NOSIS

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

2011-11-22T17:09:00.000-08:00

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

2011-06-21T16:23:00.000-07:00

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

2011-05-29T12:05:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-05-19T09:08:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-04-28T21:01:00.000-07:00

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.

2011-04-27T11:05:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-03-23T17:51:00.000-07:00

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!!

2011-02-11T09:25:00.000-08:00

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!

2011-02-01T20:48:00.000-08:00

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

2011-01-11T20:28:00.000-08:00

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.

2010-08-31T15:04:00.000-07:00

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

2010-01-25T19:30:00.000-08:00

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?”

2010-01-13T20:50:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-12-29T11:11:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-12-07T13:15:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-30T23:32:00.000-08:00

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?

ADDENDUM: PALIN, GOING ROGUE OR BEAUTY CONTESTANT?

2009-11-18T22:46:00.000-08:00

By
Joseph Chez
For sometime, my wife has argued that beauty pageant contestants are no less than floozies walking around showing their software but lacking a hard drive. She opines that for any beauty pageant contestant to believe their looks are unique or above the norm, must truly be a veil to conceal their personal inequities. However, like most men, I have argued that beauty pageant contestants are not vetted for analytical skills or intellectual prowess but simply for their looks, which brings me to the issue of whether former beauty pageant contestant, Sarah Palin has truly gone rogue, or is simply trying to do damage control in hopes of getting back on stage as a future contestant?

However, it has not escaped me notice that conservative fox noise interviewers have been drooling when interviewing Sarah Palin. They claim that while they are discussing critical policy issues, the liberal media has been preoccupied with the salacious and inconsequential episodes of Sarah’s misunderstood persona. Although, when Sean Hannity asked “Governor” Palin if she believed President Obama was a socialist, she glossed over the question with a scrambled illustration of confusion. Did she really even understand the concept of socialism? Oh my god, I now understands my wife’s argument about beauty contestants; Sarah’s second coming is not a make-over of her body and mind, but simply, a Miss South Carolina Teen USA contestant revisited.

Notwithstanding, Sarah Paling appears to be gaining her confidence and it’s no longer about promoting her book as much as is to retake the political runway once more. Further providing her a false sense of accomplishment, is the tremendous following from her conservative base which seem oblivious to her simplistic view of the world. But she continues as if she was to become the crown jewel of the political pageant. And she will be, for the Grand Old Party and to the evangelical right-wing. However, having viewed a number of her interviews, I do not see Sarah Palin any different than how she was during the last election; she is intellectually poor, with a narrow view of the world, and with panache of a beauty contestant – nothing more. And while a great number of the conservative faithful are lined up for the circus, it should not translate into a belief that the gospel according to Sarah will be relevant in the end times. For I have seen the divine beauty contestants, including Carrie Prejean, and while there is a lot to look at, there is little, if any, intellectual discourse.

GOING ROGUE: AN AMERICAN PROFILE

2009-11-16T20:38:00.000-08:00

By

Joseph Chez

Just like the legendary phoenix, Sara Palin is rising from the ashes, after having suffered a major defeat in the last presidential election and was further eviscerated by the media, rightfully so, or not. But, even after her crucifixion, Sarah continues to raise enthusiasm and support by a great portion of the American population. Surprisingly, despite having taken head-butts, left hooks and near knock-outs, inexperienced Sarah Barracuda appears to be staying in the political arena and keeps on punching.

In what appears as her resurrection, Sarah Palin has begun her comeback through a barrage of media interviews as well as promoting her new book, “Going Rogue: An American Life.” Her new book is now a hot seller and conservatives welcome its release akin to the advent of a new gospel, while liberals chuckle and deride the entire spectacle. Nonetheless, Sarah uses her scripture as a means to shore up her image but also to spread the conservative message for the faithful. However, most in the media see Sarah Palin’s book simply as a tell-all book that points fingers at others for her seemingly amateurish political performance during the election. And yet, the gospel according to Sarah is without a doubt, an affirmation and determination to “fight for America.”

Still, to like Sarah Palin or not, she should not be discounted nor surreptitiously vilified, as she is unquestionably the darling of the conservative movement in the heartland and perhaps, the leading republican candidate for 2012 or the 2016 presidential election. Moreover, despite current polls showing her having low percentages in her support for the presidency, there is the fact that 67 per cent of conservative republicans support Sarah Palin and see her as the hope of the Grand Old Party. Furthermore, Sarah Palin excites the passion of many in the Christian fundamentalist movement, the strong national defense crowd, the Tea Party movement, anti-government militias, 2nd Amendment supporters, the state right’s movement, the pro-life movement, the anti-environmental movement, proponents for government deregulation in business and industry, immigrant haters, the Joe six-pac(s), Joe the plumbers, John Birchers, Glen Beckies, and every jingoistic scoundrel which purports to love the country. In essence, Sarah Palin is just the girl next door; she is not the consequence but the symptom of the American profile. What is disconcerting however, is that Sarah is making a comeback, and as her fathers says: “she is not retreating, she’s reloading!”

THE BERLIN WALL DID NOT TEAR DOWN, IT CRUMBLED BY ITS OWN ILLEGITIMATCY.

2009-11-09T16:40:00.000-08:00

By
Joseph Chez

November 9, 2009 marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. However, it is befitting to note that while we celebrate the downfall of this shameful wall of tyranny, existing walls of oppression are being built today –with little or no opposition from western democracies. One glaring example is the concrete wall that the Israelis have built surrounding the West Bank, shamefully enclosing Palestinians and depriving them of basic living standards and freedoms. Ironically, the Nazis in WWII walled a Jewish quarter in Krakow Poland under the same pretext of security for the homeland, but, history has determined otherwise.

So what were the reasons of building the Berlin wall and why did it crumble? As History now chronicles, in post WWII, Berlin became a divided city, mainly under the control of Western powers and the Soviet East Block. In East Berlin, the Berlin Wall was erected beginning August 13, 1961 under the decree of East German leader, Walter Ulbricht, in order to keep its people protected from the West, its influences and its freedoms. The decree for closing the border for travel restrictions between East and West Berlin was intended to last until 1989.

In 1985, a new Soviet leader rose to power in then, Soviet Russia. Mikhail Gorbachev successfully rose to power because of his own political credo of bringing change to the nation’s economy as well as his wish to bring an era of openness. Hence, the Soviet Block began a period of Perestroika (open market concepts) and Glasnost (freedom of expression). Soon Poland requested a waiver from the Kremlin to open its borders with the West for the exchange of goods and services. The Soviets saw that as an opportunity to test Perestroika and allowed it. What resulted was a massive and frenzied flood of Levy jeans, Nike sneakers and Beatles music records that began to pour into the Eastern block. However, profiteering became rampant as jeans were being sold in the black marker in Russia for up to $500.00 and there was no end. Thus, Mikhail Gorbachev decided to implement Perestroika through out the East Block.

In June 12, 1987 President Ronald Reagan was visiting Europe for a summit to discuss with other European leaders the American vision of a missile defense for Europe, the so called Star Wars Missile Defense System. However, part of his trip also included a visit to Berlin to give a speech about the virtues of Western democracy. We now know of course of his famous statement he made, asking Soviet Russia’s Chairman Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.”

In November 9, 1989, the Easter German government’s decree for closing the borders had come to and end and Mikhail Gorbachev did not interfere, and instead, allowed it to happen. Perestroika at last!

Thus, we celebrate with the German people on this historic reminder of shameful acts invoked in the name of security. But we should not forget that the human spirit does not recognize any legitimacy in walls of tyranny, but will find ways to make perpetrators conform to human decency and freedom. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever.” A true statement guaranteed by history.

I SMOKED A DOOBIE WITH YOUNG BARACK AT OXY. IT’S WHERE WE BEGAN OUR PLAN FOR CHANGE – SO WHAT’S HAPPENED?

