Mahar, "She's the wrong Clinton."

Others fear that once Hillary is a candidate, Republicans will relentlessly dredge up vivid reminders of the more tawdry aspects of the Clinton presidency: the Monica Lewinsky revelations, Jennifer Flowers and the impeachment attempt. Many Americans were sympathetic to Hillary throughout that drama, but it is a fair guess that voters do not want to be reminded of it daily.

There is also a long history of Hillary being the prime target of reactionary talk show hosts throughout the American South and West, who railed on nightly about Hillary and invited listeners to call in and join in the demonization of the first lady when Bill was president. The right-wing conspiracy that Hillary decried did in fact exist, and she was their target. Although attacks on Hillary were essentially groundless, almost half of the American electorate go into this election season with a negative perception of Hillary Clinton.
Finally, Hillary's refusal to "admit she made a mistake" when voting on the Iraq war is regarded by many as a strategic blunder and stands in contrast to Obama's clarity about the need to end the occupation of Iraq quickly.
Obama on record
"I think one of the things about national politics that is so exhausting is this attempt to airbrush your life," Sen. Obama has said. "This is who I am, and this is where I've come from." Some critics have called Obama the Rorschach candidate, loved not so much for his positions but for his appealing persona. The instant rock-star status he enjoys, and the media frenzy he generates, have the downside of creating the impression that he is heavy on charm and light on ideas. Yet in his new book, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama spells out his platform in detail. His stands on the most complex and divisive issues of the day, from gay marriage to the Middle East to the death penalty, are fully explained in 384 well-written pages that the average reader can comprehend.

The book also recounts Obama's position on the Iraq war. In 2002, he strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq because he felt it was an ill-conceived venture that would "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost with undetermined consequences." He warned that an invasion without strong international support could "drain our military, distract us from the war with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and further destabilize the Middle East."

Currently, Obama takes issue with those who feel the problem was one of strategy or implementation: "I have long believed it has also been a failure of conception, and that the rationale behind the war itself was misguided." In January 2007, Sen. Obama introduced legislation that would commence redeployment of troops no later than May 1 of the same year.
But with friends like democrats...

Universal healthcare, energy independence, action on global warming, more affordable education and a phased withdrawal from Iraq all will have a clear appeal to progressives. But one should never underestimate the ability of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

A sizable percentage of the progressive sector may not be happy with any candidate who does not agree with them on every issue. They have already shown a surprising lack of concern for the political and practical consequences of their inflexibility. The following that Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nader enjoyed are cases in point. Intractable liberal voters are like window shoppers who feel most comfortable going home empty-handed and later whining that they couldn't find something they liked. They may have been as responsible for reelecting Bush as his hard-core conservative base.

Has America under George W. Bush dropped into an abyss of moral and economic bankruptcy? Sadly, this is what our nation now represents to the rest of the world. Perhaps the most groundbreaking aspect of an Obama presidency would be the message it sends globally: The post-Bush era of American governance has arrived.

If candidate Obama's challenges are daunting, his overcoming those challenges would be all the more significant for many around the globe. An Obama presidency could vault him and all of us into a new era, where sane and compassionate policies are championed by a more united and rational citizenry. Still, world popularity doesn't elect U.S. presidents. Will Americans be driven primarily by their fear or their hope? The possibility of a new president named Barack Hussein Obama hangs in the balance.

Allan Hunt Badiner is a writer, activist and editor of three books: "Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology," "Zig Zag Zen: Buddhism and Psychedelics" and "Mindfulness in the Marketplace: Compassionate Responses to Consumerism."

Almighty | Almeeky

Almighty Axis – Almeeky World
Mike Ghouse August 9, 2006

The Almighty Axis of US, UK and Israel is one side, and the whole world is on the other on the issue of Killing the Civilians. Because they are mightier than God, their word is the true word and a fact, all else is baloney.

The Almighty Leaders President Bush, Secretary Rice, PM Blair, PM Olmert and HC Nasrullah believe that they are righter than the Almeeky people of the world.

Hezbollah is a terror organization as their stance against Israel is not acceptable. Any group that is bent on killing the civilians are terrorists. 970 civilians are dead including Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese. Israel's bombing the civilian targets is un-acceptable, so are Hezbollah’s rockets on Civilians. None of us is a judge, only God is. They will kill 1000 more, 950 by Israel and 50 by Hezbollah and will stop it as the world public cannot take it any more. Then what is the point in butchering the civilians? Every Civilian Israel kills it loses moral grounds, and after 970 Kills I doubt how much moral ground it has. People will not get used to their apologies repeatedly... after killing the civilians every time.It may sound harsh, but wiping Hezbollah will never happen, hate breeds hate, killing breeds killing... oppression produces more Hezbollah.

The bully leaders of Almighty Axis have guaranteed the birth of more Hezbollah’s. It is no different than the shameful attempts made on Jews since Pharaonic days to crusades to inquisitions to Holocaust. Will of the oppressed cannot be erased. Hezbollah is bad, but Israeli action is giving them legitimacy... the Almighty Axis may declare that they are on the right side, but they know that it is against the principle of saving one life is saving the whole humanity that Judaism teaches. Killing of civilians has no justification, and support for killing is indeed killing.

First of all, all of them need to take a breath, cease fire is imminent. The Almighty leaders can stop this mayhem. Hezbollah needs to release the two Kidnapped Israeli soldiers and Israel needs to release the kidnapped Parliamentarians of Palestine, and 900+ detained Lebanese and Palestinian men and women with no charges. If Israel claims moral superiority, it better live it up.

