NEWT GINGRICH'S PRESIDENTIAL COVENANT AND GENESIS OF DECEIT 20:12

 

By

Joseph Chez

5-11-11

                                                           Genesis of deceit 20:12

In Medieval Europe the rich and privileged deemed themselves conservative and righteous.  However, because it was a time of family values and exceptionalism, these privileged few were able to be absolved from sin by being part of the GOP’s (Grand Ol’ Pope’s) religious scheme; to have a market-base and common sense approach to when one would fall from grace – and sin. Since such era was fraught with harsh punishment for sinning, the rich and powerful were able to purchase sin insurance, called indulgences, so those preileged few could remain virtuous, excepted from punishment and still be the pillars of church and state. The poor on the other hand, were deemed of liberal mind and therefore, were considered heretics.  Consequently, they paid more taxes and frequently received the heavy hand of the church and state.  Even the smallest secular infractions were considered heretical and thus subject to punishment from the GOP.  And yet, in the grand scheme of things, present day GOP (Grand Old Party) has a different name, although, the scheme as before, is the same.

Oh Lord, forgive the trespasses of those bible thumping evangelist and their encounters with ladies of the night. Forgive thy lord, the silver haired 700 Club prophet who wined and dined his same sex lover in the extravagant California hotel. Understand my Lord that legs of republicans solicit at airports, if their legs happen to wonder underneath bathroom stalls. Be known ye lord, that there is an Appalachia trail in Argentina and therefore, pursuing loins outside the country is not a sin. But, if republicans cannot afford two turtle doves or two young pigeons, then they shall make payouts to render quiet the relationship with their senior aide’s wife. For if they pay, or resign in atonement, it will be deemed forgiven by the Lord.

When prophet Newt and former speaker of the house sinned, doing unwittingly any one of all the things which the Lord his God has commanded not to be done, and at the same time the GOP sons presided over the impeachment of the ruler of the state, Lord be it known that Newt’s intense patriotic efforts for his country was his offering for thy sin. Thus, prophet Newt has offered escape-goats as sin offering in hopes of remaining without blemish or sin. Thus, prophet Newt has understood the Lord to say, that the GOP and his sons have followed the strictest of the law of the sin offering: in the place where the repentance is before the Lord, patriotic fervor is proclaimed and family values are upheld, such sin offerings are therefore, most holy.

And so it is written, that republicans, sons of Sodom and Gomorra, often chant to the Lord praises of glory, declare their patriotism and love for their family. If the whole congregation of USA, USA unwittingly accepts repentance, the assembly shall lay their hands upon the head of the republican and give forgiveness upon the bull. And the sinner shall chant: “Forgive me Lord, for I have sinned!” I am a conservative, I am for family values, I belong to the GOP and the NRA, so, forgive me lord, for I have sinned. So, if loudly spoken, praises of God and country, the wicked shall have no fear of the wrath of God. Thus, as it was in medieval times, as it is in present day of good old USA, such is the political gospel which absolves republicans from public scorn and allows the political scoundrels to continue to indulge.

           ACT OF THE APOSTLE NEWT DECLARING HIS NOMINATION FOR 20:12

NEWT: My lord, I lay my loins before you and I must declare to you that once again, I have found a new appreciation for the role of faith in my public life.

GOD: (responding in silence) Oh no! It’s “Nuwdie” again….

NEWT: it's because I find that America has become too secular and that our religious beliefs and family values are being challenged by the cultural elite, that I am running for president in 20:12.

GOD: Clap your hands, all peoples! Shout to Nuwdie with loud songs of joy! But Newdie, what are your chances for the presidency when you have a long history of sin? You've even had past Congressional charges of ethic violations in your name? Do you only want relevance in today’s politics, or do you just want to cash-in?  By the way Newdy, how is young Calista? You scoundrel!

NEWT: As former Speaker of the House I initiated the Republican revolution, which made a Contract with America and it slowed the growth of the government.  That I did, for the good of the the American people. For this reason, I plan to continue my efforts to make America great again, while doing away with the EPA, cutting Medicare, education and Obama Care. 

GOD: Nuwdie, you mean the Republican revolution which put a “contract on America” and, by slowing the growth of government, you mean you shut it down? Nuwdie, you give your mouth free reign for evil and your tongue frames deceit!

NEWT: I will make America strong again. I now embrace the bold new thinking of the Tea Party movement. I will also bring back God to the American home.

GOD: Your speech is smoother than butter, yet hate is in your hart. Cut Medicare and social programs at a time when you yourselves dwell in your paneled houses, while the house of the poor and infirmed lies in ruins?

NEWT: I am now Catholic and Lord, to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified Republicans, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord, that they may contribute to my candidacy for president and send money to any one of my organizations and I promise oh Lord, that they will receive a certificate in return. For I will champion my persona and your cause my Lord!

GOD: Cut the crap Nuwdie. Who are you trying to fool? What is your relevance today other than scamming patriotic scoundrels and sinners? Let’s see, you lead several non-profit organizations but all the monies from each organization, under a different name, still comes to you- for your self indulgence? You say that you are now a Catholic because Calista is Catholic? And of what religion were you from your previous lady? I see, use religion to get excited. Heh, heh, heeeeeh!

Nuwdie, let all those God fearing folk therefore know assuredly that God has made Barack Hussein Obama a lord of his people (20:12) and commander in chief, the apostle whom your sons of Gomorra have questioned the land of his birth and the one you attempt to crucify.

So Newt Gingrich, just remember, I am the alpha and the omega who is and who was, but you Nuwdie, you are no Ronald Reagan. Let’s see, what’s that bible quote? Oh yes, “if you see a thief you are a friend of his; and you keep company with adulterers.” Please Nuwdie, don’t do me any favors, and don’t preach religion – when you don't live it!

JOHN McCAIN PANDERING XENOPHOBIC FIRE IN AZ

By

June 21, 2011:

Joseph Chez

John McCain, the once moderate Republican senator from the State of Arizona is now in the dog house because of his unexplained tilt to the loony and extreme-right of the political spectrum.   Ever since he started paling around with the gal from Alaska, he has since felt it necessary to pander to the extreme right.  Although, not surprised, xenophobic sentiment is much in demand and being fanned by the Joe Arpio, Russell Pearce, and other neo-fascist Minute-Men militia types in the state of Arizona.

Two days ago, Sen. McCain was in Arizona to review the fire situation in his state, a situation deemed in a state of emergency, due to the extreme fire conditions.  What is noteworthy however is that before the media cameras, Sen. McCain blatantly blamed undocumented immigrants who cross the border from Mexico into the United States, as being the culprits for setting these fires.  And yet, according to the National Interagency Coordinating Center, there are approximately 210 forest and range fires through out the nation, with numerous other fires springing up daily.

Regional office for Region 3, of the U.S. Forest Service, which oversees forest and rangelands, including the State of Arizona, has publicly not ascertained the cause of the fire(s) for which Sen. McCain was alluding to.  So which one of the hundreds of fires is Mr. McCain talking about?

In his statements before the media, he stated that “illegals” from Mexico set fires to send signals to others or set them to confuse the authorities, he said.  Mmm? Of course, the media asked the experts, Forest Service personnel, but they denied it was set by immigrants, as there are literally hundreds of possibilities which may initiate a fire, including an act of God.  But, Mr. McCain is not so convinced.

 
And yet, the American public should understand that currently, this is fire season for the entire part of North America, comprising from the Yucatan Peninsula to the window sill of Sara Palin’s house in Wasilla Alaska.  Not to mention, that the South West has had little rain since last November and the fire weather in Arizona, New Mexico and part of Texas, is providing just the right conditions for fire.  

So what’s up with McCain?  Well, Sen. McCain, the once well-liked senator by conservative as well as moderate-liberals, is now becoming a xenophobic pariah of sorts. Perhaps, he just may feel the need to return to his original roots of being the grumpy ol’ fart that he truly is.  In fact, he originally came to Arizona as a carpetbagger, but he may just leave the Senate as the accomplished TEA BAGGER.

SARAH PALIN BUYS BEACH-FRONT PROPERTY IN ARIZONA

By

 Joseph Chez

May 29, 2011

Sarah Palin is expected to roll into Washington DC this Memorial Day weekend, either leading or trailing the rolling thunder of motorcyclist celebrating American veterans of past wars.  She will ride in black leather, but will also ride through in her shiny new mega-lux coach bus.  Sadly for Sarah, sponsors of the event had not invited her to be part of, or be the focus of the yearly event.  But for Sarah barracuda, there is just no stopping her.  She is out on a mission, whatever that is, and will cease the moment of glory.  Additionally, her “One Nation” bus tour through the north east part of the country, to include New Hampshire, has suddenly inflamed the interest of the country.  But, what is more interesting to the world, is that Sarah Palin has relocated her political command center located in Wasilla Alaska and is moving it to her newly purchased beach front property in Arizona.  But how could she not, when there is still fire in her belly and she has dwindling political capital left in her. 

