Tuesday, November 20, 2007

A National Language Makes A Country Unique

A National Language is the glue which holds a country together, by helping to create a National identity. Just as every person is unique, so is each country. It is failure to please everyone all the time. Polls have repeatedly shown the American Public favor English as the Official National Language of the USA.

The liberals greatest failure has always been the attempt to appease everyone. Abraham Lincoln said it simply - "You can't please all the people all the time." But this doesn't stop another Democrat from trying. Nancy Pelosi is now trying to force the Salvation Army to drop its requirement that their employees speak English in the US.

Pelosi's latest appeasement attempt is described in a "John Fund on the Trail" article (Mi Casa, Sue Casa) in the on-line OpinionJournal of the Wall Street Journal.
It's been less than a week since New York's Sen. Hillary Clinton and Gov. Eliot Spitzer had to climb down from their support of driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has moved to kill an amendment that would protect employers from federal lawsuits for requiring their workers to speak English. Among the employers targeted by such lawsuits: the Salvation Army.
The attempt to claim an employer is guilty of Discrimination if employees are required to conduct business in English is a twisted perversion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, a moderate Republican from Tennessee, is dumbstruck that legislation he views as simple common sense would be blocked. He noted that the full Senate passed his amendment to shield the Salvation Army by 75-19 last month, and the House followed suit with a 218-186 vote just this month. "I cannot imagine that the framers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act intended to say that it's discrimination for a shoe shop owner to say to his or her employee, 'I want you to be able to speak America's common language on the job,' " he told the Senate last Thursday.
An employee who can speak any foreign language in addition to English is an asset, and in today's society sometimes a necessity. But the ability to Conduct business in English should be a primary requirement for employment. Unfortunately we have not made English the Official Language of America. Yet we label all languages other than English a Foreign Language?

This error has helped to make all Americans feel a lack of National Identity. National language is one of the Basic characteristic of a society. It makes that country unique, and it binds that society and its people together in a shared characteristic identity. Members of the Hispanic Caucus in Congress do not agree.
"If it is not relevant, it is discriminatory, it is gratuitous, it is a subterfuge to discriminate against people based on national origin," says Rep. Charles Gonzalez of Texas ...
If discrimination against people based on national origin is illegal, as Representative Gonzalez claims, what about those of us who are of American origin and grew up speaking English?
The late Albert Shanker, head of the American Federation of Teachers, once pointed out that public schools were established in this country largely "to help mostly immigrant children learn the three R's and what it means to be an American, with the hope that they would go home and teach their parents the principles in the Constitution and the Declaration that unite us."
For National Unity we need to pass a National Language Law which establishes English as the only Official Language of the USA.
Mr. Alexander says that noble effort is in danger of being undermined: "We have spent the last 40 years in our country celebrating diversity at the expense of unity. One way to create that unity is to value, not devalue, our common language, English."
Here, Here!!