I do hope our Almighty leaders wake up and recognize our mistakes and ask for God's forgiveness and forgiveness from the suffering families. We have seen evil done by men, and greater evil comes from being silent. We need to speak out, at least, please speak out.
May the creation bring peace to all of us, and save each life.

Silent no more.
Mike Ghouse
More

Facts don't matter for Bush

Facts don't matter
Jun 3 2006 11:38PM comments rss:

FACTS DON'T MATTER

Mike Ghouse

America's interest is purely economical and in some instances it is hypocritical.

Our foreign policy is operated from the seat of our pants. We Americans have to wake up one day and work on developing a long term reliable foreign policy for our nation, a policy that can cushion issues and retain friends.

Look at our history - except Chamcha Blair, we have bought support from Israel and Pakistan for 4 billion and a billion each. We keep paying dearly and beg for their friendship. We do not have a single reliable ally. Not one! Even the Saudis are turning to India and China. We have paid dearly to Spain, Italy, Ethiopia and Namibia to send a hundred or so troops to Iraq so we can use the word - coalition partners -. If America decides to cut aid - all our allies will disappear in a heart beat. It is sad! Something seriously wrong with our foreign policy.

Our relationships are formed on short-term goals and they live shorter than we plan. We are yet to base our relationships on values and on equal terms. India is by far the closet thing America will ever come to having the opportunity to have a value based relationship, and our short-sightedness hurts it. The sale of Missiles is neither good for Pakistan nor for India or the United States. All parties stand to lose in this equation. US Forces are fighting Talibans, why does Pakistan needs to drain $375 million from its treasury, they can use it for education and infrastructre. India, most certainly will drain double that amount in purchasing stuff from either US or Europe. Who gains? Instead of the defense contracors, let the productive software companies gain, the monies will create more jobs for all parties than the defense contractors would. We have to honestly ask, why do we not have friends around the world? Mr. President, they hate us because we are flip flop or act as a bully, that is not how we conduct international relationships. If want the honey, we don't kick the beehive.

Non-aligned, reliable democracies like India have been shunted in and out. You can really bring an alliance between India, Pakistan and the U.S and promote democratic values thru educational programs. Let's not add the weapons of mass destruction to that region, let's not supply Missiles, lets sow peace and reap peace. Just two years ago, Collin Powell went to Delhi and then to Islamabad and made an announcment there about including Pakistan as a Nato Ally. He just did not have the gall to share that in Delhi before leaving to Islamabad. Let the relationships be based on honesty and integrity.

Condi Rice says, -we pursued stability at the cost of democracy, now we are pursuing (rather pushing) democracy (at the cost of stability). Dear Ms. Rice, we have a lesson to learn from our failures. Look at our failures: Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Palestine/Israel, Iran.... If we do not throw our money, we cannot show any significant, consistent progress. Every dude we have supported turned out to be a bummer. We welcome the shift, but let that be a morally good shift rather than feel good shift.

Facts don't matter to our President and his cronies. Arey baba there are no WMD's - but he keeps parroting the same stuff. His ratings are going down by day. And now, he has to fix this - may be he is capable of creating a terrorist threat and get the public to shut up and support him.

I am an embarrassed Republican, I will stick with the party but will vote for any one for President in the next election. It is in our long term interest to keep the executive and the legislative branches in the hands of opposing parties. We have to shed the party loyalties and be loyal to the democracy that has survived for over two centuries. That is the only way to ensure survival of democracy in the land it gave birth to.

India needs to remain dignified and not succumb to the following attitude:

Koi jab tumhara hruday tod day, tadapta huwa jab koi ChoR day
Tab tum mere paas aana georgie, mera dar khula hai, khula hai rahega. tumharay liye!
(When you are betrayed, and when you are let down, you are always welcome to us George, our door is always open for you, just for you)

Koi shart hoti nahin pyar mein...mera dar khula hai, khula hi rahega.
(In relationships, there are no stipulations...)

Prime Minister saheb, prem may Shart honi chahiye, (We have to have stipulations)
es say sir jhukana nahin padta (if we have ground rules, we don't have to humiliate ourselves)
donon ki barabai hona zaroori hai.( equal partnership is a must to have lasting relationship)
equal basis pay jo bhi faislay hotay hain, ( Whatever decisions are made on equal footing)
wahi long run may sahi hotay hain. ( will sustain in the long run - that is the secret for our relationship)

Mike Ghouse

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5038672.stm BBC NEWS, JUNE 1, 2006

US 'agrees' Pakistan missile sale

The Bush administration says that it has agreed to sell Pakistan advanced missiles designed to be launched from ships and submarines.

It says that it has also agreed to sell $375m worth of related equipment.

In a notice to Congress, which has to agree the proposal, the Pentagon said the sale would significantly upgrade Pakistan's existing weapons systems.

It said that the security of the US would be improved by aiding what a "key ally in the war against terror".

'Significant upgrade'

The proposed sale is being dealt with by The Pentagon, which handles most such deals on behalf of the US government.

The Pentagon Defence Security Cooperation Agency said in a notice to Congress that 50 Harpoon missiles sold to Pakistan would be for launch from submarines, 50 from surface ships and 30 by air.

However, officials stress that the deal is far from being completed, and could be vetoed by Congress.

"This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that continues to be a key ally in the global war on terrorism," a Pentagon statement said.