Sarah Palin, the former Alaskan governor and failed Republican vice president candidate in 2008 dramatically surged in political standing in right-wing political circles since the last election.  But despite the political reality that the country chose to elect President Barack Obama, Sarah Palin’s political figure did not end, and instead, sky-rocketed to political rankings, sufficiently to become the darling of the right-wing conservative Tea Party movement.  Some would argue that Palin may even be the Joan of Arc who gave life to the arcane right-wing political gospel.  In fact, Palin has become so popular that from the beginning, she became a hot commodity for publicists and media representatives as Sarah was a potential gold mine. Sarah of course, never fought the urge to become successfully famous.  Also important, was the fact that Sarah Palin had majored in journalism from Idaho State and from the beginning, she philosophically connected well with Fox News Corporation, which allowed her to join the company and become a leading political analyst and commentator, at par with Brit Hume.  Thus, with a lot of political capital, Sarah Palin soon ventured into the money treasure trove of this land of opportunity.  No longer, would Palin have to fight the bone chilling cold of the Arctic, or the Siberian winds while fishing for cod.  Thank the mighty market based, and common sense approach, Sarah Palin would no longer have to hunker down for days on end, camouflaged to the ground, so she could bring mama bear stew to her children’s table.  From now on, it would be drill baby drill.

But, never mind the incoherent thought process in her delivery of her political gospel, as her legion of followers have no trouble understanding her.  So, Sarah continues with her campaign as if she was still running for office.  Accordingly, she has toured the country feverishly to collect undisclosed fee amounts from speaking engagements.  She has even traveled to Israel and wore a Star of David necklace proudly.  In India she was paid a hefty sum of rupees to answer if whether she would be running for president, for which she only hinted once more that there was the possibility.  But more importantly, her compelling reasons for traveling to the Middle East and Near East, was for her to illuminate her understanding of the complexity of foreign policy, be touched by the hand of Israel and be captivated by an emerging market in Mumbai.  Thus, upon her return to the US, it was clear that Sarah Palin was now a visionary, as she was now wearing her new foreign policy credentials.    

However, since 2008, the savvy American public has come to question Sarah Palin’s political dialectics and metaphysical prowess.  Never mind her detractors on the left who always understood her intellectual void, but now, even high ranking conservatives have come around to conclude the same about Palin.  Some conservatives are even parting shots at her because they see their own political spotlight overshadowed by the unexplained aura of Sarah barracuda.  But, the “lame” media which Sarah so often decries, continues to focus on her, helping her rake in the though.  Lately however, a TV network canceled a sequel to her reality show.  Moreover, a number of her speaking engagements have also been canceled, so her poll numbers have taken a dive.   This of course translates into revenue loss – or even the specter of political oblivion.  Thus, in classic Sarah Palin fashion, she is not retreating, she is reloading. 

Accordingly, in order to prop up her sagging celebrity status, as well as give life to her political capital, Sarah Palin has purchased beach front property in Arizona, the state of sheriff, “I’m the law around here” Joe Arpio and his neo-crazed minutemen.  This new location for her political headquarters, a house, is located in Scottsdale AZ, home of the northern white birds’ refuge and place of a senatorial vacancy for Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ).   However, her move to Arizona should not surprise anybody because her brand of politics meshes well with patriotic scoundrels around the country, but more so in the State of Arizona.  For starters, Arizona did not give indigenous peoples the right to vote until July 1948 when Native Americans of the McDowell Yavapai nation forced the issue in court, as the state of Arizona considered the American Indian as non-citizens.  This is also the state in which as a young republican, William H. Rehnquist would physically threaten minorities at the polls in order to dissuade them from voting.  Arizona is also the home of once presidential hopeful, Senator Barry Goldwater, whose extreme type of conservatism was viewed by many as racist.  His politics live on in today’s Arizona where civil rights are being curtailed by fiat. This is the state in which the Republican controlled state aims to end social programs, including social security. In fact, Goldwater’s famous words, “that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” encapsulates today’s state of affairs in this state, where Sheriff Joe Arpio and his neo-crazed posse, in spite of federal investigations, in spite of federal court injunctions, tells the media that nothing has changed and that he will continue doing what he’s doing.   And so, families in poor and minority communities live in constant fear; they know that at any time, or under the cover of night, entire neighborhoods are cordoned off by the police state of Joe Arpio, and house to house searches are done while family members are carried off.

So herein lays the question: Whether Sarah Palin has chosen her new residence in Arizona to mount a new campaign to attempt to test the waters for future politics, or whether she will continue with a charade of pseudo politics simply to exploit her political persona for financial gain?  But yet, what may be endearing and simple for Palin to understand, is that she will no longer have to see the Russian commies from her home in Wasilla Alaska, but instead, she will now be savoring and eating coyote stew in her beach front property in Arizona.  However, her unexpected move to Arizona as well as her quasi-political “One Nation” bus tour, should give us pause, as this may make us all believe that she is senator or presidential material.   The American public therefore, must not be fooled and we should all not forget, that Sarah Palin let downed her state constituents in Alaska by resigning from her elected office, if not for the sole reason of potentially making millions of dollars by remaining in the national political arena.  Consequently, I am one to believe that Sarah Palin may in fact not wish to run for any office and what she may be doing, may simply be another effort to make mo money.  That not withstanding, I tip my hat to Sarah Palin, in her spunk to exercise her right to participate in our political debate, or even reap economic gain from pursuing pseudo politics.  However, what is not acceptable is the pursuit of extremism, the sale of intolerance, or misstating the facts.  So run Sarah run.  Enjoy your rolling thunder on your “One nation” bus tour, but be aware, that the American public is not all woodsy or folksy – but can easily be amused.

ISRAELI /PALESTINIAN ROAD MAP TO PEACE IS A HOAX, BUT A PALESTINIAN STATE WILL BE A REALITY.

By


Joseph Chez

5-19-2011


On the eve of the arrival of Israel’s Prime Minister, today President Obama speaks to the nation reassuring its unwavering commitment to the security of Israel, but, he will also call for peace negotiations to continue for an eventual two state solution. Yet, don’t hold your breath as there is no reset of US policy on this issue. So what is the point? Today’s speech by the President Obama is merely to signal to Israel and to the American Christian conservatives that US policy remains status quo ante.

The unwavering Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu on the other hand, comes to the US on Friday to speak before Congress, and members of Congress will heed his warning, that imminent mutual assured destruction for both nations is at hand - if the US does not stand steadfast with Israel against the chill of the Arab spring or the terrorist Muslims wanting to take over the Holy Land. Once again, he will utter the unthinkable, that the world’s two pillars of democracy, the US and Israel, are being threatened by extremist Islamist. Benjamin Netanyahu will also assure Congress, that Israel wants peace but that it can not make peace with terrorist. He will even share with Congress that Israel has made and will further make additional concessions if only; the Palestinians will go back to the bargaining table. Yes, he will say, Israel is ready to accept peace with the Palestinians and we will even grant them partial state hood with limited sovereignty. However, the real message to our President and for Congress is that the US must not endorse or vote in favor of statehood for the Palestinians – if an accord is not derived from a meaningful and crafted road map for peace through negotiations.

However, President Obama and Congress should truly consider the potential consequences of continued biased and blind support for the State of Israel. Our nation should realize that the road map for peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians have been a deliberate hoax from the beginning; a road map for peace that has led the Palestinians and the rest of the world to believe that at the end, peace and a two state solution would be achieved. However, the reality is that the Palestinians as well as the rest of the world have been duped to believe Israel has had a bona fide intent to make peace with the Palestinians when in fact, it has not.

But, in spite of the tremendous efforts by numerous countries who have coaxed Israel and the Palestinians to make peace, the world has witnessed the Madrid Conference, the Oslo Accord, the Sharm-el Sheikh Memorandum, the Camp David Summit, and other interim peace talk agreements, efforts which have only ended up in failure. But what is to be expected when you have in the mix, a biased benefactor party and arbitrator, plus you have Israel maintaining a demeaning and harsh military occupation on Palestinian land? Clearly, this does not cultivate the seeds for peace. Accordingly, any road map for peace, as devised by Israel or the United States, can only have one outcome – and that is, to end up at square one. The solution for this is for the US to step aside and allow the United Nations to decide this important matter.

Moreover, we must acknowledge the fact that at each peace conference or bargaining sit down, the United States has always announced that both parties must hash it out between the two and that it is not for others to impose peace. Furthermore, every time an agreement is reached, the framework outlining the series of steps for the accord always gives Israel the final word in whether the Palestinians complied with the agreement or not. Thus, Israel has cleverly learned and has therefore been doing the obvious to avoid reproach or condemnation from the rest of the world; it has portrayed itself as a willing partner in any peace talk negotiations, when in fact, Israel’s only intentions were to buy out time. And as the Israeli saying goes: sure, we’ll sit down and negotiate – and we’ll wait them out.