2009-11-04T22:33:00.000-08:00

Nov. 5, 2009
By

Joseph Chez

Barry, do you remember when life was just basketball, music and shooting the bull with our friends? Who can forget the good times we had at Haines Hall at Oxy, right? In fact, I still remember nights at the dorm in which music blared and the sweet smell of you know what, lingered up and down the hall. I also remember the day we were on the high, you took a bite of your favorite Hawaiian pizza from Casa Bianca’s and with a mouthful, you said; don’t call me Barry, my name is now Barack. You really looked so serious, but all I could do is laugh. Perhaps it was the high. And , I don’t supposed you have forgotten your vigorous debates you started in professor Boesche’s Political Thought class, in which you robustly asserted your views for change? Someone changed at Oxy alright –and you were never the same since.

Yes, you continued to play JV with the Tigers, but I knew that in your mind, young Barack was now interested in political discourse and philosophical thought. From there on, you began vigorous debates at the dorms - with brothers, Chicanos and young republicans like “J” Boyers or Ken (S). But, I could never understand why you stopped calling the girl from Brentwood - she was so hot Barack! Yet, I knew your future was at hand, and as the doobie-smoke cleared in the dorm hall, it was still fun, even though, you had began to take things to heart.

Yes, you became active for divestment of American public funds to end apartheid in South Africa - and you worked so hard. The day Nelson Mandela was released from jail, I believe we celebrated and it felt so right. And yet, many other things were on your our mind. For one thing, you did not like the war in Afghanistan and you used to argue that the Russians had no right to have invaded Afghanistan. You believed then, that the sovereignty of nations should not, for any reason, ever be compromised. And yes, you wanted to rid the world of hunger, poverty and to boot - get rid of all of nuclear weapons and bring proliferation to an end.
So Barack, I am proud to have stayed by your side, from Oxy, to Columbia, to Harvard and to the streets of Chicago, Illinois. But friend Barack, the narrative of your story seems to have changed. You got to the White House and the world rejoiced, but, the world now questions what has happened to those principles that you said should never be compromised?

Mr. President, since you are now in charge, why are so many of the former president’s policies still in place? Much of the Patriot Act which diluted our constitutional rights continues to be in place. You were overwhelmingly elected by the American people to end the war, and yet, you have given your generals the leeway of determining the course for the war. Rendition of foreign nationals continues in foreign soil and frankly, such policy does nothing to RESET our moral goal. Guantanamo remains open in ghastly opposition by nations of the world and so we question; why you do not use your presidential pen for a presidential order to close Guantanamo - and provide American justice to those who have not been tried or been convicted in a court of law?

Today the economy is showing signs of life, and yet, almost 10 per cent of the population remains unemployed, while Wall Street stock and securities pimps continue to rake in the dough. Yes, derivatives and shadowy hedge funds in the banking and securities market continue to thrive without meaningful government regulation. Bush’s privatization of the government continues unfettered; today, there are more private contractors in the war theatre of Afghanistan and Iraq than DOD personnel - with limitless funding and working only under an MOU (good faith agreement) for guidance. Thus, billions of tax dollars are being paid to these private contractors without taxpayer scrutiny. Moreover, the faith base funding, as envisioned by J.W. Bush, bless his soul, is currently funding religious goals, but truly not helping those homeless who live under a bridge. The worthless “No Child Left Behind” left by the Bush administration remains almost intact and the humanities are out the window, while teachers only teach students, standards that pit students against teachers and teachers against school administrators. However, the worst indictment Mr. President, is your naïveté belief that you must build consensus in a bi-partisan fashion in order to bring about change. You must truly understand that republicans are just not into you. You should understand, that their main objective is to stand in the way - so democrats and you will fail. So I respectfully remind you sir, that you were overwhelmingly elected to lead and implement a democratic agenda, and that means: bringing the war in both Iraq and in Afghanistan to an end; instituting universal health care (a public option) for all and not succumbing to pressure from the health industry; completely ending the Cuban embargo without any preconditions (we do business with other totalitarian and communist states) ; strengthening environmental protection; decisively closing the Guantanamo gulag and returning the land to Cuba; pushing for strict governmental regulations on industry and commerce for the sake of consumer protections; reduce the war machinery and start investing in renewable and environmentally friendly energy; reduce the Pentagon’s limitless funding and start investing in higher education; and last, if we truly wish to end world terrorism, we must be forthright and take an even-handed foreign policy towards the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and abide by the United Nations mandate calling for a two state solution consistent with the 1967 borders.

In sum, I am still your friend and supporter Mr. President, but as the world remains hopeful for change, you must do your part and stand for principle and not political expediency. Wake up Barack!

U.S. DIPLOMATS RESIGNED IN PROTEST PRIOR TO THE INVASION OF IRAQ. IT CONTINUES TODAY OVER THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.

2009-10-29T10:34:00.000-07:00

By

Joseph Chez

Current U.S. military presence in Iraq is not for the purpose of cleaning up after a whoop-tee-doo party or a mission accomplished. We remain in that country to forestall the inevitable; a civil war that will be the mother of all wars, as Saddam Hussein was known to say. However, many government officials also believe that the same fate waits for Afghanistan. So is anybody listening to the experts in foreign policy, the very same individuals who work with the nuts and bolts of what formulates and sustains our government policies?

Prior to the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 a large number U.S. government officials were sounding the alarm opposing plans by the Bush administration for the invasion of Iraq. In March 19, 2003, Ann Wright, a deputy chief of mission at a foreign U.S. embassy, a career Foreign Service officer and Army Reserve colonel, submitted her official resignation before Secretary of State Colin Powell. In December 2001, the deputy chief had been assigned to reopen the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, and it was there that she learned of the Bush Administration’s preoccupation with Iraq, rather than putting emphasis in the failed nation of Afghanistan – the point of origin for the 9-11 attack on U.S. soil. However, Bush was extremely confident and dogmatic about his pursuit of the war in Iraq. Later that year, May 1, 2003, in spite of world condemnation and internal government official opposition to the U.S. incursion, President Bush declared that the U.S. had fought for “the cause of liberty and the peace of the world.” In further denial, in his mission accomplished speech aboard the USS Lincoln, he unequivocally stated that, “the United States and our allies had prevailed” and that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. Regrettably, President Bush’s mission accomplished is yet to be realized. Nonetheless, the world laments the “smoking gun” argument and the premise that the invasion of Iraq was necessary. Further, with the exception of the political right-wing in the country, a large number of government officials forewarned the Bush Administration of an impending foreign policy blunder.

Thus, Ann Wright was correct in her convictions by pointing out that the country was on the wrong path with its foreign policy in the Middle East. In her dramatic explanation for her resignation, she simply stated that after serving her country for so many years, she could no longer represent the policies of an administration of the United States. In fact, she told Sec. of State Collin Powel, that she believed that the country had lost sympathy from most of the world because of our push for war against Iraq. And yet, she was not the only government officials who resigned in protest and in opposition with government policy. Several high ranking officials had previously resigned for similar reasons, although, their resignations had not been made public. But as Ann Wright broke ranks, many other senior diplomats followed. This was important, as Foreign Service officers never before used public resignation as a means to attempt to influence the government’s foreign policy or as a means of protest.

But going back to the future, after President Obama’s premise that the war in Afghanistan was not a war of choice but a war of necessity, an air of dissent is being felt once again amongst government officials. As casualties mount and a call for more troops is being asked by the Pentagon, many government officials in the State Department, DOD and various other government entities, are beginning to sound the alarm – publicly.

In a more recent situation just released to the public, another U.S. Foreign Service official, Mathew P. Hoh has once again, publicly resigned in protest over the war in Afghanistan. This former Marine Corps Captain and Senior Civilian Representative for the U.S. Government in Zabul Province in Afghanistan submitted his resignation – giving a critical and analytical narrative of the Afghan war - as a failed policy for a country on the edge of chaos. His resignation dated September 10, 2009 truly sent chills through the State Department and all the way to the White House. And with good reason, as these diplomats have immeasurable understanding of foreign policy, and in the case of Afghanistan, they are the analytical workhorses on the field: they are cognizant of the fragile alliances in the region; they understand what has not worked in the eight year military incursion; and they are the first to recognize a failed policy with no end. So, how can the U.S. honorably exit this war?

Foreign Service officer, Matthew P. Hoh put it best: “I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan.” “I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.” “To put simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties in support of the Afghanistan government in what is, truly, a 35 year old civil war.”