The US lifted restrictions on arms sales to Pakistan last year, when it announced an expansion in two-way defence trade, missile-defence cooperation, technology transfers and weapons co-production.

The restrictions were put in place in 1990, but lifted after The Pentagon said Pakistan had "demonstrated its willingness to fight terrorists", especially in Waziristan.

Correspondents say Pakistan had originally requested a much larger package, but had downgraded the amount, saying it could no longer afford it after last year's earthquake.

Harpoon uses a satellite-aided navigation system which The Pentagon says will "significantly reduce the risk of hitting non-combatant targets, thus improving Pakistan's naval operational flexibility".

The Pentagon says that Pakistan will use the new equipment on maritime surveillance aircraft, surface ships and submarines

Pakistan has fought three wars with India since both counties won independence in 1947.

Vision for City of Carrollton

Najma Ghouse’s Vision for Carrollton

My vision for Carrollton embraces the following issues: Family Values, Safety of our Neighborhoods, Clean Air & Green Carrollton, Education & Volunteerism, Retail Revitalization, TOD and Re-inventing Carrollton, i.e., making Carrollton a destination City for homebuyers and entertainment.

1. Family Values
2. Neighborhoods Safety
3. Clean Air & Green Carrollton
4. Revitalize Retail along with TOD
5. Re-inventing Carrollton – Making it Destination Carrollton

My Vision for Carrollton

Carrollton Texas is a vibrant city which reflects the new face of global community. Like a well-kept secret, Carrollton is the crossroads hub of a metroplex that is as big and promising as the Texas sky and provides its citizens with heralded public education, safe neighborhoods, wide-open green spaces, and responsive leadership.

With envious access to a highway system that stretches in all directions, a stone’s throw from DFW Airport , major shopping and entertainment venues, Carrollton is a bedroom community primed for a new and contemporary identity. Residents know how wonderful Carrollton is to live in and grow a family; however, it is perhaps not the first thought as a destination for people when selecting a community in which to plant roots, open a restaurant, or start a business. Remote as they are; northern communities are thriving in dynamic ways that grow their tax base, enhance amenities, and attract people from across the metroplex.

Let’s get creative in ways that we can best serve our residents and combine what we love about our Carrollton with a pioneering sense of excitement. Let’s form community think-tanks to proactively expand the creative process in order to solve concerns, streamline operations, attract business, enhance police and fire response time, beautify the city, and provide all the things our city desires. Carrollton is in need of a northern police precinct and a women’s shelter. We need to negotiate a solution with Cities around Carrollton to sustain clean air and Green Carrollton. We need new ideas for economic development, housing strategies, and protecting our home values.

How can we revitalize the business corner of Old Denton and the George Bush? What about a community college? How can we maximize the impact of Carrollton ’s Dart connection? What about convention business, an entertainment complex, or a minor league sports franchise? What does Carrollton secretly want? Let’s find out!

Let’s create a citizen’s council which reflects the ethic diversity of Carrollton with people passionate about bridging ideas, exploring innovative ways to bring the pulse of the community to its leaders and value to its families. What about creating a student ambassador council to engage students in designing a student friendly city that addresses their concerns and safety?

Let’s show other communities how diversity can generate original, festive and productive citizenship. Let’s re-invent Carrollton and herald its stature as a “new” destination. A city with forward thinking leadership; a city of the future. And, let’s have fun doing it!

I will serve you with an unwavering commitment to bring valuable solutions to community concerns. I a committed to safe neighborhoods, clean air, destination Carrollton, quality of life and sustainability of Carrollton’s growth.

Please vote by December 5th, 2007 – Early Voting begins on Monday, November 20 and ends on Friday, December 1. Election day is December 5th 7am to 7pm
Let’s join together and make Carrollton a destination!

Najma Ghouse
www.NajmaforCarrollton.com

Governor Perry's insensitivity

Governor Perry’s insensitive comment

The American Muslim Congress joins the Jewish community and the Hindu American Foundation in their efforts to keep Religion and State as two distinct entities. This is in response to the letter published on November 10 and a press release by HAF.

Indeed, Governor Perry's comment is in-sensitive. He could have said, "as a Christian, if I do not follow the path of Jesus Christ, I will go to hell" and could have added, “this is applicable to me alone if I deviated from my personal belief” As a public officer, addressing in a public forum, his statement was thoughtless.

I urge Governor Perry to consider repentance and release, so he can govern us with a pure heart. Jesus welcomed all and Jesus asked all of us to follow him, not just Christians but every one.

May our Governor follow the universal embrace of Jesus, and that would be following the teachings of Jesus. God bless us.

Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.com


Dear Americans,

I am pleased to see this letter below to Dallas Morning News from the Jewish American Community, and want to re-acknowledge Jewish community's contributions ( http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/TG2005_REPORT.asp ) to making America a better and pluralistic society, where every one's sentiments are honored.

The World Muslim Congress joins you in your efforts to keep America for every American.

A few days ago, I wrote a note to our members and the groups:

1) Indeed, Governor Perry's comment is in-sensitive. He could have said, "as a Christian, if I do not follow the path of Jesus Christ, I will go to hell in a non-stop bullet train " and added, that this is not applicable to people who follow a different faith. As a public officer, addressing the public, his statement was insensitive.

2) On the issue of Ten Commandments, I have written extensively against the display of Ten Commandments in the public places. No matter how dear a faith is to the follower, his/her faith should not be displayed on public property giving the impression that this is the official faith of that space.