Last year, VP Joe Biden and President Obama were openly disgraced by the Israeli government, by blatantly approving continued building in the West Bank in spite of US objections. So bold was Netanyahu that he agreed to return to negotiations if only, the US would provide Israel with some of its most sophisticated anti-radar detection aircraft. President Obama did send such offerings and Israel did officially returned to the peace table – only to immediately thereafter end the peace talks. More recently however, George Mitchell, US Special Envoy to oversee Israeli/Palestinian peace negotiations, resigned his post. No doubt, he realized the folly of the make-believe intentions by the Israelis concerning making peace with the Palestinians.

However, something unforeseen has happened, something not mentioned in the Bible, the Quran or the Torah; an Arab Spring began raging through the region and it has brought unforeseen consequences, surely not expected or advantageous to Israel or the US. Already, ruthless dictators have fallen due to the Arab Spring, but it is expected to continue to topple kings and sheiks. So today, Israel finds itself constipated by the lack of support by dictators and princely neighbors, who up to now, had been paid well by the US to look the other way while Israel had its way.

Surely Netanyahu must be feeling the chill of the Arab Spring, but, is it not also time for Israel to realize that the world is wising up to Israel’s misdeeds, pretexts, and failure to heed international law? In fact, there is no need for peace talks, as there is already in place, standing UN Resolutions which mandates Israel to return to a pre 1967 borders and thereby, allow for a two state solution.

In sum, the world should realize, that the State of Israel has been playing everybody for fools and that the Palestinians were right to conclude, that getting off the road map for peace is the only hope for a Palestinian state to exist. Accordingly, on September 2011, the Palestinians will be petitioning the United Nations General Assembly for a declaration for state hood and thus create a new State of Palestine. And rightly so; many nations around the world are lining up to support this endeavor.

So, what is the US to do now, especially in a time of the Arab Spring? Should the US continue to place its own national security at risk by further supporting an intransigent religious state? I argue that our best interest lies with what is right; this religious and tribal conflict must be brought to and end. A two state solution must be arbitrated or mandated by the United Nations, whose only interest lies within the rule of law. Furthermore, the United States of America must not be blind-sided by religious mush, which purports to give us God’s grace if we side with the people of the book. Whose book I ask? Regrettably, the world can not undo the misdeeds of the British Balfour Declaration or the declaration of an independent State of Israel in 1948. But surely, we can end this tribal strife and bring peace to the region by such declaration at the United Nations General Assembly this coming fall, and give the Palestinians their own sovereign state.

Therefore, present circumstances beg the question; should we not consider that our own national security is greater than the religious ties we have with Israel? It should be noted that the First Amendment of our United States Constitution guarantees us freedom of religion, but also, freedom from the practice of religion. Accordingly, it should be evident that exercising a foreign policy which supports a religious state such as Israel, whose whole existence is based on the premise of divine right, violates the very foundation of our Constitution.

The time is at hand, we can make a difference in the Middle East, or, choose to fall victim to detrimental and monumental harm which may come to us. We must therefore reset our foreign policy on the Israeli/Palestinian issue and we must choose to play fair. But we must not stand in the way of a new Palestinian state.

ROYAL WEDDING AND ROOTS OF HATE, AND SUBJUGATION – SHOULD YOU BE CELEBRATING?

By

Joseph Chez

April, 28, 2011

If you loathe dictators, fascist regimes, subjugation, hate, discrimination, slavery, genocide, and the social caste system, why would you then be celebrating a royal wedding? If you do, you will then uphold those vestiges of hate and social mongering which royalty attempts to maintain.

So, on the eve of the royal wedding, the United Kingdom, its former colonies, member countries of its commonwealth and other parts of the world, millions of people are celebrating the upcoming wedding of “prince” William and Kate Middleton. Prince William of course being a member of the British royalty, and Kate Middleton, a “commoner” is soon to become part of the royal family. But, while the celebration begins, should we not contemplate on the ramifications of continuing with the charade of bowing to “royalty” and further perpetuate the myth of special privilege?”

Perhaps you may not be a British subject, but should you not still care about the consequences of this wedding, or, about the continuing preservation of royalty? Your answer should be yes. After all, we are all universal citizens inhabiting the same planet and are therefore, subject to the acts others. “No man is an island”, remember? You should further understand that the practices and the acts of monarchs have in fact affected most of the world. Today, each and every one of us continues to suffer, or at least feel the affects of direct acts by members of a monarchy or acts done in behalf of a monarchy. The very concept of special privilege by royalty and the subjugation of those underneath that special privilege, to this day, continue to shape our social, political and economic fabric.

What may you say? Royalty adds to culture fantasy and allows for children to dream about becoming a prince or a princess, or, that most present day monarchies are benign and may just be constitutional monarchies? Of course, reading or dreaming about benign fairytales is of no consequence, but in reality, the truth about monarchies is no fairytale. In addition, to say that constitutional monarchies no longer have absolute power and therefore remain only as ceremonial figures, would be akin to continue to revere a ruthless dictator, such as Joseph Stalin, the fascist Adolph Hitler, or Zimbabwe’s dictator Robert Mugabe - after they had left the reigns of power.

Thus, it should be noted that in many parts of the world, such as in Austria, Belgium, Bahrain, “Canada”, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Monaco, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and others parts of the world, the monarchy continues to thrive and holds special privileges - at the expense of the populace . So I dare question: who the hell gave royals a certificate of special privilege? And just like many white folk were asking of President Obama to show his birth certificate to prove he was a bona fide American, it should be asked of the royals to prove a divine right or genetic proof that they deserve a special social, political or economic privilege.

History can only attest to the countless tribal societies which were decimated in behalf of powerful monarchies. In the Americas, entire indigenous societies were simply slaughtered to make room for European expansion. In Australia, aboriginal peoples were almost decimated into extinction. In Africa, in the name of a king or queen, human beings were hunted down to be taken as slaves for servitude and economic ventures for the new world. As a result of that, slavery flourished in the new British colony in North America. Even lynching of human beings became a practice in order to enforce a caste system - white over black.

As India became the property of the British monarchy, an insidious caste social system was instituted, based on shades of color – with the mother royal queen and new owner of India, unquestionably, being at the top of the social scale. Can we then not believe that today’s KKK or neo-Nazis formulated their race-based hate on the same principle as the royals have substantiated their racial or social strata?

In the region once known as Arabia and also under the rule of the British Kingdom, the new rulers could not supplant the local Muslim religion for Christendom. So, they divided the Muslim religion into two, one Shiite and the other, Sunni. As a consequence of the monarchial tactical divisiveness, it is no secret that countless lives continue to be lost through out the Middle East due to the religious difference imposed.

From the beginning, monarchies acquired their legitimacy by relying on human ignorance; people either accepted charismatic leaders who later made themselves kings, or as their rulers governed for long periods of time, their longevity and rule became a tradition. However, once the royalty became established within a given society, they claimed a divine right. In fact, royals cleverly aligned their authority with the will of God, making people believe that any attempt to defy the will of the monarchy would be tantamount to defying God. And as monarchies scoured the earth for new places to rule, one of their main weapons in conquering was Christendom, a religion that justified the monarchy’s rule and eased the transition for the conquered to obey the new king.

However, in today’s modern world in which science has mapped the entire human genome and has found no genetic differences, at least genetic traces that would make any human superior over another, still, royal families thrive under privileged political, economic and social circumstances – but can not morally or scientifically justify their special status. Moreover, royal families in many parts of the world are some of the wealthiest families in the world. But how did they become so rich? Certainly royalty is not known for their employability. Further, in most cases, they live in opulence while their counterpart commoners live marginally. And although in existing constitutional monarchies, the royals may not control the purse strings of the country, the royal families continue to live under taxpayer’s funded stipends covering most, or all of their living expenses, despite their the vast wealth they may already have.

In sum, it is not William or Kate who I personally condemn, but the system that supports their royal status. We must understand that it is the concept of royalty which is being promulgated in furtherance of supremacy. Is it too much for you to accept? Chew on it some more and read more history. However, while the winds of democracy are blowing even in places where they were not expected, the world demands a more egalitarian society, in which democracy reigns – not the royals. So why I ask, does royalty continue to propagate and millions of people celebrate? For those who may argue in defense of the monarchs, I may suggest that there can be no justification for their existence, either morally, politically, socially or otherwise. In fact, royalty and dictators belong in the annals of human ignorance. Dinosaurs came to and end - by divine will. But, how dare dictators or royals believe they deserve a role in governance without the democratic consent of the people? However, the nature of things has the last say so on this issue. Currently, a number of despised dictators are on the way out and the remainder on the list will soon have their end. In like circumstance, royalty must not sit on the throne, but should take their blue blood to the “loo.” But, if you still believe royalty deserves a special status in our human evolution, then you must also go to the loo, celebrate the royal wedding and take in the royal air – especially after a blue blood has taken a royal flush. Smell any difference?

http://universalwrit.blogspot.com/

Donald Trump, the consummate opportunist and BIRTHER, now debunked.