Honorable Mathew Hoh was offered several promotions by the high and mighty mucky-mucks, in hopes of averting his resignation, but this Foreign Service officer simply chose honor and love of country over personal gain. He has sounded the alarm once again and it is hoped that President Obama learns from our past mistakes. And this is critical at this point, as President Obama will soon be announcing his decision as to whether he will increase troop levels or if he will bring an end to the ever-expanding conflict. The President must realize that our presence in that part of the world is the spark for conflict and not the seeds for liberty or democracy, as President Bush vehemently believed. Let’s remember that a mission accomplished can truly become a mission impossible.
///

ROYALTY must abdicate their archaic throne and get in line for the use of the commode.

2009-10-22T10:55:00.000-07:00

By Joseph Chez

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the human race to dissolve the myth of the oldest political bandits who have assumed wealth and power over their subjects - under the phony declaration of divine providence. Neither nature nor God entitles any one person special descent or privilege.

We are at the door step of the 21st Century and it is self evident that all men are created equal. We have now mapped the genetics of many living species and we are close to mapping the entire human genome. Thus, there is irrefutable scientific evidence that all human beings are 99.9% biologically the same, with the remaining amount of variance accounting for regional and ongoing genetic mutations. Accordingly, the existence of monarchs and other royalty in today’s society is simply incongruent with reality. So we must ask: why royalty and monarchs remain with the privilege of governance or hold privileged and distinguished social titles, when they should also get in line with the rest of us, for use of the latrine?

Royalty or devoted followers may argue that such social titles are determined by special lineage. In the past, royals claimed direct lineage from “a” God. However, the Universal Creator has not publicly given notice of such royal preference. There is also the argument that royals have special bloodlines. Although, 21st Century science empirically shows that there is no blue blood in human beings, despite the fact that royal bloodlines do come close to genetic degeneration. And just like the horseshoe crab which truly has blue blood, royalty and the horseshoe crab are both living fossils. Notwithstanding, others would argue that present day monarchies exist at the pleasure of its subjects. Yes, but must society continues to accept the concept of special privilege in today’s egalitarian society? Must society accept such concept, when royalty was the building blocs of intolerance, colonization, social casting and slavery?

We know of course that much of the Western Hemisphere was claimed as property in the name of European monarchs. Christopher Columbus claimed the new world in the name of Spain’s Queen Isabella, which led to the decimation of indigenous peoples, their culture and religion. For English America, the Jamestown peninsula became the staging ground for the first English colony to have slaves brought from Africa by ships owned and operated by the “King’s men.” In the British dominion of India, a social caste system was established as a way for the Indians to understand and accept the concept of British royalty. In colonial Africa, the British Kingdom laid the ground work for separate social and economic relations that were based along racial and ethnic lines. These insidious practices culminated into an apartheid social system which now shames the conscience.

Written in stone and blood, history reminds us of European monarchs leading crusades into the land of the bible and saving the faith at the cost of foreign blood. When the British Kingdom replaced Turkish rule in 1922, one of its lasting ills was to divide the Arabs along ethnic lines by simply exploiting minor differences in their religious practices. To this date, conflict plagues the area between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims with yet untold consequences.

However, it is fair to say that today, few monarchs and so-called royals hold any governance in existing “kingdom” states, but they do play roles in ceremonial post. Nonetheless, the royal families in those countries continue to thrive with public funds such as in Spain and in the British Kingdom. However, even holding or being a ceremonial figure, is no longer acceptable in today’s world as it constitutes a de facto recognition of privileged labels and supporting a caste system. Royals today are supremacist in semi or official public roles and they have no place in this 21st Century.

For those royal fans and apologist, if you still believe Royalty deserve their self-appointed social titles or a privilege lifestyle at public expense, think again; ask yourself if royalty is biologically different or descend from divine providence. If you still do, I urge you to take a big whiff after a royal flush of the king or queen’s throne, and if you still think it smells divine, you probably are insane, believe in magic or you are royal fool. Wheeoow!

BALLOON FAMILY UP IN THE AIR BY MEDIA HYPE

2009-10-19T22:54:00.000-07:00

By Joseph Chez

Hype but not felonious I would say. In fact, it’s the American Way. Yes, as the world was watching President Obama speak before an audience in the State of Louisiana, the live broad cast was suddenly interrupted by CNN to give coverage to a run away helium balloon, which it was thought, was carrying a minor child on board. As the hullabaloo continued, the dramatics were hyped by the tense situation being presented by the media. Did the child fall, as it was reported or maybe not?

This was great news on the go; tension, drama unfolding and life hanging on the balance. By now we have all seen on TV the 50 mile or so chase by military planes and helicopters, the media flanking the helium balloon, plus the hundred or so rescue personnel trampling the Colorado soil. But if anyone thinks it was live TV coverage, it was not. CNN decided to insert a 10 second delay on the broadcast to protect the public from potentially watching a human tragedy unfold. Fortunately, and to the surprise of the peering masses, as ground personnel reached the partially deflated fiasco, there was no child on board. Darn, this would have been Nielsen's top ratings. But, the story is not dead yet and the media was not about to let it go. Thus, the media continued the story with gut instinct - that there was more.

By evening, prime time questioning began and the prosecution interviewed the Heene family with determination and leading questions - which lead to much speculation that the Heene family had in fact, created a publicity stunt, staged and produced by a set of unlikely characters wanting to achieve the American Dream.

Originally the Colorado, Laramie County Sheriff, was only contemplating filing misdemeanor charges for filing a false police report. However, with such de minimis (inconsequential) charge, the story would have ended, if not for the economic consequences. Thus, the relentless media pressed for more: what about child endangerment; whose going to pay for public sources used in the chase; and what about potential danger to air flights in nearby corridors? Feeling the media blitz, the sheriff sort-of changed his mind and is now reporting to the media, that there may be more - felonious charges that is.

We now understand that the Heene family may have concocted the hoax, perhaps in hopes of cashing-in. Maybe, as the entire issue is still undetermined and has not been adjudicated by a court of law. But, why is there still so much hype about this story? As a participant-observer, it seemed to me that CNN and other media sources were milking the story with much gusto and bottom line - for ratings and the profit margin, right? So let's be honest; are we not enthralled with media hype and their juicy stories? Just about every product out in the market: movies, books or even public personalities, are known to create eye-catching, or gossip-laden hoax situations that in the end, translate into mucho dinero. Have we forgotten the vulva on TV from a Hollywood starlet who, we were told, wanted to attract media attention? And who is to forget the octo-mom and the eight helpless little babies? Did the Media not demonize the mother, while at the same time, fill in add space in their programming? And last, we must not forget the Pentagon’s in-bedded media which reported to us many false heroic scenes from the war, which in reality – never took place.

Yes, the Heene family may have concocted a phony story, but isn’t it the American Way? Are we all not part of the economic sub-plot? Not only do we observe, but we all participate in the scheme of making money. Thus, the media must back off and give it a rest. Furthermore, the Heene family should be commended for their innovative stupidity, but they do not deserve the media circus which wants blood, or a police force with self-serving desires, and much less, the children taken away by CPS.

In sum, the question remains as to whether the Heene family has committed felonious acts and must they be relegated to prison life because of their unlawful acts? NOT. Of course, there ought to be a statute which covers moronic situations such as this – in which needless time is spent on superfluous speculation and damnation. For the co-conspirator, the media, it should BACK-OFF. Who the hell’s Wolfe?

THE WORLD MOONSTRUCK - GIVES NOBEL PEACE PRIZE - BUT GREAT EXPECTATIONS REMAIN

2009-10-09T11:16:00.000-07:00

THE WORLD, MOONSTRUCK – GIVES NOBEL PEACE PRIZE – BUT GREAT EXPECTATIONS REMAIN

By
Joseph Chez

Today, October 9, 2009, the world woke up surprised to hear that President Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, had been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. In a day of historical markers, scientist struck the moon in hopes of finding a substance that would give hopes for human exploration of the heavens, but their findings are yet to be examined for desirable findings. Likewise, the world is yet not all convinced that President Obama merits the coveted international Nobel Peace Prize Award.