3) I am posting this to several groups and urge ya'll to write to Governor Perry, asking him to be sensitive, and apologize as a form of repentance and release, so he can govern us with a clean purified mind. Jesus welcomed all and Jesus asked all of us to follow him, not just Christians but every one. Following him is following the essence of his teachings; welcoming Lepers ( i.e., people regardless of the disposition) , giving space and room to the socially condemned and forgiving people.

May our Governor's follow the big universal embrace of Jesus, that would be following the teachings of Jesus.

If not, I will ask him....

Any one willing to join? - Mike@foundationforpluralism.com

Mike Ghouse
Speak up, Silent no more!

The Rabbinic Association of Greater Dallas and the Jewish Community Relations Council submitted a "Letter to the Editor" at The Dallas Morning News regarding recent comments made by Governor Rick Perry. This letter was published in The Dallas Morning News on Monday, November 13, 2006. A copy of the original letter sent can be viewed below.

November 10, 2006

To the Editor:

As reported in the Dallas Morning News, (November 6, p. A1), Governor Rick Perry stated after church services on Sunday, November 5 that “he believes … that those who don’t accept Jesus as their savior will go to hell.”

Governor Perry’s remarks leave us stunned and dismayed. The fact that the Governor practices his Christian religion and values his Christian beliefs is not what concerns us - in fact, we applaud him for doing so. However, when the Governor of the state publicly articulates his conviction that non-Christians are condemned to hell, we are gravely concerned.

The Governor is the political leader of all of the people in the state of Texas. We strongly believe that no form of government, and certainly no leader who holds political office, should endorse or appear to endorse any religious denomination. How one practices his or her religion is a personal matter and should be kept in the personal domain. The state of Texas is comprised of a mosaic of individuals belonging to different faiths, cultures and ethnic groups. What does Governor Perry’s statement say to those of the Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, or Bahai faiths, (just to name a few) who make Texas their home?

We call upon Governor Perry, as he enters his new term as Governor of the State of Texas, to be mindful and inclusive of the large constituency that he governs and to respect the diversity of all the citizens of this state.

Rabbinic Association of Greater Dallas
Rabbi David Stern, President

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Dallas
Marlene Gorin, Director

Here is another letter from the Hindu American Foundation.

HAF Condemns Texas Governor's Religious Bigotry

WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 9, 2006) – The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) strongly condemned the egregious and bigoted remarks by Texas Governor Rick Perry wherein he said that non-Christians are doomed and condemned to go to hell.

According to The Dallas Morning News (November 6, 2006), Gov. Rick Perry, after attending a sermon with nearly 60 Republican candidates on Sunday, November 5, 2006 said that he concurred with the Rev. John Hagee's comment during the sermon, in which Rev. Hagee said, "If you live your life and don't confess your sins to God almighty through the authority of Christ and his blood, I'm going to say this very plainly, you're going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket." The Governor told reporters that, "In my faith, that's what it says, and I'm a believer of that."

He is later said to have remarked, "Before we get into Buddha and all the others, I get a little confused there. But the fact is that we live in a pluralistic world but our faith is real personal. And my Christian faith teaches that the way is through Jesus Christ."

"Such remarks are not only divisive but silly," said Ramesh Rao, HAF Executive Council Member. "In times when interracial and interfaith dialogue are imperative, it's shocking that a high-level elected government official should abuse the state's podium by using it as a pulpit to spread contempt for non-Christians."

The Governor's remarks are not the first to be considered an affront to religious minorities under his governance. In 2005, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) spearheaded the filing of an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the United States Supreme Court in Van Orden v. Gov. Perry, a case involving the State of Texas defending its placement and management of a permanent monument of the Ten Commandments on government property.

HAF also expressed deep concern at the Governor's efforts in organizing the Texas Restoration Project, in which ministers are encouraged to get their congregants politically involved in their communities. "It is unfortunate that Governor Perry has not learned from the mistake of his predecessor governor, George W. Bush, who was roundly criticized for his 1993 statement that 'those who do not accept Jesus as their personal savior cannot get to heaven'," said Aseem Shukla, member of the HAF Board of Directors. "We hope now that the mid-term elections are over, and the results are in, better sense will prevail among religious fundamentalists in the United States. We are a multi-faith, diverse nation, and we believe that people will not countenance such bigotry, especially from those who hold high office."

The Hindu American Foundation is a 501(c)(3), non-profit, non-partisan organization promoting the Hindu and American ideals of understanding, tolerance and pluralism. Contact HAF at 1-877-281-2838 or on the web at www.hinduamericanfoundation.org .

Mike Ghouse
Foundation For Pluralism
www.FoundationforPluralism.com

If we can learn to accept and respect the God given uniqueness of each
one of the 7 billion of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge.

THE SEVEN COMANDMENTS OF PLURALISM

1) We shall not ridicule anyone that God has created.
It amounts to ridiculing the creator God himself, herself or itself.

2) We shall not attempt to undermine the divinity of other faiths.
It amounts to arrogance, a quality to get rid of, and become a righteous person.

3) We shall not commit another sin in attempting to enforce that one religion is better
than another by claiming that we have the best solutions, or hinting any superiority.

4) We shall not blame any religion or a group for the acts of the individuals
just because they belong to that faith or group.

5) Let’s learn to differentiate the wrong doers from the religion,
while appreciating the goodness of each religion.

6) We shall strive to rid ourselves of greed, anger, hate, haughtiness,
ill-will, pettiness, malice, and ignorance to achieve spirituality.