By

Joseph Chez
April 27, 2011

Donald’s dump is increasingly becoming unbearably repugnant. Regrettably, the Trump crest was known for elegance, grace, but also, for the apex of financial success. However, since Mr. Donald has seemingly entered the race bait for 2012, his political dump has not only embraced right-wing extreme positions, but he also took the lead in the republican “birther” movement.

Yet, while the American public was not only tired and had come to the realization that the Republican birther movement was simply a veiled racist attempt to belittle President Obama, the once respected Donald Trump revived the discredited birther issue. Incredibly, this individual, well known for his financial success, can now add the not-so coveted title of birther to his list of personal achievements. The question however, is why is this individual wallowing in political turpitude which may only soil his personal credits?

In an effort to troll the waters of politics for 2012, or perhaps add shine to the fading Trump crest; this fired up individual surprised the US media by questioning the citizenship of President Obama. The media’s thong tightened and the blitz continued. This emboldened Donald Trump to rev up the ridiculous, even making remarks which can only be construed as racist. His latest assertion is that President Obama was not even qualified for the Ivy League universities the President attended.

So is Trump for real? Well, here’s my take: Donald Trump is truly not the successful duckling he portrays to be. I say this because pin stripes, wads of money and multiple former wives do not make a man a pinnacle of success. History is full of successful pitchmen who sold snake oil to unsuspecting god-fearing folk and the reality is that the fools took the pitch – while the salesman became even richer. In the case of Donald Trump, the man is but a pitchman. At one time in his early failed real estate dealings, the bank was about to foreclose his entire boot and caboodle, but the pitchman told the bank to lend him more money or he won’t pay them back. The bank felt it had no choice so it lent Trump more money, which in the end, allowed him to buy even more real estate. On another occasion, Trump approached the City of New York and proposed to buy blighted and unwanted city property. Such was the proposal, that the city sold him land on the shorefront for pennies on the dollar, real estate which is now prime real estate worth billions. Smart businessman some may argue, but I submit to you, can he simply just be an opportunist?

But, such is the gambler, he sees an opportunity to deceive his target and trumps on the chance to win. Mr. Donald on the other hand, has in the past held political views which were deemed down right liberal. Of course, the country has since taken a turn to the right, politically –with some on the Republican extreme right – embracing ultra-right social positions. In fact, the 2010 mid-term elections seemed to have brought out many of the country’s old demons back and are now openly expressed without remorse or apology. Such were the last elections results that it became to be perceived as a political turn to the right referendum – so argues the Grand Old Party. Regrettably, racist remarks, xenophobic rant and acts or even political assassination attempts are now in the norm. And yet, potential republican suitors for the 2012 presidential election have now begun to jockey in exploratory attempts for the coveted world leadership role – the US presidency. However, the reality is that those republican politicians are old retreads, flesh-repentant repeats, or Pollyannaish with no metaphysical prowess sufficient to measure up to President Barack Obama and win the 2012 presidential election. Not surprisingly, in comes the consummate opportunist, Donald Trump for the race. But of course, Mr. Trump has now changed his political feathers and purports to be a devout Christian, a family values man, a war hawk that would take other countries’ oil, and would even confront the Chinese, militarily or otherwise. However, the main obstacle for Mr. Trump was how to discredit and take down the mighty sitting President. His answer was to troll the bottom of the cesspool for snake-oil to sell to the American public.

Regrettably, the 2012 presidential race is just beginning and racist innuendo against the president will be expected from the republican candidates as the race moves on. However, Donald Trump could not resist and began to open the debate with resorting in racist political tactics to place him ahead of the republican candidates pack. And it has. Yet, one must wonder if the country’s conservative political base has shed its White Citizen’s Council in exchange for a Trump’s Country Club which purports to have good relations with “the” blacks. Or, could Jim Crow in the South now be in disguise as Donald Duck in the North?

The good news today, April 27, 2011 is that President Obama felt compelled to release his long-form birth certificate to ease concerns from the American public, as the president stated, that this birther issue was becoming distracting from the real issues confronting the country.

Excuse me, excuse me! So, who trumped who?

LIBYA’S KADAFI FLY ZONE COMING TO AN END, OR SHOULD IT?

By

Joseph Chez

(3-22-11)

Our national moral values are currently being questioned:
For weeks freedom fighters in Libya have asked for help from the West, but more so, from the United States. And yet, the specter of granting democracy to those who for a lifetime have not experienced it, is overwhelming to conceive – so goes the discussion on American television, the West Wing of the White House, and in the halls of Congress. In fact, the reluctance for interference in the Arab civilian uprising is simply just, an abundance of diplomatic caution. The caveat of course, is that while it would be to the benefit of our nation to get rid of Kaddafi, in like circumstances, we would also have to give support to the social uprising in Bahrain or in Saudi Arabia – which of course, it would then be to our economic detriment and perhaps more pressure on Israel to truly make peace.

However, to no one’s surprise, the stink of oppressive regimes in the Middle East has been tolerated by western powers, if not whole-heartedly sustained by them. Furthermore, it should be noted that the world today, bears witness to historic events sweeping the Arab world. More specific, we’re seeing the Arab world waking up from a long standing stupor and subjugation from oppressive dictatorial control and or, desert kingdom’s paternal abuse. But, to the surprise of the West, Arab grass root awareness and desire, has inflamed the yearning for representative democracy. Thus, the entire Middle East is aflame with great expectations for freedom. So what is the West to do now?

For decades, the West has used its military and economic stronghold through out the Middle East under the pretext of spreading democracy, but how unlikely, the multitude of people in the Middle East have always known what is hypocrisy and what is convenient to the West. “Enough is enough, the dictators have got to go” has been the cry in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Iran, but not limited to, and now Libya.

Reluctantly, Western powers such as the UK, France, and the U.S. have been a little bit late in getting their feet wet in these grass-root uprisings. What? Oppose the local governance which supplies our oil? Go against those who keep the Israeli-Palestinian issue from public scorn? Or, better yet, jeopardize Arab monies from stuffing our national treasury, our banks, or our wallets?

Therefore, finding ourselves in a geo-political quandary, the political discussion in the U.S. has been a concoction of disarray and frankly, totally unexpected political posturing. On the one hand, democrats known for opposing war and intervention are divided on whether to help the Libyan anti-government forces. In fact, there has even been a call by a democratic congressman to suggest impeachment of the President. And on the other side of the political isle, the neo-con republicans are strongly criticizing the president for not having been more forceful on this issue and they would like a robust military response. Perhaps they would like to see another “shock and Awe” scenario in Libya or just may be, they see an opportunity to turn on a few Middle Eastern regimes of which are not friendly with the US or Israel.

Thus, considering the political mine fields present, president Obama has opted for a “modest contribution” and waited until the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution (Resolution 1973) which allowed for the intervention in Libya in order to protect civilians. As a consequence, the very next day, the French and the UK jumped in and began to impose a “NO fly zone” against Kaddafi’s beleaguered, but blood thirsty nonetheless, arm forces. The U.S. however, was in fact involved thereafter or during the initial phase, but its kinetics has been played down. But, as a result of our half-witted response, even one of our F-15 fighter jets went down due to mechanical or just plain battle fatigue.

However, despite our conflicting interest in the Middle East, the question should not be whether we should or should not intervene in Libya. What our country is facing this moment in history is a moral imperative; whether a tyrannical and madman dictator, Moammar Kaddafi, should be allowed to kill civilians in mass, simply to remain in power? The answer is simple; if our nation stands for freedom and adheres to its own principles, we must not dither when it concerns human rights, and democracy. To do otherwise, is to cave in to immoral diplomatic turpitude and hypocritical self- national-interest. So yes, get the fly-zone of gad-fly Kaddafi out of the lives of the Libyan people. The aforementioned notwithstanding, the moral imperative goes further; in like circumstances, we must apply our principles the same – including with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, but not limited to – Israel.

MUBARAK STEPS DOWN - EGYPT IS NOW FREE!!

CONGRATULATIONS  to the people of Egypt.  Your efforts to topple the ruthless ditctator is no longer a dream.  Your message has been heard through out the world and as it spreads, the message is that democracy is a natural right.  For those who are under the chains of dictatorship, democracy is yours to have if only you choose to challage the status quo.