In response to his Nobel Peace Prize selection, President Obama stated his appreciation but said, “I am both surprised and deeply humbled … I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather, as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people of all nations.” And he went on to say that he honestly did not believe he deserved to be in the company of predecessors receiving such award. He thus accepted the award as a call to action to change the status quo, but regrettably, he also stated that the United States needed to confront a ruthless adversary who threatened the United States and our allies.

World reaction was quick and skeptical. The Moslem world has reacted with criticism of the continued US confrontation in their part of the world. Europeans, who also joined us in celebration of his inauguration as President, have also shown displeasure at President Obama’s seemingly about face in not immediately bringing peace. In the US, his critics across the political isle laughed and ridiculed this event. But that is to be expected, as lately, his political adversaries have mocked all his efforts to help the economy, provide health care for all Americans, or bring the two wars in the Middle East to a desirable conclusion.

I, a staunch supporter and activist of the once presidential candidate, also feel uneasy about this award. I concur with the President’s assertion that he does not deserve to be in the same category of Nobel Peace Prize recipients - at least not yet. For although I truly believe that citizen Barack Obama is a peaceful person and one who has great aspirations for peace, as President now, he has caved in to politics and not followed principle.

It is true that the state of affairs in our country and US foreign policy abroad is a daunting task. Changing minds and entrenched US Government policy can not be changed over night. However, it appears to me, as well as to millions in this country and around the world, that our President is compromising his core principles for the sake of pragmatic politics. In fact, President Obama was overwhelmingly elected with a mandate to end the war, in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. And yet, there is continued talk of continuing the war until an eventual victory. In his meeting today with his national security advisors and with pentagon commanders, plans are being drawn for troop increases.
So just like the skeptical world, I would like for President Obama to assert his leadership as Commander in Chief and decide for himself, that what is best for the country and for the world, is for an immediate cessation of the war. Trying to appease the political opposition is simply counter productive and a betrayal of one’s convictions.

Yes Mr. President, we can close Guantanamo with a simple presidential edict; we can call an end to our retribution against our 9-11 enemies; yes, we can force Israel to accept an independent Palestinian State; and through diplomatic means, we can even persuade Iran and North Korea to give up pursuit of nuclear weapons. So Mr. President, peace has to be earned – but not through compromising efforts for peace or continuing your predecessor ways. Quoting an unlikely character, Richard M. Nixon, at his inaugural address, he stated: “The greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker.”
“This honor now beckons America…” Thus, the nation and the world wait for your affirmation and deeds for peace. We congratulate you nonetheless, but we reserve our great expectations.

Believing a victory is possible in Afghanistan is foolish

2009-10-08T13:21:00.000-07:00

Oct. 8,2009

By
Joseph Chez

Eight years at war In Afghanistan and the nation questions;' how many more?

Yes, this week marks the 8TH year anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan - the forgotten war that a great majority of Americans has placed in the back or their minds. However, American forces have suffered significant casualties as well as countless severe and disabling war related injuries. Moreover, the ballooning deficit facing the nation is partly the result of the no-ceiling expense for the war.

Today, our economy is moribund and many question if whether the nation is capable of further economic drain. This is one reason national polls are showing wavering support for the war. In contrast, the White House is feeling pressured from the GOP and the Pentagon for continued involvement and even troop level increases. But soon, the President will be deciding on what will be the course for the war; whether to embrace Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops or perhaps come to the realization that it is not in the best interest of the country to continue a military presence in Afghanistan.

But something is needed as the status quo appears not to have an ending. However, the President must also conclude that remaining in that part of the world will not keep us safe here at home, for if that were to be true, we would have to be in every part of the world - forever.

The final caveat : a war with no viable exit strategy may only cause a protracted war that will further strain our economy, weaken our military readiness and not provide the country with meaningful safety. The answer is therefore not difficult; let's get out before the sandpit turns to quicksand.

THE AGONY OF OLYMPIC POLITICS

2009-10-02T18:36:00.000-07:00

Oct. 2, 2009
By
Joseph Chez

Olympic defeat for President Obama or political spin by his opponents?

This afternoon, the international Olympic Committee eliminated the United States as a potential host for the 2016 Olympic Games. Normally, such decision would have only been regrettable, but in this day and age of the Obama Administration, national politics have been sour - to say the least.

Unfortunately, President Obama decided to go before the Olympic Committee in Copehhagen to urged the commettee to consider Chigago to host the next Olympic Games. Sadly, in the end, the committee chose Rio de janeiro in Brazil as the next host.

Of course, many of President Obama's political opponents in this country ridiculed the President for traveling to Europe for this event, and even more so, on tax payer's expense. But what they really wanted, was for him to fail. Today's decision by the Olympic Committee simply solidified the opponent's antipathy towards the President. And as usual, even Rush Limbaugh sarcastically called it President Obama's worst day of his presidency. But really?

John F. Kennedy once said:
"after the dust of centuries has passed over ... we, too, will be remembered not for victories or defeats in battle or politics, but for our contribution to the human spirit".

Thus, President Obama's attempt to have the Olympics in Chicago, was never political in nature, but simply a desire to bring the essence of the Olympic Games spirit to our nation, which in these days, seems low. Nice try Mr. President. Anything you may do in behalf of our country is worthy of respect and admiration.

Of course, our hats go to Rio de Janeiro and to the Brazilian people. The American people bid them best wishes so that the flame of competition and human spirit may forever be alive.

A bigger question on this non-issue is, whether the Republicans can dance the Samba or the Bassa Nova? For it takes some liberal leanings to have style in dancing with the stars.

PRESIDENT OBAMA REPEATEDLY "PUNKED" THIS WEEK BY NEO-CONS.

2009-09-25T20:59:00.000-07:00

By Joseph Chez
Sept. 25, 2009

President Obama was elected overwhelmingly by the American people who voted for CHANGE in our foreign policy. However, the opposition has been working diligently and ferociously to co-opt President Obama’s efforts to RESET our government’s policies.

One must wonder why, when world leaders came to the United Nations for talks on climate change this week, much of the conversation in the U.S. media turned to none other than the “specter” of Iran’s nuclear threat on our nation and our allies. Moreover, what appears not coincidental is that out of the blue, up to four separate terrorist plots were uncovered this week, and the media has been having a hay-day with the conspiracies. Yet, two or three of the plots were actually “FBI sting operations” entrapping would-be terrorist. The other, conceivably a potential terrorist, had been under surveillance for quite some time by the FBI and so far, that individual has only been charged with lying to a federal officer. So the question is, why bring the issue of terrorism during this week? Why set red flags and even place the nation’s public places under high alert?

Also this week, General Stanley Mc Chrystal, the top US military commander in Afghanistan met with the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, to make his case for a considerable surge in troops for Afghanistan. Keep in mind however, that such meeting is out of the ordinary as it does not follow chain of command. In fact, General Mc Chrystal had already submitted his assessment report of the war in Afghanistan to the Secretary of Defense last month. Further, it should be noted that the White House had urged the Pentagon not submit Gen. Mc Chrystal’s assessment to the White House until other options were considered by them. And yet, the report was leaked to the media nonetheless. Not surprised, Republicans on the Hill have therefore been raising the anxiety levels and have been painting President Obama as ambivalent on the security issue.

To top it off this week, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu also appeared before the UN General Assembly and reminded the world of the historical plight of the Jewish State, but he also sounded the alarm from the imminent nuclear threat to the free world by the tyrannical state of Iran. Coincidentally, today’s revelations of a second Iranian nuclear-enrichment facility came from intelligence sources from the UK and France and this raised the anxiety that Iran, indeed, is working on weapons of mass destructions. But wait a minute! Let’s not forget that faulty intel was passed on to the U.S. government by the Brits back in 2002, which coincidentally, became the “smoking gun” and the corner stone for laying the ground work for the invasion of Iraq. Incredibly, this new information is not entirely new, as the CIA has been aware of it for some time. But nevertheless, President Obama felt obligated to stand in solidarity with France, Britain and Israel and assumed the role as the pseudo leader of the new coalition against Iran. Regrettably, President Obama sternly pointed out to Iran, that it was breaking rules that all other nations must follow. He further gave a clear warning, that if Iran did not come clean by October 1, 2009, there would be consequences. Really Mr. President? Now that you’ve drawn a line in the sand (quick sand that is), what will you have the nation do if Iran does not comply? Have you considered the consequences? Whether we actively stop Iran and bomb its facilities, or if these theatrics will only embolden Israel to attack Iran, yes Mr. President, will you allow haste to overtake reason? Do you realize that residual neo-cons remaining in the Pentagon from the former administration, Republicans at the hill, and AIPAC are setting you up (punked) to finish up what they left undone? Please remember that the American people wanted to stop their madness and voted for CHANGE?