Our salvation, our peace of mind, our nirvana, our Moksha, our mukti, our freedom
and our joining the kingdom of God is directly dependent on living a prejudice free life
and a life as described in the 6th commandment. Every religion frees us from the negative
engagements. When we truly believe in the ultimate oneness of God and the ultimate
oneness of mankind, we have accepted God’s greatness and parity of human beings.

The world is a better place today because of the spirituality, without which there would be chaos.
All the religions are on the same side; that of goodness for mankind.


If you wish to join the discussion group:
Please send an email to Foundationforpluralism-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Farmers Branch goes nuts

CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH

Mike Ghouse
Letter to Dallas Morning News (was not published)

Without any doubt, all should learn English. It is the language of communication and it is in the interests of those who do not speak, to really take the time to learn it. Inability to communicate on their own, puts them at a disadvantage.

Without any doubt, criminals should be kept out of any City as the law permits, safety of Citizens is the prime job of the City Council.

My concern is the vigilantism that may surface. I believe, the Immigration issue be best handled by our Federal Government. Let's not take law into our own hands, it sets dangerous precedents. We will come to regret the City’s decision. We need to give long term thinking a hand and rid ourselves of our short term motives to be earn the seat.

Let's not mess up our nation by creating our own City States, chasing people from city to City. Let the defense, currency, immigration remain in the domain of the Federal government for running a coordinated machine. Let's not screw it up.

Let our nation remain one nations under God, indivisible with liberty and justice to all who live on this soil.

We are in it together for the safety, security and well being of Americans and we have to honor different opinions, whether we agree or not. That's what makes America the greatest country on the earth, a beacon of democracy and freedom.

Our pledge is our faith in one nation under God with liberty and justice to all. There must be a reason, the founding fathers did not insert the words “justice to Citizens”. And for over 200 years we have followed our constitution and we should honor the wisdom of our founding fathers. Jesus welcomes and embraces all whether we are Lepers or socially un-acceptable. Let’s follow his path, the right path.

Mike Ghouse
http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/


In the picture: Dr. Marco Rico, Domingo Garcia, Roberto Alonzo and Mike Ghouse

Think about it:

If you or I forget the wallet at home....and cannot produce the ID to the Cops whom we trust, does it give room to a few to treat us differently? What if three people in a row were hauled off, and 4th one is one of us?You and I may not look Hispanic, what if someone does? what if a legal Hispanic forgets the wallet? If any one treats you and I differently than the undocumented alien, except the immigration officers, would that be the right thing to do? Does one have to look like some one else to get a different attitude? No, All need to be treated with justice and fairness.

I believe, the Federal government should stop illegal immigration, not the Local police and property owners. I would not want to look suspiciously at the hard working peaceful neighbor next door. Those few who are calling the one's who oppose in less than glowing terms, need to realize, that it is the hype not the fact. Americans, including Hispanic-Americans and all other Americans want English to be the language of communications, and want secure borders and want the Federal Government to handle the issue.I am writing this because I office in Farmers Branch, and I forgot to bring my wallet today (11/17/06) and have to drive around... I was worried first, then I said to myself, let me see what happens to me.

Added: 11/20/06

Illegal immigration should be stopped, and no one should enter the United States without documentation. We must welcome all through proper documenation. We have the INS to handle it and we should let them handle it.

Let us support our police in thier efforts to keep our neighborhoods safe and focus on lowering the crime rate. Let's not burden them with additional duties. It will cost the City funds and it might lend itself to vigilantism. Safety of its residents as its chief goal of Police.

Let us help the new immigrants learn English to communicate, it is in their interest to learn the language to properly understand the rights and duties of a resident of a city.

Please let me know if you differ and that would be fine with me, as democracy is all about accepting and respecting each others opinions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15686734/ http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/16003335.htm


Council discusses legal ramifications of immigration measures

ANABELLE GARAY
Associated Press

FARMERS BRANCH, Texas - Council members were in a closed meeting with the city attorney Monday to discuss legal ramifications of proposals intended to keep illegal immigrants away from this Dallas suburb.
It was unclear whether the proposals, which would make English the official language of Farmers Branch and fine landlords and businesses that deal with illegal immigrants, would go to a vote Monday.
Opponents of the measures, meanwhile, collected signatures on a petition urging the city not to become the first in Texas to pass such strong anti-immigrant laws. They submitted more than 80 signatures to the mayor's office Monday.

"It's very much against the very fiber of this nation," said Mike Ghouse, a homebuilder with a local group called Foundation for Pluralism who has an office in Farmers Branch.

Supporters say the ordinances are necessary because the federal government has failed to address the issue. Critics argue the proposals could lead to sanctioned discrimination and racism.

Attorneys with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, a civil rights advocacy group, told city council members that the proposals could violate federal law if approved.

The group said it would evaluate any measures approved by the council to determine their legality.
The rules could force untrained business owners and landlords to evaluate a wide array of immigration documents to determine if the person carrying them is legally in the country, MALDEF staff attorney Marisol Perez said.

"You're putting them in the shoes of an immigration officer," she said she told council members.
More than 50 municipalities nationwide have considered, passed or rejected similar laws, but until now that trend hasn't been matched in the Lone Star State.

Such sentiments and the proposed ordinances trouble many people in Texas, where many Latino families can trace their roots here to the era before statehood.

Since 1970, Farmers Branch has changed from a small, predominantly white bedroom community with a declining population to a city of almost 28,000 people, about 37 percent of them Hispanic, according to the census. It also is home to more than 80 corporate headquarters and more than 2,600 small and mid-size firms, many of them minority-owned.