Joseph Chez

MUBARAK, THE EGYTIAN STORM IS UPON YOU!

By


Joseph Chez

In the spirit of the Egyptian storm God, Seth, the Egyptian people will gouge the eye of the 30 year reign of “dictator” Hosni (Horus) Mubarak. However, the world should know that democracy is not the sole understanding or privilege for western societies. The fact that primarily, the United States of America, England, and other European powers as well as other Middle East regional fiefdoms, have given official recognition, tacit approval of Mubarak’s authoritarian 30 year rule, or provided direct military support for this tyrant, it is clear that the people of Egypt have decided that enough is enough. The thunderous voice of the Egyptians today echoes the cries of Tunisians, Libyans, Syrians, Jordanians, Yemeni, Kuwaiti, Saudi, et al. Yes, the cry for freedom and democracy, just like a desert storm is thundering and blowing winds of change.

Furthermore, Egyptians as well as other peoples of the Middle East decry the West’s position that stability of the region or peace for Israel rest upon the need for oppressive Arab regimes to exist and prosper, but for the sole reason; to keep a tight reign on the people. Accordingly, the civil discontent of Egyptians, as well as from other Arab peoples now question the hypocrisy of the West’s explanation that democracy is a process rather than a fair and representative ballot choice of the masses. But wait, Western powers have been eerily quiet so far into the storm for freedom. Instead, those knee-deep in mea culpa can only give benign diplomatic language; they do not directly ask for Mubarak to step down but merely affirm the close and friendly ties with the Mubarak regime. President Obama on the other hand, squeamishly began with a simple demand for freedom to Tweet for the Egyptian people. But just today, Feb 1, 2011, President Obama was more demanding and asked for a smooth transition of government and affirmed the universal rights for democracy and freedom for the Egyptian people. And yet, he could not utter a more direct position in behalf of the U.S., asking for this dictator to step down. This may be why Mubarak has taken a stern position of not resigning until the end of his term ending in September 2011. Thus, Obama’s careful calculated diplomatic mush must therefore be for fear of Mubarak Wiki-liking that Egypt was the destination for U.S. victims of rendition and torture, or that Egypt and Jordan were staging areas for western forces to invade other Arab nations.

What is not a secret to the world is the fact that the U.S. has annually given the Mubarak regime 1.5 billion of U.S. dollars in the form of credit so this tyrant could purchase US and British made security armament. But it should be noted that such armament was certainly not for defense against any out side potential enemy, but rather, for internal civilian control. In addition, much of that foreign aid for security has also filled the pockets full of dollars for all of Mubarak’s internal security cronies. The other 200 plus millions in US aid earmarked for the benefit of civilians, actually never trickled down to the Egyptian on the street. Instead, those millions indeed help for the lavish living abroad for Mubarak’s family and friends, as well as maximizing the bank accounts in Swiss banks of those Egyptians close to the dictator.

Currently, a stand off continues and Mubarak is not blinking, as Western nations are being a bit squeamish at what type of government may result in the end. Their fear is that a theocratic government replacing the Mubarak regime may in fact pose a great danger to the safety of Israel, the model of democracy for that region – as the West believes. However, it must be noted that Israel is very much a democracy, but immensely religious. And further, while the US, being Israel’s grandest benefactor and personal safety guarantor, pursuit of religion by Arabs is deemed by the West as connected with terrorism. Is this a double standard?

So, into the storm and the Egyptian people thundering their demands, what do they really want? For starters, they want democratic principles in their daily lives as well as economic reform that benefits the people. They want the freedom to choose their leaders, whom ever they may be. They want a popular elected leader – not a dictator, king or pharaoh. And certainly, they do not want the West to dictate whether a fair and popular election is agreeable with the White House, 10 Downing St, or Tel Aviv. Conveniently, the Mubarak regime has been a willing lackey for Western powers for the last 30 years and as a consequence, the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have not moved and inch. The road to peace is designed that way, with approving Arab leaders no doubt. However, the nature of things favors what is only right; history is on the side of the Egyptian people as well as for other Arab nations willing to challenge the status quo.

So, President Barack Obama, it is time to take as stand and be on the right side of history. The Egyptian people are questioning our resolve to stand up for democratic principles – and demand that we mean what we say. You must therefore be clear on the issue, and ask for this dictator to step down.

As for you Hosni Mubarak, it is time for you to leave Egypt. You have dishonored the consent of the Egyptian people and you have betrayed the trust of the nation. If you choose to stand your ground and carry out more injustice upon the Egyptian people, know that the storm is upon you and you will be judged.

Jared Laughner not delusional, but ultra-right political

By


Joseph Chez

After a complete understanding of my adversary and under the cover of night, I once rescued a young 16 year old from the home of a crazed neo-Nazi, who truly was not delusional but was emboldened with hate ideology. Thus, I know the Jared Laughners – they are not crazy but they are committed to their cause, and they pose a grave danger to our society.
However, the media, the experts, as is Fox News - have it wrong in concluding that Jared Laughner's acts were not connected to ultra-right politics. It has not escaped me notice that Fox News has filtered statements such as those of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, when he stated that Arizona has become the Mecca for racist or that the vitriol of conservative radio was responsible for inciting violence. It has not escaped me notice that the political right is not retreating or reloading, but instead, are framing the issue for an insanity cause-and-effect, and are further distancing from any connection with the Tucson AZ tragedy. It is a fact that many racist groups realized several decades ago that they must not be so overt, but instead, that they must infiltrate every part of the community and be seen as average citizens. So, it has not escaped me notice that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his legions of followers, are keeping a low profile.

It is true that all facts are not known as of yet, however, we do know that this individual, Jared Laughner, has been tied to racist and anti- immigrant organizations, and that should be the lead to understanding Jared Laugner – not that he is a lunatic or that he is mentally ill. Of course, specific conservative groups are actively changing the debate in order to avoid collusion. Even the experts are misreading the Tea Party leaves - to the detriment of the truth and our safety.

Moreover, it has not escaped me notice that Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford (D-8th/AZ) is Jewish and that this fact, was one of many, but the primary reason for this neo-Nazi to attempt to take the life of Representative Gifford. Accordingly, it has not escaped me notice that Republican House leaders have paused their conservative agenda and participated in a moment of silence out of respect for what happened in Tucson, but also, for respect and consideration of the political clout of the Jewish community. One must recognize that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has been monitoring groups such as the “American Renaissance” which may defame or pose a threat to the Jewish people. Interestingly enough, Jared Laughner has been tied to the doctrine as promulgated by Jared Taylor, editor and chief of the American Renaissance, a known racist organization.

Indeed, Jared Laughner is and has been enraged with hate, but it would be a mistake to conclude that his hate was the product of insanity. The truth is, is that this individual exhibits the classic behavior of a separatist, anti-immigrant neo-Nazi, who at one time may even have been well read, average teen in high school, or a tolerant individual. Indeed, Jared Laughner morphed from an average citizen into a hate-filled individual whose core values were high jacked by the hate-filled atmosphere provided by the political conservative right. Surely, no one can directly pin the blame for Jared’s political transformation or acts of violence on conservative shock radio or to the pseudo-professors on TV, but, such pervasive vitriol must have had influence in the fragile temperament of this individual, whose own dysfunctional persona was ripe to embrace ultra-right conservative or supremacist ideology. And as I remember so well, of the vicious and hateful neo-Nazi who held the 16 year old captive, he was once a nice average kid, until nativist-separatist in his community urged him buff up and fight back against non-whites who were taking over his country. And so, he did just that; he became a crazed and violent individual, now that he could understand the reasons for all the ills in his family and country.

The conscious "dreams" and other loony statements Jared Laughner made on social media web sites is not gibberish, but coded words - in conversation with like-minded individuals in the separatist movement. Regrettably, such coded communications are being described as delusional by the media and the political right. Once again, the conservative right is framing the situation differently in order to deflect blame. Even calling Jared Laughner, a crazed leftist who read the communist manifesto, but selectively leaving out Hitler’s “Mien Kampf.”

In sum, when I say that I know that Jared Laughner is not crazy, I must revert to the likeness of the neo-Nazi who held the 16 year old captive; both were young, impressionable and had a dysfunctional background. Such equation plus the ultra-right conservative dogma surrounding our society easily provided for these two to succumb to the vitriol of hate and intolerance – a classic modus operandi for their transformation. Thus, Jared Laughner is not insane, but he is deliberate and calculating. The intimidation these individuals do show is just part of the newly found ideological euphoria which gives them a sense of righteousness.

The caveat for us is, to discern correctly that which is delusions and what is doctrine of hate and cold blooded political calculation. We must be right on this issue, for if we gloss over it and deflect it, as some in the media and on the political right are doing, it gives those on the fringe, a go signal that their cause is righteous, will endure and prosper.

IRAQ: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED OR MISSION DENIAL.