Income Inequity Is Not The Issue You Thought

Movin' On Up is an interesting editorial from the online OpinionJournal of the Wall Street Journal.
If you've been listening to Mike Huckabee or John Edwards on the Presidential trail, you may have heard that the U.S. is becoming a nation of rising inequality and shrinking opportunity. We'd refer those campaigns to a new study of income mobility by the Treasury Department that exposes those claims as so much populist hokum.
This study shows that America still is the "Land of Opportunity". The Treasury reached this conclusion by analyzing information from IRS Tax returns.
The Treasury study examined a huge sample of 96,700 income tax returns from 1996 and 2005 for Americans over the age of 25. The study tracks what happened to these tax filers over this 10-year period. One of the notable, and reassuring, findings is that nearly 58% of filers who were in the poorest income group in 1996 had moved into a higher income category by 2005. Nearly 25% jumped into the middle or upper-middle income groups, and 5.3% made it all the way to the highest quintile.
For any society to be able to claim upward mobility, there must also be downward mobility.
Only one income group experienced an absolute decline in real income--the richest 1% in 1996. Those households lost 25.8% of their income. Moreover, more than half (57.4%) of the richest 1% in 1996 had dropped to a lower income group by 2005. Some of these people might have been "rich" merely for one year, or perhaps for several, as they hit their peak earning years or had some capital gains windfall. Others may simply have not been able to keep up with new entrepreneurs and wealth creators.
Logically there must be "room" to move upward, before opportunity can be realized. This "room" can only be created in a society where things are dynamic not static. Dynamic movement allows for both up and down movement.
The key point is that the study shows that income mobility in the U.S. works down as well as up--another sign that opportunity and merit continue to drive American success, not accidents of birth. The "rich" are not the same people over time.
This is only true of a society where opportunity exists. This Treasury Department study also shows that the ability for the lower economic money earners to move upward is approximately the same as it was in the previous decade. In fact the percentages have remained stable since the 1960's.
All of this certainly helps to illuminate the current election-year debate about income "inequality" in the U.S. The political left and its media echoes are promoting the inequality story as a way to justify a huge tax increase. But inequality is only a problem if it reflects stagnant opportunity and a society stratified by more or less permanent income differences. That kind of society can breed class resentments and unrest. America isn't remotely such a society, thanks in large part to the incentives that exist for risk-taking and wealth creation.
The final paragraph of this Editorial piece illustrates the irony of claiming "Lack of Opportunity" as justification for raising taxes.
The great irony is that, in the name of reducing inequality, some of our politicians want to raise taxes and other government obstacles to the kind of risk-taking and hard work that allow Americans to climb the income ladder so rapidly. As the Treasury data show, we shouldn't worry about inequality. We should worry about the people who use inequality as a political club to promote policies that reduce opportunity.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Edwards Links to Trial Lawyers

George Will's article today, (Sunday, November 18th) in the Indianapolis Star is interesting. Mr. Will has brought to light the connection between Indited/Convicted Trial Lawyers and John Edwards. But it also highlights the ties to the Democratic Party in General. (Setting the Bar for Corruption)
John Edwards launched his slight public career -- one Senate term, two presidential candidacies -- with the money and reputation he made as a trial lawyer. Today he is the candidate of a small fraction of the electorate but a sizable portion of America's trial lawyers. Edwards says Washington is "corrupt." [emphasis mine]
Mr. Will goes on to examine that last statement, and finds a case of the kettle calling the pot black.
Within Edwards' lucrative trial bar constituency, there has been a flurry of criminal indictments. Their target has been what Fortune magazine calls the law firm of Hubris Hypocrisy and Greed. (See Peter Elkind's jaw-dropping report in the issue of Nov. 13, 2006.) The real name of the nation's foremost securities class-action firm is Milberg Weiss.
Milberg Weiss is a lawyer whose name and Democratic Party connections you should remember next time you enter the voting booth.
It has been indicted as a "racketeering enterprise" that obstructed justice and committed perjury, bribery and fraud while collecting about $250 million in fees from about 250 cases using paid plaintiffs, which is illegal. Several of the firm's members, past and present, also have been indicted.
According to George Will, Mel Weiss, who is going to trial, and his former partner, Bill Lerach, who has pleaded guilty to unspecified crimes, ...each pocketed -- it would be strange to say they earned -- more than $100 million in the 1990s. The firm itself has been charged with paying $11.4 million to three serial plaintiffs who testified in 180 cases over 25 years, claiming to have been repeatedly defrauded. by paying plaintiffs for testimony.

Now we have one partner pleading guilty, and one partner in the same law firm indited for alleged crimes. Here is the connection to the John Edwards Campaign.
Until Lerach pleaded guilty he was a fundraiser for Edwards, for whom he collected $64,000 from lawyers in the firm he founded after he had a falling out with Weiss.
As to the connection to the Democratic Party, Consider this from the Will article.
Lerach was a Lincoln Bedroom guest in President Bill Clinton's White House. Shortly after Lerach attended a White House dinner, Clinton vetoed legislation that would have restricted class-action lawsuits. Lerach gave $100,000 to Clinton's presidential library.
And this.
Milberg Weiss turned that narrative into gold, which it shared with Democrats. Since 1980, the firm's partners have given more than $7 million to Democratic candidates, and an additional $500,000 to help build the Democratic National Committee's new headquarters.
Remember this article when you hear about Democrats talking about Trial Lawyers being, as George Will writes, White Knights protecting little people. [emphasis mine]