"They're afraid that Farmers Branch is becoming Hispanic," said Christopher McGuire, a resident of the city and spokesman for a group called United Farmers Branch. "It's going to happen, and that's not a bad thing."
The local debate over illegal immigration began in August and spawned demonstrations by both sides.
The proposals follow a vote this year in Hazleton, Pa., to fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, deny business permits to companies that employ them and require tenants to register and pay for a rental permit.
However, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of the Hazleton ordinance while he considers a lawsuit against the town by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.
_____________________________________
Farmers Branch City moves against illegal immigrants

08:45 AM CST on Tuesday, November 14, 2006
By STEPHANIE SANDOVAL / The Dallas Morning News

Farmers Branch on Monday adopted strict measures against illegal immigrants, requiring apartment renters to provide proof of citizenship or residency and making English the city's official language.
The City Council also unanimously agreed to let police apply to participate in a federal program that would enable them to check the residency status of suspects in custody and initiate deportation proceedings in certain cases.
The measures, believed to be the first of their kind in Texas, brought cheers from supporters but sparked anger among some Hispanics and other opponents that the action will cause further racial tension in the city.

LARA SOLT / DMN Protesters gathered at Farmers Branch City Hall hours before Monday night's City Council meeting. Shouting matches periodically erupted outside the council chambers between supporters and opponents of the ordinances.

Some Hispanic activists said they will sue the city over the decisions.
"Tomorrow in the courts. I'm winning tomorrow," said Jorge Rivera, an Irving community activist. When he addressed the crowd after the decision, he said in Spanish, "Don't worry, we are going to win."
Dallas activist Domingo Garcia also vowed to sue.

Representatives of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, however, said the language of the resolutions and ordinances approved Monday are different from what other cities have adopted – and over which they have sued. They said they will have to review the language before deciding whether to pursue legal action against Farmers Branch.
"It's hard for us to have firm, specific legal opinions, but we're all disappointed they chose to pursue this divisive path," said Rebecca Bernhardt, immigration, border and national security policy director for the ACLU of Texas.

Luis Figueroa, legislative staff attorney for MALDEF, said he, too, was disappointed.
"Farmers Branch will likely feel the negative effects of this measure in its economy, as well as with increased racial tensions," he said.

Farmers Branch resident David McKenzie rejoiced at the city's decision.
"I'm happy, very happy," he said. " 'Surprised' is the word. I think it gets it going in the right direction. It's a start. ... I think it will be symbolic. I really do."

The English as the official language resolution means that the city generally will not provide documents any longer in Spanish but does not affect the use of Spanish by businesses or individuals.

"This is not meant to keep anyone from speaking Spanish or any other language in their home, at their workplace, in public or anywhere else," City Council member Tim O'Hare said.

A separate resolution calls for the Police Department to apply to enter into an agreement with ICE to essentially train a jail officer and give that person access to a federal database to check the immigration status of people in custody for crimes.

Under the rental restrictions, apartment owners and managers would be required to obtain papers showing citizenship or eligible immigration status from each member of a family planning to live there.
Also Online
Groups debate immigration
Tell Us: Share your thoughts on the ordinances
En Español (AlDiaTX.com)

The ordinance will go into effect Jan. 12 and will not affect anyone with an existing lease or rental agreement.
Violations are a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500, with each day a separate offense.
Wylie resident Sherry Wilkinson said earlier Monday that she wants her city to do the same thing.
"As soon as it happens here, I'm taking it to Wylie," she said. "The key is to get it done here."
Hundreds of people crowded into City Hall earlier Monday, filling the council chambers and spilling over into the lobby.

LARA SOLT / DMN Billy Bruce of Duncanville was among those making his views known at Farmers Branch City Hall on Monday night.

Outside, nearly two hours before the meeting, dozens of protesters stood outside waving American flags and chanting, "People united will never be divided," and "What do we want? Justice. When? Now."
They bore signs asking, "Mr. O'Hare, What would Jesus do?" and saying, "In God We Trust, O'Hare is unjust."
Mr. O'Hare thrust Farmers Branch into the national spotlight in August with suggestions that the city emulate cities in other states that had adopted local ordinances making it harder for illegal immigrants to live and work there.

Earlier O'Hare suggestions that were not addressed by the council Monday were to penalize businesses that hired illegal immigrants and to curtail city subsidies for children of illegal immigrants in some city youth programs.

The council debated the merits of those proposals and the legal issues surrounding them behind closed doors Monday, citing state open meetings laws that allow governmental bodies to meet privately for consultation with their attorneys regarding pending litigation.

Moments before closing the doors, representatives of MALDEF briefed the council on the legal and financial ramifications of adopting such ordinances.

LARA SOLT / DMN Farmers Branch police told resident Gerald Colgrove, who supported the limitations on illegal immigrants, that he'd have to leave during the shouting outside the council meeting.
During the meeting, a flurry of shouting matches periodically erupted outside, the two sides separated by a few feet and exchanging slogans and accusations of racism.

Police escorted one woman off the property, and another was taken into custody for disorderly conduct.
Mr. Rivera led opponents with a megaphone, appealing for calm during moments of tension as more than a dozen police officers monitored the situation.

As members of Hispanic and civil rights groups led their followers in chants of "We are Americans," one woman shouted back, "No you're not."

Chants of "U.S.A." by opponents of the proposals were met by shouts of "Enforce the law" by a small group of supporters.