By


Joseph Chez

August 31, 2010

This day marks the official end of U.S. combat involvement in Iraq, but is it over – and, was it necessary?

President Obama will go before the nation on national TV today and attempt to summarize the beginning and the end of war hostilities in Iraq. However, he will walk a fine line in not taking credit for a perceived success, but he will also not excuse the nation for a historic blunder in having invaded a sovereign nation under the guise of national security when in fact, such nation had nothing to do with the attack on U.S. soil on 9-11.

However, Republicans on the political right are openly taking credit for the war with Iraq and further reinvigorate their previous claims of Iraq having posed a direct and imminent threat against our national security. And yet, history has noted the blunder of such war against Iraq, a war which was premeditated and justified with distorted facts and dishonorable acts. Today, neo-cons will call it a “conservative victory” in Iraq, despite the dishonest reasons for the war.

So yes, the Republicans should be allowed to take credit for the blundering international piracy and discredit to our nation. They should take credit for the 4, 220 US soldiers killed in the war, plus, the 31,911 soldiers injured.

On the other hand, President Obama has done little to change the course of hostilities in the Middle East and in fact, continued what President Bush started. So, can he take credit in this drawdown of forces in Iraq, or should he also be an accomplice to the deceit of the war. I therefore argue that despite the drawdown President Obama must also take blame for taking the baton from former President Bush and having pursued the same failed policy, in like-manner and with the same fervor.

And yet, today President Obama will carefully muddle through, in explaining that U.S. involvement in Iraq is coming to a close. But, is it? No it is not. Fifty Thousand US troops will still remain in Iraq under the guise of being non-combat forces. Furthermore, we leave behind a behemoth US presence in that country, from private security forces, to the biggest US embassy ever built anywhere in the world. We also leave a government which is simply not Iraqi home-grown, but is a carefully planted cadre of Iraqi officials who were carefully seeded by the U.S. Government.

Thus, what may be perceived as an end of US involvement in Iraq, it is not! While neo-cons in this country see a victory, is it not. How can anybody make a claim that while we invaded the wrong country, oops, we continued until we vanquished? And after 7 years of war, casualties in Iraq continue with no end in sight. It seem to me that we are making it look like a win, when in reality, we are leaving Iraq quietly and without fanfare – because, it was a big blunder from the beginning and, we leave a country in disarray and ripe for political and sectarian conflict. Regrettably, we also leave a country whith a military that was trained by the US, but sadly, will in the future; pose a bigger security problem regionally and against US security interest.

The truth Mr. President…………

THE CHICKEN HAWK BRIEF: CITIZENS UNITED v. FEC

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010)


By

Joseph Chez

Why should I be surprised that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the above case, when at a private gathering, standing next to Justice Kennedy, I heard him say, “Anybody else but Hillary!” And yet, the U.S. Supreme Court just handed down a landmark case decision (January 21, 2010) which is a game changer for American politics. Further, political experts believe the Court placed its judicial weight - favoring the political right. The 5-4 decision now lifts campaign limits and restrictions on corporate spending in federal elections. But, the political left in the country is not surprised; under the Rehnquist court, in December 2000, in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of George W. Bush and simply gave away the 2000 presidential election to the republicans. This week, the Robert’s Court ushered a new era of corporate America having a free reign to dominate all things political in the country. The rationale? I can assure you that the issues are rather complex, but I have briefed the recent Supreme Court ruling for the masses rather than for law professors, and thus, I have come out with this Chicken hawk legal brief:
________________________________________________________________________

CHICKEN HAWK -- THE BRIEF

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission

FACTS: A nonprofit corporation, Citizens United, released a documentary (hereinafter Hillary) critical of then Senator Hillary Clinton and candidate in the 2000 Presidential Election, which potentially violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general funds for speech that is deemed “electioneering communication” and that is publicly distributed expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U.S.C. § 441b. Citizens United thus sought declaratory and injunctive relief fearing violation of election laws.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for which the three-judge district court denied appellant's motions for preliminary injunctions. Appellant is now requesting the Court for motion to dismiss or affirm.

ISSUE: 1. Whether 2 U.S.C. §441b of BRCA is valid and applicable under

Austin v. Michigan as the lower court did not resolve the issue?

2. Whether the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) violated Citizens United’s free speech?

3. Whether disclaimers and disclosure requirements are valid and must be confined to “speech?”

RULING: 1. Speech within the reach of rules created for regulating political speech is chilled and functions as the equivalent of prior restraint, giving the FEC power analogous to the type of government practices that the First Amendment was drawn to prohibit. A statute that chills speech can and must be invalidated. Sec. 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech. Austin v. Michigan is overruled. The part of McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission that upheld BCRA §203’s extension of §441b’s restrictions on independent corporate expenditures is also overruled.

2. Speech is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process. And, because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy – it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people – political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.

3. Citizens United’s contention that disclosure requirements must be confined to speech as it is the functional equivalent of expressed advocacy is rejected.

RATIONALE:
Case can not be resolved on a narrower ground without chilling political speech, speech that is central to the First Amendment’s meaning and purpose; however, Citizens United did not waive a challenge to the Austin ruling. Notwithstanding, even though speech itself is of primary importance to the integrity of the election process, Austin provides no basis for allowing the Government to limit corporate independent expenditures. Hence, §441b’s restrictions on such expenditures are invalid and cannot be applied to Hillary. Further, Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity and no government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.
Disclosure requirements are the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations.

DISPOSITION:
Applications of §201 and 311 (disclaimer and disclosure requirements) affirmed.

Reversed in part, affirmed in part (Austin ruling, §203 of McConnell), and remanded.
__________________________________________________________________________________

In McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission, 540 U.S. 93, 203-209, the court placed limits on electioneering communications in a facial challenge, relying on the holding of the Austin case.

In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, the court held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker’s corporate identity.
_________________________________________________________________________________


Of course, I wrote this brief in order to better understand the reasoning behind the ruling. However, having read the entire opinion, I still fail to grasp its practical approach and legal reasoning. And just like the rest of the country, I remain confused and flabbergasted. Notwithstanding, the Supreme Court’s decision inadvertently thus leaves the country with more questions than it answers. In fact, one could aptly conclude that this ruling was deliberate and with purpose. Why you may ask? There is the belief amongst legal scholars that the conservative majority within the court is a judicial activist group pursuing a conservative agenda.  It simply makes sense that this catechism majority in the Court, is framing the issues to favor the political right and/or in anticipations of over turning cases such as Roe v. Wade. Far fetched? Not so. For if corporation can be construed as legal participants, the same as individuals, within the scope of federal elections, it follows that fetuses may also have a “voice” duly recognized by stare decisis. Or, how about this; currently, nonprofit groups such as churches are tax exempt, but are barred from political campaign intervention under IRS Code §501(c)(3). However, since many churches today are heads of nonprofit corporations, can churches now openly campaign and influence elections on issues dear to their gospel? For example: Right to life issue, or gay marriage?

However, we must insist that while under the Citizens United ruling, if corporations are to be recognized, the same as individuals, that such enterprise also be held accountable, the same as individuals. What comes to mind is, “libel.” Thus, if the Swift Boaters of America, a nonprofit corporation engages in defamation of political candidates on the left, they should not be able to seek protection under the First Amendment.

In sum, the current Supreme Court decision does however: 1) provide for corporations to be treated as individuals; 2) does away with regulations prohibiting corporations (unions) from using their funds in federal elections; 3) corporations and associations can now openly campaign in favor or against a candidate; 4) also eliminates restrictions on campaign ads prior to a primary or election; 5) and last, it keeps regulations which prohibit direct contributions to candidates.

Of course, I do not want to leave you with any inference that Justice Kennedy ruled in favor of Citizens United because he may not like Hillary. Simply, standing next to him, after a dedication of a U.S. District Court (branch), a friend of mine asked Justice Kennedy how he felt about a potential woman becoming president of these United States of America. His statement and facial expressions said it all. However, I want to believe that despite his possible disdain for Hillary Clinton, that Justice Kennedy’s ruling was entirely within the scope of jurisprudence and his judicial discretion. I will tell you however, why I decided to name the brief, the CHICKEN HAWK. Because, like they say in corporate office, when there’s lots of money to spend and lots of politicians willing to take it – IT WILL BE EASY PICK’INS!

HELEN THOMAS: “WHAT IS THE CORE REASONS THEY WANT TO BLOW US UP?”

By


Joseph Chez

Ever since the attempted terrorist attack on Flight 253, the media and our government has been consumed with what is perceived as a systemic security failure. Consequently, reactionary measures are being put in place in hopes of keeping the country safe. But will we be safer with beefing up security without considering the cause and affect of what fuels terrorism?