Political Global Warming is DANGEROUS

Global Warming is a fact. Global Climate Change has been going on since the Earth was created. The debate question is "What is the cause of Global Warming?" Despite what Political Figures say, the question is not settled, according to the Scientists. The only place it appears to be settled is in the mind of "Chicken Little" Politicians like Al Gore and now UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

In an article by Arthur Max, (UN Panel Gives Dire Warming Forecast) the UN Secretary-General is calling on the US and China, as the Earth's largest polluters, ... to do more to slow global climate change. Like most Politicians, the "facts" should never stand in the way of Political Correctness and Gain.

Several "facts" about Global Warming are not mentioned in this one-sided presentation. Among the unmentioned but confirmed "facts" are:
  1. The Earth has been both Warmer and Colder in the Past
  2. The cost of Carbon Dioxide reduction as per the Kyoto Accord requires extreme (read impossible) Life Style Changes
  3. Carbon Dioxide is not the major Greenhouse Gas
  4. At least 1/2 of the atmospheric Carbon Dioxide results from Natural Events (Volcanoes)
  5. Since the Arctic Ice Cap is floating, its melting will not significantly affect Ocean Levels
  6. The Antarctic Ice Cap is Growing.
  7. Polar Bear populations are growing or at least stable
  8. Al Gore will not sign has own Global Warming Pledge
  9. Al Gore will not debate Global Warming nor explain the "factual" errors contained in his movie "An Inconvient Truth"
There are other "facts" which show "Chicken Little" alarmists claim of disaster unless we act now, are costly, will be unproductive and unnecessary. Political Mandates on Global Warming are dangerous. For more facts, click here.

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Oklahoma Leads, California Fails

In Immigration Wars, Cal Thomas states:
Like the war on terrorism, progress in the immigration war is also mixed.
Immigration has become one of the main Political Issues. On one side are States like California, Some Federal Courts, the AFL-CIO, immigrants' rights groups and the US Chamber of Commerce.
A federal judge in San Francisco has temporarily prevented the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration from using mismatched Social Security data to penalize employers who hire illegal aliens. The decision came as welcome news to the AFL-CIO, various "immigrants' rights" groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who are behind a lawsuit that claims the federal government's actions are a violation of the law.
It is believed by some that Illegal Aliens are a necessary ingredient to fill jobs Americans do not want. On the other hand, Illegal Aliens are doing harm to our society as a burden to our Welfare Programs, Medical Care, School Systems, etc.

In addition, Federal and State Laws allow Illegals to Obtain Drivers Licenses and Vote. Current Lack of Immigration Enforcement is a recipe for disaster. But there is one bright spot in Oklahoma, which is leading the Nation by implementing New Immigration Law.
In Oklahoma, the toughest immigration law in the country was allowed to take effect when U.S. District Judge James H. Payne refused to accept arguments from Hispanic and immigrants rights groups who tried to block it. According to the Washington Times, the measure, House Bill 1804, "prevents illegal aliens from getting driver's licenses, denies them every possible public service or benefit not required by federal law, gives state and local police the ability to enforce immigration laws and beginning next year, requires employers to check new employees' identities through a federal database. ... The judge allowed the law to take effect while the case proceeds."
Much of our problem with Illegal Immigrants is the fault of the Federal Government. Congress has not appropriated enough money for Border Security, while Presidents have not enforced the Immigration Laws already on the books.
Most citizens know that if they break laws, they will pay a penalty. They know their driver's license is a privilege and that the state that issues them can take them away when certain laws are broken. They see New York Governor Eliot Spitzer ordering special classes of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and regard it as a double standard. Countries to which Americans travel prohibit us from working in those countries, but we are told we must accept law-breaking foreign workers.
Why is there little money and little enforcement? Because the Politicians want the Hispanic Vote!
The war over immigration is essentially a battle for the Hispanic vote. Politicians will do anything to get it, including disregarding the laws they are sworn to uphold. The politician who gets on the wrong side of this issue -- like Hillary Clinton did in the most recent Democratic presidential debate -- is likely to pay a heavy price from the majority who obey laws. For the moment, we still outnumber the illegals.
However in their rush to court the Hispanic Vote, they overlook the backlash from the Majority. They would do well to consider that the Majority of voters is most likely to support those candidates, regardless of party, who are perceived as Fair and Just. No candidate will ever agree with all voters, but respect is given to those who are perceived as Fair and Just. Respect more often than not equals electability.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