Mr. President, before we can make a case before the world against Iran, we first must understand whose interest we are serving. Would it be in our interest to go to war again? Does the industrial-military complex stand to gain from this project, or is AIPAC’s influence simply too much to overcome? I am certainly not an apologist nor sympathetic for the Iranian regime, but Mr. Ahmadinejad does have a point when he argues, that they have the right to pursue a nuclear program just like any other nation, whether it’s the US, the UK, France or Israel. In law, there is a legal maxim which states that, in like circumstances, the law applies the same.

In closing however, I have to remind our President that the neo-con’s agenda is not ours and they must not be allowed to take the reigns of your administration, for they had their turn and their smoking gun was only a hoax.

We must not waiver in the pursuit for peace Mr. President.

OBAMA MAY HAVE THE LAST WORD IN THE ISRAELI/PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESS

2009-09-22T12:40:00.000-07:00

Sept. 22, 2009

By Joseph Chez

Benjamin Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1996 reflecting the hawkish attitude of Israel and Netanyahu's own personal promise to derail any peace talks with the Palestinians. He however partially failed, given that the world body wants to resolve the issue of the Palestinian question of a two state solution.

Comprehensive talks on the Israeli/Palestinian issue were taken up by the Madrid/ Oslo Peace Accord beginning in 1991. However, subsequent agreements have followed without success. This may be because Israel has not necessarily been on board, but has felt pressured to participate. Thus, primarily for those reasons, Israel has made it difficult for the Palestinians to meet much of the requirements as called for in the Madrid/Oslo Peace Accord, or subsequent agreements, such as the Hebron Agreement, the Wye River Memorandum, Camp David,The Beirut Summit and most recently, the Road Map for Peace. But despite the core issues of discord - final borders, Jerusalem and the right of return of displaced Palestinians - the most contentious issue has been the continued building of Jewish settlements in contested Palestinian land.

Since July 2002, the United States, Europe, the United Nations and Russia have actively pushed the Road Map for Peace, but with little success. In contravention of previous accords or Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, Israel continues building illegal settlements under its understanding of "natural growth." Israel in addition, has tightened its security in occupied Palestinian land and consequently, Palestinians have suffered in ways which have been deemed "inhuman" by the U.N. General Assembly. Of course, Israel claims its right of self defense and continues to reciprocate attacks on its people by Palestinian insurgents.

In 1996, when Netanyahu was first elected, he initiated the reciprocal policy of retribution against Palestinian or Arab attacks on Israel. His political ticket for election then was for Israel not to participate in the peace process with the Palestinians. Unofficially, the State of Israel has since continued the same doctrine to this day, although, the tit-for-tat military responses against the Palestinians have been "disproportionate" as labeled by the latest United Nation's findings.

On the verge of CHANGE of US policy, President Obama was elected and took office in 2009. Consequently, Israel felt it no longer had the exclusive support of the U.S. and therefore, a coalition of the extreme right, once again, elected Benjamin Netanyahu in April 2009 as Israel's Prime Minister. Regrettably, Netanyahu's political platform was no different this time than in 1996.

President Obama, well respected and with high world popularity, has felt confident in the resolution for peace in the Middle East. However, Benjamin Netanyahu has remained steadfast in his stance of no peace negotiations with the Palestinians or cutting back on settlement building. In fact, as President Obama was calling for an immediate cessation of illegal settlements in contested Palestinian lands, newly elected Netanyahu argued that "natural growth" must continue. To this day, the US government has tacitly accepted that fact.

Today, the first meeting since their election, President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu met in Washington and it was more than obvious that President Obama showed his frustration with the lack of movement on the peace process. Accordingly, President Obama has asked for the Palestinians to take more concrete measures to assure the security of Israel, while at the same time, he has asked for Israel to provide greater freedom for the Palestinians as well as restrain on continued settlement activity. In sum, President Obama has stated that, " despite all the obstacles, the history, despite the mistrust, we must find a way forward... We can not continue with the same pattern of talking tentative steps forward and then stepping back". He also emphasized that peace negotiations must be given the opportunity to succeed and that even though, it would not be easy, that it was absolutely critical for all parties, including the world.

The question remains however, is whether, despite the hawkish and unyielding Benjamin Netanyahu, will President Obama succeed in his efforts to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians - over the contested piece of holy land? Is President Obama greater and more influential than any previous prophet? After all, the road to peace has been mired by insurmountable obstacles and endless delays which places any prospect for peace - distant and unattainable.

And yet, while the hawk is resolute in its position against peace and a two state solution, the dove may just have the final word: The United States of America will now recognize the legal and complete political sovereignty of the State of Palestine with borders pre-existing 1967, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 242, 252 and subsequent United Nations measures, thereof.

Peace.

U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE UMBRELLA FOR US AND EUROPE FIZZLES AND NEO-CONS LAMENT

2009-09-17T21:25:00.000-07:00

U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE UMBRELLA FOR U.S AND EUROPE FIZZLES AND NEO-CONS LAMENT

By
Joseph Chez

September 17, 2009

Today, President Obama announced that the missile defense umbrella that was to be set up for the protection of our European allies and for the homeland will not be put into place due to cost-saving measures and the understanding that present U.S. capability is enough to deter the threat of any missile attack from Iran.

However, to the discredit of the Bush Administration, it must be pointed out that one of his greatest misdeeds was his attempt to make a case that Iran’s nuclear pursuit would ultimately lead to a major threat to Europe and to the United States of America. Thus, his administration argued, that the imminent threat of a missile attack from Iran warranted placing a missile defense umbrella for the defense of Europe. His concern and reaction was reminiscent of the case made before the United Nations during the “smoking gun” of Iraq. Nonetheless, he initiated the plan and rallied support from European allies for this endeavor. To no one’s surprise, most NATO members were skeptical of the perceived threat from Iran and this proposal even placed NATO at odds with one of its own members – the US. Further, notwithstanding the economic and diplomatic ties Europe and Russia had mended since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Bush Administration was hell-bent with his missile defense plan for Europe. It should also be noted that the Bush Administration was chuck-full of neo-cons who believed that after the US had defeated the Soviet Union, the United States of America stood alone as the leader of the free world - unchallenged. However, for Putin’s Russia, Bush’s attempt to minimize Russia did not go unnoticed or unchallenged. Thus, the proposed missile shield for Europe instead became a major thorn in Russian, NATO, and US diplomatic relations. Needless to day, the specter of another cold war thus became too real once again.

Certainly, the Russians were not surprised or amused, but were instead determined to confront any attempt by the United States to place nuclear ballistic missiles butt-up to their fence with the West. True, Russia had lost a mighty empire and for military purposes, Russia was seen militarily impotent. Notwithstanding, Russia responded by threatening to change the directional coordinates of its missiles to be directed towards Europe itself. Russia was certainly a wounded bear, but the Kremlin remained unyielding in its defense; armed and dangerous. Still, the Bush Administration pushed for the missile defense system despite the protracted recriminations. Much to the displeasure of the Bush Administration, Germany openly broke ranks and adopted a “Moscow first” policy approach. Thus, a profound difference in foreign policy threatened the formidable NATO alliance and the Siberian chill was once again felt - akin to another cold war era. In fact, aging “bear” airplane bombers began flights hugging US costal waters. Moreover, arms reductions talks (START) between the US and Russia were placed in jeopardy.

Undeterred, the Bush Administration continued with its plans and coaxed poor Eastern European countries to house the proposed missile defense batteries. Some of the poorest eastern nations salivated at the prospect of infusion of American dollars into their economies, but a deal was struck with Poland and the Czech Republic – whose location incidentally bordered Russia.