On January 5, 2010 at a White House news briefing, the dean of the White House Press Corps and columnist for the Hearst Newspapers, Helen Thomas, asked Press Secy. Robert Gibbs the most profound, yet simple question to date concerning the attempted terrorist attack- and so she asked: “what is the core reasons they want to blow us up?” Not surprised, Press Secy. Gibbs responded consistent with our national denial and did not adequately answer Helen’s question. Here’s what he did say:

MR. GIBBS: I don't know that I'm the best person to speak for some of their actions.

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, again, I think that for whatever awful and murderous reason that people seek to get on planes and do innocent people throughout the world harm, I can't speak to the type of deranged mentality that leads somebody to do that.

Immediately after the White House news briefing that day, I contacted Helen and thanked her for having the determination to ask questions which are not being asked by the rest of the media, and questions which are not being addressed by this administration. Helen responded that it was important to get the administration on record that if they do know or acknowledge the cause of the new hatred against us, that it was important that we know what the authorities do know.

On January 7, 2010, during a White House Briefing by Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Brennan, and Press Secretary Gibbs, Helen once again asked:



HELEN: … what is really lacking always for us is you don't give the motivation of why they want to do us harm.

MR. BRENNAN: Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. What they have done over the past decade and a half, two decades, is to attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he's able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death.

HELEN: And you're saying it's because of religion?

MR. BRENNAN: I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way.

HELEN: Why?

MR. BRENNAN: I think this is a -- this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.

HELEN: But you haven’t explained why.



Of course, as in litigation, a lawyer should not ask a question for which he/she does not know the answer. In like circumstances, a news reporter should ask questions for which there is still no answer. Thus, Helen, the renowned journalist that she is, continues to ask “why” we are being targeted by terrorist.

As a young man, while in college, I worked for the USFS as a member of a hot-shot fire crew, and the most basic of fire science taught me that in fighting fire, one must get to the source of the fire - first and foremost. Simply throwing water at the flames is meaningless and does nothing to abate the fire. Therefore, in extinguishing a fire, one must first take out the source of the fire and second, whatever fuels the fire. Likewise, tackling the issue of terrorism, our national leaders must not only know the source of terrorism but must also tackle what fuels terrorism. Simply reacting with surprise, finger pointing and instituting tougher security measures does not address the issue of why such individuals are so willing to give up their lives in order to get to us. Can we really stop them? Not really. For example, while our government is focusing on tightening airport security, thousands of Iranians, Somalis, Iraqis, et al, are skipping the airports and are simply walking up to our border crossings and asking for asylum. After a short detention, they are simply let out – on their own recognizance- and are given a date for an immigration hearing (if they ever show up of course). Does anybody see a failure to connect dots………?

And so I agree with Helen Thomas, that it is imperative that the core reasons for “why” they want to harm us be considered and answered by our government leaders. For if we deliberately disavow our uneven-handedness in the Israeli/Palestinian issue or our hostile involvement in the various, overt and clandestine wars in the Middle East, then, we are fooling ourselves and adding fuel to the fire which may consume us. Conversely, if we truly wish to be safe from terror, we must therefore resolve the issues which fuel the hatred towards our country.

STATUS QUO ANTE PREVAILING IN US FOREIGN POLICY. DID SOMEONE FORGET TO PUSH THE RESET BUTTON?

By
Joseph Chez

The attempted terrorist attack on Xmas day is of course regrettable and troubling. However, we should be asking ourselves why such animus towards the United States of America continues? Did we not get another leader that promised change and the resetting of American foreign policy? Today, the hostilities in the Middle East continue and we are in constant panic at home because of attempted terror attacks on the country. I therefore argue, that having voted for change, there seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Perhaps, the reset button has yet to be pushed?

“We will not rest until we find all who were involved and are held accountable” is what President Obama said in a response to Al Qaeda’s claim for the Xmas day attempted terrorist attack on the U.S. bound passenger plane. Interestingly, the President’s warning to the terrorist was given with much bravado and unyielding determination. In fact, it was reminiscent of the same bravado given by former President George W. Bush as he addressed a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001- in which he unequivocally gave a stern warning to the 9-11 culprits and gave his “justice will be done” speech. So what’s wrong with this picture? Certainly, it is not what we say in repudiating the terrorist acts or warning the enemy for what it may do in the future, but simply, the bravado in our responses which is simply chest beating – which does nothing to resolve the core issues between our national security and the terrorist’s grievances. Thus, responding in a cowboy-swaggering behavior does little to inflict fear on the enemy and in the end, does not provide significant security for the country. Further, such assurance of finding “all involved” and holding them accountable is rather a tall order to fulfill, given that in the last nine years, the prime suspect and mastermind of the 9-11 attack, Osama bin Laden, has yet to be found. Further, the ones currently held in detention, the majority have been released (or about to be released) due to unfounded ties to terrorism. We therefore must ask, is the military option the answer to our national security, or, is it the cause of our problem?

Further, why carry on with the same unilateralism and preemptive militaristic mentality - which prevailed during the Bush Administration? Was it really necessary to start a clandestine war in Pakistan which now is in full bloom? Was it necessary to preemptively make strikes in Yemen this last week – which of course set a course of events in motion on Xmas Day – as claimed by Al Qaeda? Will Somalia be next? And how many generations will the war on terror continue into the future?

On November 4, 2008, the majority of the Americans people, who had concluded that the Bush policies on the war on terror were ill-fated and counter-productive, decisively and prudently chose a new national leader in hopes of changing the course of the country. President Obama was thus elected, as he had promised a new beginning in terms of foreign policy, inter alia. However, many now question why President Obama’s promises have fallen short and change has been mistranslated to mean, more of the same, as during the Bush Administration.

We should not forget that during the eight years of the Bush Administration, the model for the war on terror became of global reach and its doctrine was one which promulgated a practice of unilateralism and preemption - against any and all which we deemed a potential enemy. President Obama on the other hand, began with extending a hand to the world, especially the Muslim world, and promised better relations. And yet, the aggressive military campaign that prevailed during the Bush Administration continues - unabated. Moreover, President Obama appears to have taken the baton from Bush and expanded the global U.S. military reach and has created a whole new war theater, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. This last week (Dec. 17) the U.S. launched cruise missile strikes against what was believed to be Al Qaeda training camps, in Yemen. But then again, just across the Gulf of Aden, is Somalia – another Al Qaeda stronghold. And last but not least, the young terrorist that attempted to blow up the Northwest Airline, Flight 252 on Dec. 25th, originated from Nigeria –another of many radicalized Muslim African regions. So where do we stop?

We therefore must conclude that our nation’s state of affairs under President Obama’s Administration is status quo ante, same as before. And as he stated today, that “We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat extremist who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan, or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. Homeland.” Thus, we must presume that the war on terror will continue, using Bush’s terminology - way into the event-horizon.

But hold on Mr. President, did you not mean to push the reset button, thus changing the course of events and pave the way for peace? Or, did you mean to reinvent yourself while in office and deceive those who placed so much hope in you to become president? With all due respect Mr. President, you are taking us further into a path of self destruction. Yes, we can stop. Yes, we should take a big breath and reflect. Let’s take this opportunity to stop all hostilities and you will find that the kinetics of war will stand down. Further military responses will only cause an untold number of attacks on the country and perhaps around the world. The alternative may be that we continue to live under further fear of terrorist attacks as well as live under the heavy hand of domestic security. What more are we to expect; more personal intrusion, cavity searches for everyone, at every public gathering, and are we to also embrace even more erosion in our civil liberties? No Mr. President, I did not vote for that.

Already, the political right in the country is publicly calling for no further political correctness, which is code for – just tell it like it is- and perhaps call for the internment of anyone who does not look Anglo-Saxon. There is historical precedence for this you know. Even more frightening, is the neo-cons who are calling for the expansion of the war on terror – to reach Yemen, Somalia, Iran, N. Korea and beyond. Thus, are we prepared for what may result from failure to reset? Mr. President, I distinctly remember not voting for the status quo. I voted for Change.

A troop surge for the war in Afghanistan is adding fuel to the fire, but allowing Georgia to supply troops has stupid written all over it.

By

Joseph Chez

The single most important issue concerning our involvement in a war in Afghanistan today is the planned increase of troops for that war, for it will determine the future exit strategy for the US and NATO member participants, or the way into the secret US war next door in Pakistan. That said, most experts would agree that the unknown elements of this war adds to a recipe for further conflict. What’s more frightening however, is that, as we have asked NATO to supply more troops for the (wishful) final face of the war, the US has accepted the participation of troops from a “wannabe” NATO member, Georgia, whose former status was that of a former Soviet republic, while today, Russia continues to consider such break-away republics as part of its “near abroad” (sphere of influence). Therefore, allowing for Georgia to supply a token number of troops (300+) for the Afghan war is in itself inconsequential, if it were not for the consequences which may provoke. At first hand, the offer of troops by the Georgian government may seem innocuous but in reality, there is a deliberate move by the president of that country, Mikheil Saakashvilli, to earn a pay back in return for its participation and thus, force the United States to support a future challenge against Russia on the issue of South Ossetia. A softer message is perhaps a nudge to NATO that it wants to be brought in from the cold – as a full fledged member of the alliance.