John Doolittle - Poster Child For What's Wrong With Congress

John Doolittle (R-CA) is currently an elected member of the US House of Representatives. He is also under investigation by the FBI for corruption. Doolittle Inc. is the title of an article about the clouded dealings and arrangements of the Doolittles by Debra Saunders.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington placed Doolittle on its "22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" roster. The Placer County, Calif., Republican also is in the small club of elected officials under federal investigation for corruption. His name has come up in connection with convicted uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and with convicted (as of Monday, on bribery charges) defense contractor Brent Wilkes. In April, the FBI searched Doolittle's Virginia home.
Congressman Doolittle was forced to resign from the House Appropriations Committee as a result of the federal investigations, but as Ms. Saunders points out, Mr. Doolittle is running for re-election to his Congressional Seat. In all fairness, he has not been convicted of a crime, and as such, is presumed to be innocent.

John Doolittle is a Poster Child for "Whats Wrong With Congress" because of the loopholes which allow certain questionable practices to continue.
Doolittle, you may recall, made news for letting a campaign fund pick up the tab for babysitting his daughter -- $4,581 since 2001, The Washington Post reported in 2006. He brought new meaning to the phrase "family values."
This practice is legal, but why should it be? And there's more in the same vein.
Doolittle's annual salary has been more than $150,000 since 2002. Not enough. So he and his wife gave themselves a raise. Wife Julie set up a political fund-raising firm that allowed her to earn 15 percent off of every dime raised for Doolittle's Superior California Fund. She also received a cut for donations she raised for his re-election campaign -- to the tune of $140,000 over three years.
Again Legal, but Ethical or Responsible?
Savvy donors knew that if they wrote a check to a Doolittle campaign through Julie Doolittle, the congressman's household income would be richer by 15 percent of the check. This arrangement was a recipe for conflict of interest.
These and other questionable arrangements, are a big part of the reason the Republicans rightfully lost control of both Houses of Congress. But in the Spirit of Convicted Republican California Congressman Duke Cunningham, Democrat Nancy Pelosi and the Current Democrat House leaders continue to allow these practices to continue. The Majority changed from Republican to Democrats, but for practical purposes, IT IS BUSINESS AS USUAL, and Abuse of Power.

The only way to stop the abuse of power, is for us the Voters, to demand a higher standard from our elected officials. This is one area of Political Issues where no party affiliation has a monopoly. Political Ethics has become an Oxymoron.

Kathleen Willey Suspects Clintons Murdered Her Husband

Kathleen Willey's new book, "Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton," is scheduled to be released later this week.
In a new book alleging a campaign of slander and intimidation orchestrated chiefly by Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Willey points a finger of suspicion at the former first couple for the death of her husband, who was believed to have killed himself. [emphasis mine]
The preceeding paragraph is quoted in a WorldNetDaily (WND) article, Kathleen Willey suspects Clintons murdered husband. WND is a partner of the book's publisher, World Ahead Publishing. According to this article/press release, Ms. Willey, then a White House Volunteer, also claims President Bill Clinton granted her a meeting to discuss paying Government Jobs.
But Willey alleges the Nov. 29, 1993, meeting ended abruptly when the president cornered her in a private passageway and sexually assaulted her.
This book, set for release this week, will surely provide more fodder for the Political debates.

Monday, November 5, 2007

Global Warming or Polar Bear Pandering

U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental & Public Works Minority Ranking Member James M. Inhofe (R-OK) today posted a reprint and link to a San Francisco Chronicle article published yesterday. Senate Link here Polar Bear Pandering (In Case You Missed It...Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle) or San Francisco Chronicle Link here Polar Bear Pandering

This post will use the Senate Link.
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California delivered a speech in the Senate last week in which she linked global warming to the San Diego wildfires, Darfur, the imminent loss of the world's polar bears and even a poor 14-year-old boy who died from "an infection caused after swimming in Lake Havasu," because its water is warmer. Forget arson. Forget genocide. Forget nature. There is no tragedy that cannot be placed at the doorstep of global-warming skeptics. [emphasis mine]

Apparently Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), as the last sentence of the above quoted paragraph indicates, believes almost everything bad which happens is because of Global Warming. Even when presented factual information to the contrary, Senator Boxer continues to maintain it's Global Warming which is to blame.