Yet, a fundamental questioned remains; whether the Bush Administration’s assertion of an imminent missile attack on Europe or the US, by a crazed-nuclear Iran, was a credible threat or deserving a U.S. missile defense system for Europe, even when European nations were skeptical of the need for such missile defense umbrella?

First, Iran has no real beef with Europe other than being seen as a follower of the US in its attempt to have the UN further impose economic sanctions. So, does it make sense that Iran would threaten Europe or the US with a nuclear missile attack, and would that be prudent and/or a proportional response to economic sanctions? Many experts believed not, as supported by the (IC) intelligence community and the consistent European skepticism of the Iranian threat. Second, the Iranian missile technology is limited in range and rather imprecise. Their indigenous technology is based on scud missile technology provided by the North Koreans and at present, it still lacks precision strike capabilities. In fact, just recently, the Pentagon acknowledged that Iran’s capability was previously overrated and that even though Iran is making progress, it does not pose a significant threat to our nation.

However, the untold story of this foreign policy folly is that neo-cons in the Bush Administration wanted the missile defense shield in Europe for reasons totally unrelated to the security of the United States or Europe. It is no secret that Israel wanted the Iranian nuclear threat to be seen as imminent and real in order to rally sympathy or support for an impending Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It is also not a secret that the neo-con soaked Bush Administration also wanted to beef-up our strike capabilities around the world – and this was widely supported by the military industrial complex. But it does not end there; what still remains under the cover of classified information, is that neo-cons from the Vice President’s office of the Bush Administration, then put in place a policy of containment of Russia, in the event Russia was to decide to pose a threat to American oil interest in the former Soviet break-away provinces located in the Caspian Sea, such as Kazakhstan, or Azerbaijan.

But a foot note to history: in 1983 then student at Columbia, Barack Obama, wrote for his campus newspaper in his article, “Breaking the War Mentality” decrying the “military industrial interest.” In the same article, young Barack proposed for the elimination of all global nuclear arsenals. Today President Obama took us one step closer to such desirable dream and RESETING our foreign policy. Regrettably, neo-cons in Congress lamented the termination of the missile umbrella program, but immediately sounded the alarm from the threat of Iran’s potential terror against our nation. Of course, the expected Republican response was piggy-backed by Fox News broadcasting breaking news that Iran had now become capable of building atomic weapons.

Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. once wrote: “He (Richard Nixon) is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation.” Today, Nixon’s spirit lives in the Republican mantra.

Bewail ye neo-cons.

PEACEFUL DISSENT OR DANGEROUS PRECEDENT?

2009-09-01T20:41:00.000-07:00

PEACEFUL DISSENT OR DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
By

Joseph Chez

September 1, 2009

Mark Twain put it best when he stated that, “the radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopt them.” In the case of health care reform, the radical wing of conservative politics have surely hijacked the debate, invented the reasons to oppose it and have adopted extreme measures to show it. They come to rallies and town hall meetings armed to the teeth. However, the question is why? They carry loaded side arms and even AR-15/M16 type rifles. They say they oppose health care reform but their message is skewed by their obvious intolerance and their calls for taking the country back. Consequently, I question not, their right of dissent, but the clear and present danger they pose to the safety of the President of the United States.

Thus, the issue is not about the 1st or 2nd Amendment Constitutional protection for those dissenters, but about a dangerous precedence taking place which threatens the stability of the Executive Branch of our federal government. Further, if the opposition to President Obama’s policies are so dissatisfied and truly fear for the disintegration of their freedom, I ask: where were they during the Bush Administration?

Etched in history and in the minds of most Americans, are the Bush Administration policies during his term of office, in which many of our constitutional protections were diluted and in some cases, were simply set aside. A prime example of constitutional degradation were the National Security Letters that were issued to American citizens under the auspices of the Patriot Act which gave those unfortunate recipients: no reason for the apprehension, no Habeas Corpus, no right to contact a lawyer, and a dire warning for any recipient not to discuss the content of such letters with anyone – including the media or a lawyer. And yet, history now chronicles those days of fearful dissent, when liberals, free thinkers, democrats and intellectuals dared not question the government’s necessary measures to fight global terror, so we were told. On the other side of the political spectrum however, conservatives were simply, happy-go-lucky to forgo their Constitutional protections and instead, they fully embraced such constitutional degradation and deemed it necessary.

In the heat of post 9-11 hysteria and hubris, I remember being in Fresno CA. and stopping to join a peaceful gathering. On a main thoroughfare of Fresno California, a small group of dissenters stood on the corner of Blackstone and Shaw, timidly holding sings protesting the war we were about to unleash. But fearful dissent it was, as peaceful men, women and children were pelted with projectiles from passing cars. They endured the constant finger out of cars windows and repeated name calling. But as my wife and I joined the group, I suggested that we hold the American flag up, high and prominently – as we were exercising our constitutional right of assembly and freedom of speech. Across the street however, were undercover police in unmarked cars, taking pictures of all participants in the protest. You would think however, that the police would also be there to protect the dissidents from those unsympathetic to the protest. But not so, as it was clear that they sided with the kick-butt crowd. Months later, it was revealed by the media, that the police had even infiltrated those local peace activist groups.

In Capitol Hill, Washington D.C., the atmosphere of fear was no different; any dissenting voice by a lawmaker, or simple opposition to a war funding bill was immediately likened to be “un-American or treasonous” by those in the political right-wing. Even the Speaker of the House or Intelligence Committee members, who had constitutional right of oversight, dared not inquire or question the Bush Administration’s national security measures being taken. However, as President Bush traveled the country to raise hubris and support for the homeland, only verified registered republicans were given the privilege of attending his presidential rallies. Incidentally, in one occasion, a man was arrested for carrying a loaded gun within a five mile radius of the presidential rally, and this was a big story in the media.

Today, the bubble has burst and innocence has been lost; protesting President Obama’s policies are beyond heated – they are bizarre and imminently dangerous. On the menu of his policies for which the conservative opposition is hell-bent to distract or destroy, is the issue of health care reform. Even if the intent of Democrats and the President is to provide medical coverage for the 45.6 million Americans who are presently medically uninsured, this matters little for the opposition. Further, despite the fact that much of the groundswell is being funded by the GOP and insurance companies, conservatives have lapped the misinformation in a thirst of intolerance.

But who are these people in the opposition? For the most part, they are GOP operatives who have skillfully managed to snare many unenlightened conservatives as well as fence sitters. Further fanning the flames of distrust and hate also comes from the renowned fox nation and its pitch fork revolutionists. Additionally, what is of utmost concern, is the participation of the rock-crawling militia types who apparently hear the calling once more. Thus, these neo-con aggregates now come to these town hall meetings armed to the teeth, blatantly and openly, carrying their loaded side arms and assault rifles. In one case, even a black man openly carried an AR-15 in protest of President Obama, which I truly find bizarre and antithetical to Dr. King’s dream. However, the BIG issue is whether carrying loaded weapons to where the President of the United States is present, is that legal? Does that not present an imminent threat to the safety of our president?

These conservative dissenters would have us believe that they are participating in constitutional protected activities, which for the most part, they are. However, they remain steadfast with their arguments of their need to protect their constitutional rights. They talk of “taking the country back”, fighting against socialism and watering the tree of freedom, which is another code word for revolution. Exacerbating the mob scenes, are GOP lawmakers who remain silent in the face of mob rule or failing to correct patently false misinformation. However, whether they are within their right to protest, a First Amendment guarantee, or have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, there is an inherent conflict between the argument of protection under the 2nd Amendment right and Article 2. Sec. 1, of the United States Constitution, which provides for existence of The Executive Branch. Accordingly, we must therefore delineate the constitutional guarantee from a more fundamental corner stone which establishes a branch of our government. In sum, one can not exercise the right to carry loaded weapons under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment, when it undermines the fundamental safety of the Executive Branch under Article 2, Sec. 1. Moreover, while many of the weapon-totting individuals who claim a state’s right to carry a loaded weapon, such perceived right maybe curtailed by Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which provides a Supremacy Clause over the states. Further, even though constitutional rights may seem unbendable, the courts have ruled that such rights may in fact encroach on more fundamental portions of the Constitution. Therefore, one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and claim protection under the 1st Amendment, or one cannot own a nuclear weapon, even though the 2nd Amendment allows for the right to bear arms. In like manner, the circumstance should be the same for those gun toting enthusiasts; they do not have the right to create a clear and present danger to the President.