"We understand we have some big problems. We don't support illegal immigration," said Luis de la Garza, a Farmers Branch resident and secretary for foreign relations for LULAC's national organization.
Staff writers Paul Meyer and Katherine Leal Unmuth contributed to this report.
E-mail ssandoval@dallasnews.com

Republicans Paid a Price

REPUBLICANS PAID A PRICE

Dear Congressman Armey:

Congressman Armey, you couldn't have said it any better. “Republican lawmakers forgot the party's principles, became enamored with power and position, and began putting politics over policy.

Indeed, we became arrogant believing that America is ours to rule without any one questioning it, we discouraged dissent, we wanted “yes men and women” around us and we had plenty of them in the house and the senate. We had the audacity to demean any one who questioned “our policies”, we were too eager to label them less than patriotic. Well, we paid a price for it.

I trust the American people, they will always do the right thing when things are veering off the path of democracy. They have communicated that we need to remain connected with realities of the ground. Our ratings were in shambles, yet we refused to see the writing. Democracy was in peril with us dictating around the executive, judicial, senate and the house. It wasn’t right for our democracy. Checks and balances are a must, debate is a must and the essence of democracy is the ability to question, we had lost it.

Let’s wake up and be more human.
Mike Ghouse

There is no one to blame but ourselves.

Dick Armey

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-gopwrong_05edi.ART.State.Edition1.3e50b25.html
Somewhere along the road to a "permanent majority," the Republican Revolution of 1994 went off track. For several years, we had confidence in our convictions and trusted that the American people would reward our efforts. And they did.

But today, my Republican friends in Congress stand on the precipice of an electoral rout.
Even the best-case scenarios suggest wafer-thin majorities and a legislative agenda in disarray. House-speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi has already begun her transition planning.

Where did the revolution go astray? How did we go from the big ideas and vision of 1994 to the cheap political point-scoring on meaningless wedge issues of today – from passing welfare reform and limited government to banning horsemeat and same-sex marriage?

The answer is simple: Republican lawmakers forgot the party's principles, became enamored with power and position, and began putting politics over policy. Now the Democrats are reaping the rewards of our neglect – and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

In 1989, Newt Gingrich rose to the number two leadership position in the House after a contentious three-way race pitting young backbench conservatives such as myself, Bob Walker, Joe Barton and others against old bulls such as Minority Leader Bob Michel and other ranking members. We thought they suffered from a minority party mindset and were too accommodating of the Democrats. Out of congressional power for nearly two generations, Republicans had become complacent. Senior members of the party were happy to accept the crumbs afforded by Democratic chairmen. Life was comfortable in the minority as long as you did not rock the boat. Members received their perks – such as travel abroad and special banking privileges – and enough pork projects for re-election. The entire Congress lived by the rule of parochial politics.

Mr. Gingrich and I and a handful of true believers in Ronald Reagan's conservative vision set the goal of retaking the House. The "Contract With America" outlined our platform of limited government. This vision appealed to both the social and economic wings of the conservative movement; equally important, it included institutional reforms for a Congress that had grown increasingly arrogant and corrupt. The contract nationalized the vision of the Republican Party in a way that unified our base and appealed to independents. We championed national issues, not local pork projects or the creature comforts of high office.

Republican Revolution

In 1994, this vision was validated when Republicans took 54 seats in the House, eight seats in the Senate and control of both houses of Congress.

Welfare reform in 1996 only affirmed the revolution. Bureaucrats, special interests and the White House all claimed that the sky would fall if we touched this failed Great Society program, but we held firm. When you take on a sacred cow, you must kill it completely; tinkering on the margins is ineffective. In the end, the reform proved so successful and popular that President Bill Clinton (who rejected the original bill twice) considers it one of the best ideas his administration ever had.

At one point during the welfare reform debates, a member approached me and said, "Dick, I know this is the right thing to do, but my constituents just won't understand." I told him, "So you're telling me they are smart enough to vote for you but not smart enough to understand this?" He ended up voting to pass the bill.

Yet despite such successes, we didn't learn the right political lessons. A few months before the victory on welfare, we lost the battle over the federal government shutdown of 1995, when we were outmaneuvered by Mr. Clinton, a masterful political operator. After that fight, too many Republicans apparently concluded that America wanted bigger government. This misreading was the first step on the road away from the Reagan legacy.

We emerged as a wounded party, we stopped trusting the public, and we internalized the wrong lesson. Since the party won the majority in 1994, the GOP Conference had been consistent in requiring offsetting spending cuts for any new spending initiatives. (In fact, during the aftermath of a large Mississippi River flood, Rep. Jim Nussle even waited to find and approve offsets before moving the relief legislation for his own state of Iowa.) But by the summer of 1997, the appropriators – rightly called the "third party" of Congress – had begun to pass spending bills with Democrats. As soon as politics superseded policy and principle, the avalanche of earmarks that is crushing the party began.

Now spending is out of control. Rather than rolling back government, we have a new $1.2 trillion Medicare prescription drug benefit, and nondefense discretionary spending is growing twice as fast as it had in the Clinton administration. Meanwhile, Social Security is collapsing while rogue nations are going nuclear and the Middle East is more combustible than ever.

Yet Republican lawmakers have taken up such issues as flag burning, Terri Schiavo and same-sex marriage.
They're fooling only themselves.