The article in the SF Chronicle makes note of this statement by Senator Inhofe.
Last month, Inhofe took on the Al Gore suggestion that polar bears are in peril because of global warming. Inhofe pointed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services estimates that show the polar bear population at about 20,000 to 25,000 bears - up from the estimated 5,000 to 10,000 polar bears in the 1950s and 1960s.
In response, here is the article's paragraph of Senator Boxer's answer.
Boxer rejected Inhofe's claim that there are more polar bears, selectively citing the "best-studied population" of Canada's western Hudson Bay that found a 22 percent reduction of polar bears from 1987 to 2004. Then she referred to a World Conservation Union prediction that the polar bear population will drop by 30 percent by 2050. Global warming is supposed to be about science, yet projections now stand as fact. [emphasis mine]
So who's correct? Actually both are, but the Hudson Bay Study of Polar Bear decline Senator Boxer cites, doesn't mention this inconvenient fact.
Bjorn Lomborg addressed the polar bear scare in his book, "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." Of the 13 polar bear populations in Canada, the populations of 11 are stable or growing. The biggest cause of polar-bear deaths: hunters, who shoot an average of 49 polar bears in western Hudson Bay yearly. [emphasis mine]
But to Global Warming Alarmists, the cause really doesn't matter so long as it sounds like the cause could be Global Warming. To me that's Irresponsible. It is especially egregious when a powerful politician, one who like Senator Boxer, twists the facts to fit the theory.

It is also conveniently omitted by Politicians like Al Gore and Senator Boxer that the Kyoto Pact was brought to a vote in the Senate in 1993 and rejected by 95-0. Mr. Gore was VP and President of the Senate, while Ms. Boxer was one of the 95 Senators who voted against the Kyoto Accord.

What is usually heard is the fact that the Kyoto Treaty was supported by President Clinton, and rejected by President Bush. That's even more remarkable when the 1993 date is considered. In 1993, Clinton was President, Bush was not yet Governor of Texas (Elected 1994).

The Senate rejected the Kyoto Accord because of the severe adverse effect the terms would have had on our economy if ratified. In addition to an economic disaster, the Kyoto Accord would have, at best, a negligible effect on Global Warming. Negligible because the Kyoto Accord limits the production of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), but CO2 constitutes a very small part of the Green House Gases. Water Vapor is the greatest component of Green House Gas.
Today, Democrats have abandoned all reason. They buy the worst-case scenarios and sell snake-oil economics. The air of unreality pervades the debate. It doesn't matter what you spew if you say you believe in global warming. You don't have to sacrifice. Fighting global warming will be easy and good for the economy. This isn't science. It's fantasy. [emphasis mine]
There is some hope for San Francisco.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Should Illegal Aliens Vote in US Elections?

There has been a lot of rhetoric about New York Governor Eliot Spitzer's plan to allow Illegal Aliens to obtain Drivers Licenses in New York State. The claim most often made as a justification for this granting of a State Approved Legal Drivers License is to bring the ILLEGALS out of the shadows and allow Governments to know who is in the US. And supporters argued that a legally issued State Drivers License would make our roads safer for all, because the Illegals could get Insurance and would have to pass a test covering "Rules of the Road".