A clear warning to the Secret Service and the Obama Administration, that they must not be lulled into complacency on this issue, as allowing weapons to be carried at presidential rallies or town hall meetings, may well provoke critical and regrettable outcomes. Regrettably, many right-wingers may have already become radicalized and we may have already crossed the event horizon – to the detriment of our nation.

Dr. Kissinger's NY Times Op-Ed, a throwback to the past

2009-08-09T17:28:00.000-07:00

August, 9, 2009
By Joseph Chez

Dr. Kissinger, tear down the wall of distrust; don't take out misinformation from the attic.
It's time we stop playing neo-con childish and supremacist games in the world political arena. To say the least, Dr. Kissinger regrettably still lingers in the mind-set of the cold-war era and such malarkey must be relegated to where it belongs: in the waste basket of history's proven ill-fated policies.

First of all, former President Bill Clinton's trip to North Korea to bring back the two released journalist is a start in the right direction, a direction in which the United States of America becomes an equal member of nations, instead of acting as the self-appointed policeman or arbitrator of the world.

Additionally, this act of quasi-governmental diplomacy by Pres. Bill Clinton will not create a precedent for future scenarios, as wrongly perceived by the right-wing of our nation. Dr. Kissinger, the "falling dominoes theory", the Viet Nam era U.S. foreign policy doctrine against the communist specter of the past, which you and your like-minded friends supported, has been debunked by history.

In fact, President Barack Obama must seize on this historic opportunity to break the ice with N. Korea and communicate a more realistic diplomatic approach; indicating our intentions of upholding the sovereignty of any nation, regardless of its type of governmental or economic form. For although, we may not wish N. Korea to obtain more nuclear feasibility, it should be up to the United Nations and its members, collectively, to render judgment on the acts of nations.
We must remember that neo-cons have it wrong when they argue that a strong defense brought the Soviet empire to and end. Baloney, what truly brought down the Soviet empire, was it's people demanding to have Western sneakers, Levy jeans, music and a more modern Western lifestyle - NOT a silly statement such as President Reagan's, "Mr. Gorbachev , tear down this wall." So let's bring in the North Koreans to the world market and put sneakers and levy jeans on Pyongyang, let's have a beer with Kim Jong Il -shall we.

In sum, we must end our impetuous behavior as a nation and begin a dialog with our neighbors, regardless of mutual differences. It is simply foolish for the United States of America not to have constructive talks with its perceived enemies.

Professor Henry L. Gates vs Knuckle-head arm of the law

2009-07-23T12:29:00.000-07:00

July 23, 2009

KNUCKLE-HEAD JUSTICE - NOT ACCEPTABLE.

By

Joseph Chez

The law that binds us all, derives from the will of the people. We expect that justice is fair and equitable, and that the arm of the law understands that it is not judge and jury.

Society as we know it was once a dangerous place to live. Each day, one's freedom or life could well be in peril and appropriately, it is said, that the law of the jungle ruled. Consequently, man reasoned that in order to be free from harm, the community had to bind together as a group, as there would be safety in numbers. Thus, these tenets were the beginning of threading the fabric for which we now call our common good - our society. Additionally, early man conceived: to further guarantee the people's safety, freedom, and common interest, the best and the brightest of the community would be chosen to be the community's leaders, while others who were strong and loyal would safeguard the community's safety and freedom.

However, many of us still remember when constables or community officers were respected for their mediation skills and the sense of safety their official capacity provided. Regrettably, the mood in our communities has changed; we no longer feel safe in the presence of the police. In fact, COPS instill fear in all of us. We look out for them, we fear being pulled over by them, and we dare not call them, as we may fear for our own lives. But, if you disagree, just ask yourself: will you dare speak up to a police officer and robustly invoke your rights under the law? Will you dare question the police officer's motives for stopping you? The answer is perhaps no. Yes, we all fear for our safety.

So how did we get here? Is this what society envisioned for a perfect society? Did the people want law abiding justice, or have we settled for knuckle-head justice?

Today, we require our doctors , lawyers, teachers and other professionals to meet certain educational requirements. We impose intense academic standards so these professionals will serve the greater good of the community. However, for our police, we require the minimum. Thus, any knuckle-head can apply and become a law enforcement officer. And to add more injury to justice, today's law enforcement enjoys an atmosphere which many believe, is above the law. Yes, in many states, they are granted special license plates for their own private vehicles and this keeps them from being pulled over - for any reason. Their wages in many cases rivals those of many highly educated professionals or even judges. We name highways after them. We seek their support to become elected into office. Moreover, police officers today employ amongst themselves, what they refer to as "professional courtesy" which allows them to protect each other, cover up for each other and thus, not be subject to the dictates of the law. And yet, we frequently witness police brutality on our television, but we acquiesce to the police department's PR person and accept that the beating of a citizen, misconduct by an officer or the death of an innocent person, will be investigated - internally of course.

So how can we remedy this unintended situation our society has created? RESIST: If you believe that a COP is being a knuckle-head, invoke your Constitutional rights, file a complaint, file a civil complaint in court, fight your ticket in a jury trial and appeal- if need be. And when you choose your leaders for the community, tell them you want the law to apply to COPS as well.

Of course, not all cops are knuckle-heads and they deserve our respect and admiration, but it is time for change in the direction their role is perceived and put into practice. Police officers must be required to have greater respect for the law, greater educational skills that will include more emphasis in the humanities, plus they must be held accountable to the law just like the rest of us.

In the case of the Harvard Professor, Henry Louis Gates, the knuckle-head arm of the law was completely out of line. Even after ascertaining identity of the elderly (African-American) professor, he was arrested for invoking the sovereignty of his own home. The officer's reason: disorderly conduct. The department soon dropped charges as they reasoned that it was two hot-heads in a bad situation. Lame - they realized that there was not justification for the apprehension.

Professor Gates, a man's home is his castle and you must uphold that right. The community supports you. Your fight is our fight.

SARAH PALIN STEALS THE SHOW FROM KIM JONG IL

2009-07-03T18:27:00.001-07:00

July 3, 2009

By

Joseph Chez

For the last couple of weeks, the media has made my briefs tied up in knots as tension has been building up leading up to North Korea's alleged missile firing over Hawaii - to take place on July 4th. But then came Michael Jackson's demise and the focus, 24-7, sure put a damper over the fireworks on the Pacific. Now, Sarah Palin says she "won't do it from the governor's desk" and resigns as governor of the State of Alaska. So, if not from your desk, where Sarah? This is so exiting!

But one thing is clear, the national media is predictible: it goes with the flow, picks and chooses, and feeds upon frenzied celebrity or political speculation. On the other hand, Kim Jong Il and Sarah Palin can sure steal the spotlight - at will. Their panache is simply that; empty rethoric and little substance.

So what's the nexus between Kim Jong Il and Sarah Palin? In order to stay relevant, both political leaders need the spotlight, or without controversy, they would be relegated to diminimus status. Sarah Palin keeps on rambling arguing that the United States needs a strong defense in order to defend itself from its enemies such as North Korea. On the other hand, Kim Jong Il thrives politically on red meat from American politicians such as Sarah Palin.

Yet, one things is for sure; that North Korea will again test fire missiles over the Pacific on or about the 4th of July, as they did so last year. But don't sweat it Hawaii. Ua Mau ke Ea o Ka Aina i Ka Pono... Poi anyone?

Sara Palin however, keeps dropping political bomb shells, but only to stay afloat politically. Or better yet, to keep building her political status, so she may perhaps be seen as the savior of the republican party, if not "this land, blessed with resources and water." "And with prayer and consideration" may she make more speeches and lead the republicans into 2012. "You bet yaa!"

However, it would no longer be funny, but a page straight from Revelations, and a bad situation for Kim Jon Il, or Kim Jong son, if Sarah was to get a hold of the foot ball in 2012. No Sarah!. That is not the presidential Blackberry!