Further, it bears repeating that the former Soviet break-away republic of Georgia has been at odds with Russia since 1991 when Georgia declared its independence from the Soviet Union. However, exacerbating the strained relations between the two nations is the rise of Mikheil Saakashvili who started his political life as a young reformer but has since become a pain in the Russians’ buttocks.

Mikheil Saakashvili is American educated, having attended Columbia University and George Washington University. Moreover, Saakashvili was instrumental in the “Rose Revolution” which resulted in the bloodless coup in Georgia and inspired other populous movements through out other break-away former Soviet republics. In Addition, his love of the West has been further manifested by including young westerners in his government, but, further thumbing his nose at Russia, he has longingly courted the European Union and NATO for membership. In fact, he has become the darling for neo-cons in the US and it’s believed that the CIA nurtured his political career. Immediately after the bloodless coup, President George Bush traveled to Georgia to give his blessings even though, many European heads of state refrained from visiting Georgia out of respect for Russia’s “near abroad.”

In August 2008, in an attempt to recoup its own break-away northern province of South Ossetia, Georgia’s army began an incursion into the north but was forced to retreat once the Russian Army interfered militarily. In response, according to the Human Rights Watch, Georgian forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate artillery attacks on civilians in South Ossetia. In response, Russia’s army invaded Georgia creating a tenuous situation for major regional powers, including NATO and the United States. Thus, the military skirmish between Georgian forces and the Russian Army may have been a regional conflict, but Mikheil Saakashvili skillfully pitted the security interest of bigger fish, such as NATO and the United States against Russia. The West could only issue strong condemnations but fell short of substantive assistance to Georgia. Cowboy GW however suggested to send troops as part of a UN/NATO peace keeping force, but Russia stood its ground and reality hit. However, Mikheil Saakashvili continued to sound the alarm, but strongly condemned the West for not having stepped in militarily. Luckily, GW, the “decider”, he was “transitory” as he was about to leave office and by that time, much of the major hostilities subsided - the Russian Army withdrew from Georgia territory and receded back to South Ossetia. Yet, presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, both were quick to lend support to the Georgian people, lest they be thought of as soft on Russian aggression.

Today, Mikheil Saakashvili is considered by some as somewhat unpredictable, if not a loose cannon. Nonetheless, he considers himself to be the catalyst that will allow for Georgia to integrate into the European Union and ultimately, as a member of NATO. To emphasize his desire and determination, all public buildings in Tbilisi Georgia today fly the European Union flag next to the Georgia flag.

Currently, South Ossetia has acquired de facto recognition as a sovereign nation, even though; Russia is the only country to give its recognition. Yet, Saakashvili is hell-bent on recovering its disputed province to the north despite Russian forces which continue to operate in South Ossetia. Regrettably, continued hostilities persist at the border region and we can only suspect what cowboy Saakashvili may do in the future. One can only imagine that if Georgia were to become a member of NATO, would Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization be invoked by Mikheil in the event of further hostilities?

Bottom line, the question is not whether Georgia should not lend a helping hand to the cause in Afghanistan, but it should be asked, why is the United States accepting the offer of negligible number of Georgian troops when the risks of potential future entanglement with Russia is written on the wall. So is stupid is and stupid does?

ON THE EVE OF RESSETTING THE AFGHANISTAN WAR POLICY, THE FUTURE IS FORESEEABLE

By
Joseph Chez
No one questions President Obama’s process in realigning the policy for the war in Afghanistan, just the consequences of his actions. We know that it has taken several months for his administration to carefully consider Gen. McCrhrystal’s analysis of the war and his recommendations. And despite criticism for dithering, as war enthusiast “Dick” Chaney has called it, President Obama has impressed many policy experts, such as Gen. Collin Powell, for taking all the time necessary in order to come up with a sensible and effective policy for turning the Afghanistan conflict to a successful withdrawal from that war. In the process, Pres. Obama sought the unique and specific advisement from Pentagon officials as well as from other foreign policy experts, including two cents worth from American allies abroad; Israel, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Russia and India, but leaving out the objectionable posture from Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries.

Resetting the future:
Thus, on December 1, 2009 President Obama will address the nation and convey to the American public why it is necessary to remain in Afghanistan, his plans for a troop surge for the war, and a road map for extracting our nation from the liquefaction in the sands of Afghanistan. Accordingly, President Obama will point out that winning the war in Afghanistan is imperative for our national security. He will argue that increasing troop levels is a necessity in order to stabilize the country and to have adequate troop proportions to cover a wider area of the country. But more importantly, President Obama will give the nation specific details for his expectations for achieving the insurmountable goal of achieving victory and sensibly bringing the troops home.

Foreseeable future:
No one can predict the future but one can prognosticate what will result based on facts and acts of the past and present. In the case of the war in Afghanistan, President Bush promised the nation retribution for those who did harm to the nation on 9-11, but, he never worried about and end-game since it was a “given” that we would kick butt and have a mission accomplished. Yet, eight years into the war and a protracted insurgency continues with no signs of abatement. And, while the proper response to 9-11 should have been a deliberate but appropriate retribution of equal proportions, the U.S. government under the bush Administration veiled opportunism with patriotism and instead, invaded Iraq in a frenzied “shock and awe” while declaring in 3-15-02: “the Taliban is out of business.” Today the Taliban is stronger than ever and not only poses a danger to the current government; it also challenges the U.S. coalition.

Tomorrow, President Obama will reset the course of the war in Afghanistan in hopes of getting the upper hand and finding an honorable exit. Yet, there is an eerie parallel with the Viet Nam War; much like Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama ran for the presidency on a platform of bringing an end to the war, but also, wining the presidency by contrasting the hawkish views of his political opponent. And just like his predecessor Lyndon B. Johnson, President Obama has rebuked the (Afghanistan’s) government policies of corruption and own efforts to protect their country. Although, Lyndon Johnson promised, and Barack Obama will echo, the U.S. would remain in their country to fend off the aggressors, until such time that a stable and self sustaining government is present.

Inexplicably, candidate Obama did however believe that the war in Afghanistan was a war of necessity. However, he realized that the handling of the Afghan war was not properly handled by the Bush Administration – a false assertion that has led him to believe the war is winnable if only confronted properly. Thus, after careful review of the present Afghan war circumstances, insistence from the Pentagon and input from corrupt interested parties in the US military industrial complex, as well as Afghan government officials, President Obama has decided to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. Up to 30 thousand more US troops will be deployed in Afghanistan: a country which is considered the second most corrupt nation in the world and a country which produces 87 per cent of the world’s opium; a country which is mainly Pashtun, the Taliban are mostly Pashtun and the neighboring country of Pakistan initiated and continues to influence the Taliban; a country which is larger than Iraq and with the greatest concentration of high mountains, making the war far more difficult; a country which is riddled with political, religious and ethnic strife; a region of the world which has seen foreign mighty armies but only to defeat them; and a war in which eight years of conflict has only widened the conflict and has not produced a more perfect society in the likes of its invader.

Inadvertently or deliberately, the U.S. will again embark in a wider mission under the cause for freedom and sense of security. President Obama will again reassert the mission against the enemy. In Afghanistan however, it was Al Qaeda who initiated plans for the 9-11 attack on U.S. soil, not the Taliban. The Taliban were and are only an Islamic fundamentalist movement with puritanical interpretation of Islam – and have no interest in religious expansion or incurring harm on the U.S. Al Qaeda on the other hand, has moved on to Pakistan and India – the next chapter. Thus, even though President Obama wishes to make corrections, it is befitting to note that believing that because the war started incredibly badly, as Charles De Gaulle would say, “therefore, it must be continued”, is a precarious move which may bring no end in sight. But, if the goal is to win a victory, we must remind our president that dead soldiers take no victory.

In sum, I can not wish for our president’s policy to fail, for I know too well that his intent if for the good of the country. However, President Obama must consider what is at stake; a widening of the war, an increase in soldier casualties, additional burden to the national debt (currently14 trillion), but more importantly, a war which is not in the hearts and mind of the American people (57 per cent oppose it) is not a war that can truly provide an honorable exit.

But just a reminder Mr. President; when Lyndon B. Johnson prior to his famous words of “I will not run for re-election”, he was being asked by Viet Nam officials and U.S. hawks to increase troop levels to insure a final victory, and so he replied: “they call upon us to supply American boys to do the job that Asian boys should do.” What is your response Mr. President?