All of these reasons sound good, noble and worthwhile, but there is another consequence which falls into the Fatally Flawed category. 'This Will Make Voter Fraud Easier' aptly identifies this Fatal Flaw.
The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter," that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote. [emphasis mine]
Voting is a privilege which should only be available to the Legal Citizens of the USA. Federal Law dictates that there is no way to reasonably exclude anyone, including Illegals, with an Official State Drivers License from the Voting Booth.
The potential for fraud is not trivial, as federal privacy laws prevent cross-checking voter registration rolls with immigration records. Nevertheless, a 1997 Congressional investigation found that "4,023 illegal voters possibly cast ballots in [a] disputed House election" in California. After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote. [brackets in original, but emphasis mine]
Similar cases have been found in other states too. Texas found over 300 Illegals registered to vote. In Texas, as in many other States, Prospective Jurors are chosen from Voter Registrations. Over 300 were disqualified for Jury Duty when they said they were not US Citizens. They were registered to Vote, however.

New York and Texas are not the only states to pollute the Voter Pool.
Under pressure from liberal groups, some states have even abandoned the requirement that people check a citizenship box to be put on the voter rolls. Iowa has told local registrars they should register people even if they leave the citizenship box blank. Maryland officials wave illegal immigrants through the registration process, prompting a Justice Department letter warning they may be helping people violate federal law.
There is some hope for the restoration of sanity and responsibility to the US.
While states such as New York are increasing the risk of such fraud, a half-dozen states have recently adopted laws requiring voters to offer proof of identity or citizenship before casting a ballot. A federal commission, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, gave such laws a big boost in 2005 when it called for a nationwide policy requiring a photo ID before voting. [emphasis mine]
I don't agree with about 99% of Jimmy Carter's ideas, but this is one time he gets it right. In the interest of Full Disclosure, I am an Election Judge in Cook County, Illinois. I know from this experience that my job would be easier if a Photo ID were required to vote.
Measures that curb voter fraud on the one hand and encourage it on the other will be central to the 2008 election. The Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Indiana's photo ID law next spring, while lawsuits challenging Gov. Spitzer's moves will be in New York state courts.
Generally the Liberals, most of whom are Democrats, oppose any limit to voter identification. They are wrong, and it's, Presidential Candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton who is at the fore-front, and probably the most visible, of the Democrat leaders pushing for legislation allowing and encouraging Illegal Alien Voter Registration.
Despite her muddled comments this week, there's no doubt where Mrs. Clinton stands on ballot integrity. She opposes photo ID laws, even though they enjoy over 80% support in the polls. She has also introduced a bill to force every state to offer no-excuse absentee voting as well as Election Day registration--easy avenues for election chicanery. The bill requires that every state restore voting rights to all criminals who have completed their prison terms, parole or probation. [emphasis mine]
Voting is a privilege, not just a right. It should not be abused by Illegal Aliens, Criminals or other individuals who have no right or have by prior actions lost the right to this privilege.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Kucinich Has A Dream


Nov 7th Kucinich's Broadside At Cheney Is Foiled

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) Announced today that he will introduce a privileged resolution in the House of Representatives to Impeach Vice President Richard Cheney. (Kucinich Will Introduce Privileged Resolution To Force Up Or Down Vote On Cheney Impeachment)
“The momentum is building for impeachment,” Kucinich said. “Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President’s abuse of power."
Mr. Kucinich apparently seeks help with his Presidential Bid by appealing to the Radical Left. This is an irresponsible political act during a time of war. A better choice would be a Recall Petition by the Voters in Ohio.
“Congress must hold the Vice President accountable. The American people need to let Members of Congress know how they feel about this. The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate for a continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran. If the Vice President is successful, his actions will ensure decades of disastrous consequences.”
Since the Senate voted to authorize the use of Military force in Iraq, US Military presence in Iraq is necessary to the conduct of the actions authorized by a Majority of Senators. If this is occupation, then what do we call the presence of US Military in Germany, South Korea and many other places in this world? Why is Iraq different?

If Mr. Kucinich does not believe Iran deserves a belligerent stance, he should read and/or review Iran's stated position on Israel and freedoms in general.

Take a look at the co-sponsors.
H. Res. 333, Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President, has 21 cosponsors. They are: Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Robert Brady (D-PA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Henry Johnson (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. James Moran (D-VA), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Rep. Albert Wynn (D-MD).
Shouldn't we insist that our Congressman actually do something which will benefit the country? Our economy is good, Unemployment is low, there have been no significant Terror Attacks since 9-11 as a result of Bush/Cheney, Not Congress. No wonder the approval rating of Congress is at an all time low!