If Democrats take control of Congress on Tuesday, they will form an accidental majority. They are not succeeding because of their principles or policy proposals, but simply because they have kept their heads down. Republicans, fearful of taking on big tasks and challenges, may be defeated next month by a party that offers nothing on the key issues of our day.

Ms. Pelosi says she would preside over a moderate Democratic majority and has committed to raising taxes only as a last resort. But Democratic policy goals such as nationalized health care and low-interest student loans are expensive, and dozens of new spending "priorities" will crop up as soon as the election results are tallied. Democrats have promised that all new spending will be offset by tax increases, so will they raise taxes in the run-up to the 2008 race?

Dems hungry for revenge

In essence, Ms. Pelosi will be forced to choose between a vocal base – expecting immediate satisfaction on issues such as withdrawing from Iraq, legalizing same-sex marriage and the impeachment of President Bush – or policies that are tolerable to a majority of Americans. That's quite a dilemma: appeasing a base that has been hungry for political revenge since 2000, or alienating moderate and swing voters.
Ms. Pelosi has stated that House committee chairmen will be chosen by seniority. This could backfire on the Democrats, because members from the most consistently partisan districts are usually the ones who stick around the longest.

Chairmen have the power of the subpoena; Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the would-be judiciary chairman, has already drafted articles of impeachment for Mr. Bush, while others are calling for investigations on the war in Iraq and the federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina. A revenge-hungry Democratic majority, substituting political grudge matches for serious policy, will not remain a majority for long.

How can the Republicans respond?

The leadership must remember that the modern conservative movement is a fusion of social and fiscal conservatives united in their belief in limited government. The party must keep both in the fold. Republicans also need to get back to being the party of big ideas. The greatest threat to American prosperity today is a catastrophic fiscal meltdown resulting from long-term entitlements. Democrats have already lined up behind the solution of raising taxes and reducing benefits. But Americans want more freedom and choice in education, health care and retirement security.
Republicans – too busy dreaming up wedge issues to score cheap points against Democrats – have lost sight of their broad national agenda.

The likely Republican losses in this week's elections will not constitute a repudiation of the conservative legacy that drove the Reagan presidency and created the Contract With America. To the contrary, it would represent a rejection of big government conservatism. When we get back to being the party of limited government, putting a national agenda ahead of parochial short-term politics, we will again be a party that the American voters will trust to deal with the serious challenges facing our nation.

The 2006 midterm elections will be a success for the Democrats. Republicans will have to manage their own disappointment. Fingers will be pointed, and various villains will be fashioned out of recent events. But the plain fact is that Republicans have been setting the stage for this outcome for nearly a decade, running from themselves and their own principles. We will not find ourselves by conforming to the status quo, but by returning to our Reagan roots.
When we act like us, we win. When we act like them, we lose. Let's win.

Dick Armey, the North Texas Republican who was House majority leader from 1995 to 2003, is chairman of the think tank FreedomWorks. You may contact him through his organization's Web site, www.freedomworks.org
// Image1 end -->
// Image2 end -->

Freedom at last on 110706

Freedom at at last
on Historic November 7th, 2006

November 7, 2006

Mike Ghouse

On the night of Tuesday, November 7, upon the news that Democrats won the house, I took a deep breath and said to myself "Thank you God, freedom at last". The emotion I felt was very similar to the one when Nelson Mandela was released and given his God given freedom.

Our forefathers had designed one of the best systems of Governance in the world. With pure checks and balances to prevent individuals becoming fierce and frightening to the general public.

One may not agree with it, but I do know most of the free spirited Americans were choked. Hell, the 435 congress persons and 100 Senators dared not come of out the rat holes. They were as scared to speak out against that fiery man should they be labeled un-patriotic. Our man got every one by their balls, that's how scared America was.

Unilateralism is the stepping stone to Fascism. Our man Bush was about to step up from the first step to the next. I believe in God and I have full faith in the free spirited America, thanks to them and thank God, our nation was saved on the night of November 7, 2006. A historic re-start for America.

The essence of freedom is the ability to question every thing . American Media has never questioned our President's statements for the last several years, it is always like Government run or Business run press. No one dared asked him the questions. With the exception of Public Radio and Television, we do not have a free press when it comes to the international issues, we have businesses's that run news and are funded and influenced by advertisers. We have to accept that.

November 7th has changed it all. All those scared rats are out of the hole and are speaking up now. The Americans brought the freedom back to the defenders of the freedom, the Media. You can see the difference in what and how they talk on the television prior to November 7th and now.

The Free press Icon, Ted Koppel spoke up on Fox or CNN recently and I sighed deeply with gratitude, thanks to my fellow Americans, we are getting to the era of free press now. Now, I do not agree with David Duke, he is an opportunist and racist, but he was "allowed" to speak on CNN, that is the good thing, let us Americans get different points of view and then decide what is right or wrong. Let them boys be news disseminators and not tell us what to believe.

David is a hated guy and although he is wrong, he has brought freedom back to our Media.

The Exec, the Judiciary and the legislature should not be run by the same gang of rules. Let it be run by different parties so we do not make unilateral decisions and regret. The supreme court judges should be free from any party affiliations, and our media should be relabeled into Free Press and Paid for Press.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=808f230b49
http://www.corvuswire.com/wolf-duke.htm
CNN's Wolf Blitzer versus David Duke - video on YouTube.Com:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v2f-WC4cjo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WPYpbVzVoQ
http://www.rense.com/general74/comabt.htm
ttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15896.htm
Mike Ghouse is a free thinkerMore information is available in About us section of www.MikeGhouse.net