IRAQ: SOVEREIGNTY DAY

2009-06-30T17:53:00.000-07:00

JUNE 30, 2009 SOVEREIGNTY DAY IN IRAQ

By

Joseph Chez

ALL ROADS LEAD TO BAGHDAD ... so goes the saying. And surely , on the road again, the United States went to war via Baghdad in March 19, 2003. This June 30, 2009 however, American troops have been relegated to the outskirts of Iraqi cities and towns.

Today, Iraq celebrates a day which the Maliki government labeled, "sovereignty day". From the confines of the walled and heavily fortified "green zone", the Iraqi government has declared this day an official holiday. Outside the walled government, the Iraqi people rejoice and celebrate what many say is "Independence Day". Yes, independence day from the American invasion which has lasted 6 years and has caused at least 1, 320,110 Iraqi deaths. But, is the celebration a blessing for the Iraqis or a curse? What does it mean for the United States?

It is an indisputable fact that the reasons for the invasion of Iraq were not to bring democracy to that nation, or to free the Iraqi people from oppression. Instead, the war in Iraq was ill- conceived with sinister plots to make it look like Saddam Hussein was somewhat connected with the 9-11 attack on the U.S. Further, the neo-cons, which were chuck full in the Bush Administration, effectively attempted to make us fear further attack from Iraqi WMD's or the "smoking gun" of nuclear and biological Iraqi weapons - which interestingly enough, never existed. Yes, George W. Bush, Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Condi Rice, Donald Runsfeld, Douglas Feith, James Woolsey, John R. Bolton and the Joe Liebermans will go down in our history as the morons whose ulterior motives mislead the nation.

So yes, the road to Baghdad has been costly. In terms of human casualties, the United States has suffered 4,319 dead U.S soldiers and 31,368 wounded. In US tax dollars, just in Iraq alone, the cost is rapidly reaching the one trillion dollar mark.

On the other hand, one can argue that "Iraqi Freedom" has created a democratic government - NOT. For despite elections that have taken place and a semblance of decreased violence, the American supported government will cease to exist once we have exited the country. Civil war will ensue and in the end, a strong "caliphate" will again control the fractured nation. And needless to say, American control or influence will cease to exist. So what was the point. I see, the neo-cons can celebrate the alleged liberation of Iraq, while the Iraqis today, celebrate the exiting of foreign invading forces from their cities.

In sum, the event horizon is upon us and the sobering facts become undeniable.

Lesson: before we get on the road, we should know its history, its potholes, and where it may lead us to.

IRANIAN SOCIAL REVOLUTION TO THE U.S.: AMEND YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT OF YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS

2009-06-23T21:06:00.000-07:00

JUNE 23, 2009

By

Joseph Chez

Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to protect the right of today's citizens to use and bear today's digital-electronic technology in order to defend themselves and their freedom from government infringement?

At one point in history, swords were the method of choice by tyrannical governments or kingdoms in order to suppress dissension from its people. Thus, dissidents resorted to the use of words and ideas for which swords were impotent to stop or destroy. Ergo, the argument became that the pen was mightier than the sword.

Immediately after the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, the concern turned to giving the citizenry protections from oppressive governments. Thus, in 1788 the United States Constitution was ratified which provided for many of our present rights and protections. Yet, the new nation realized the Constitution needed to be amended in keeping pace with changing times. Consequently, in 1791, the United States Constitution was amended with the Bill of Rights which included " the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and that such right could not be infringed by the government (Second Amendment). In part, the 2nd Amendment was meant to give the citizenry a right to use and bear arms in order to protect themselves and families from a potentially oppressive government. it was reasoned that by having a well regulated armed militia, the citizenry could equalize their power against the power of a potentially well armed and oppressive government.

Today however, in a 21st Century social revolution scenario, the world takes note that citizens in Iran are effectively using today's latest technology to keep informed and to inform the world of their quest for freedom. With the help of today's computer technology i.e., www., e-mail, Twitter, MySpace, and Utube, the Iranian dissidents appear to be changing today's paradigm of a social revolution in today's modern world. But more importantly, the "cell" phone, as opposed to a land line phone, is clearly the rising star of the Iranian revolution. This is because the Iranian regime has effectively blocked the world-wide web, so the young Iranian dissidents have skillfully used their cell phones to document this historic event, their efforts for freedom as well as the government's heavy hand.

And yet, there is a flaw; cell phones being used in the United States of America as well as in Iran, carry within their SIM card, mother board or memory card, special technology required by their respective government's internal security. This special tracking technology was created by Nokia-Siemens as a device to give governments the ability to control all cell phone traffic analysis. With this technology, government in the United States as well as in Iran, are able to track any and all phone conversations, intersect specific phone calls and their contacts, store information, triangulate the callers location, as well as shut down the use of cell phone transmission if necessary.

In fact, the United States federal government required this technology to be imbedded in every cell phone in this country as part of the Patriot Act. Since then, our government has been able to track and intersect your and my cell phone conversations. The danger however, is that this technology clearly "infringes" on tenets of our constitutional freedoms. Further, while we have come to depend greatly on computer technology for such things as the right of assembly, political speech, and other individual needs, such present technology appears to be today's modern tool for maintaining our freedoms. Regrettably, our government has also taken steps to take control of those freedoms - at will.

Therefore, WHEREAS, our United States Constitution is a living document, in order to maintain and protect our personal freedoms of today, it becomes necessary to amend the 2ndAmendment to include the right of citizens to own and use, without fear of persecution or interference, present digital and electronic technology, and this right will not be abridged or infringed by the local, state or federal government. .........

IRAN: WHERE IS THE UNITED NATIONS ON THIS ISSUE?

2009-06-22T17:16:00.000-07:00

In the annals of history, Tyranny is short lived.......

The Iranian people are taking a cue from the history of struggle for freedom and will not accept less. This in response to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who gave recognition to the election results and thereby giving its blessing to Ahmadinejad as the winner. Additionally, the supreme Ayatollah also gave a stern warning to the opposition to accept the election results - or else. But reports from within Iran already report a quasi atmosphere of martial law in place.

Still, the world can only watch the events unfold in Iran from the sidelines - for now. But it should be noted that the Ahmadinejad regime and cleric stronghold on the country truly needs outside intervention to solidify their control of its people and thus justify any means to further squelch any civil unrest. Consequently, the United States of America should resist any pressure from the political right who is fervently pushing for tougher language against Iran. The Israeli government has even criticized the United States for not responding with stronger language. However, any intervention from the U.S. would be counter productive and would not help the circumstances of the Iranian people.

What is needed is for the United Nations to issue a strong declaration, warning the Iranian government, including clerics, that they will be held personally responsible for the safety of the civilian population and for the opposition leader.

In the meantime, the ayatollahs and present regime sympathizers in Iran, should head the warning of history; there is a prize to pay for freedom, but there is an even greater charge for tyrannical figures - as they usually pay with their lives.

For neo-cons in the West, who just last year were sarcastically commenting, "bomb, bomb, bomb,.. bomb, bomb Iran", their present support for the people of Iran is simply disingenuous, if not just cheap political tricks. However, the Iranian people as any other peoples of the world, deserve to be free. And regardless what finally results, your acts of bravery in the face of tyranny makes us all humble.

Joseph Chez

IRAN, AT THE MERCY OF SOCIAL REVOLUTION FOR FREEDOM

2009-06-17T12:06:00.000-07:00

IRAN, AT THE MERCY OF
SOCIAL REVOLUTION FOR FREEDOM

By Joseph Chez

Freedom is a natural course in human events……….

Since 1979 the West has crudely and unjustifiably reviled the people of Iran as nothing more than an Islamic nation with militia types – a nation not too friendly towards the West. In fact, Iran has been so reviled, that it has been considered a pariah, if not a thorn on the side of Israel and the United States of America. The former Bush Administration so deemed and labeled the country, as one of the “axis of evil” nations of the world. Iran has further been singled out by the Anglo-American and Israeli forefront for the last two or three decades and consequently, has suffered stringent economic, social and political sanctions. The reasons for sanctions were perhaps deemed justified at one point, as the Anglo-American petroleum interests were cut off from that country. But whether justified or not, the people of Iran have been viewed by the West as being antagonistic towards democratic ideals – western style that is. Surprisingly, today, the western world is stunned by human events in this Islamic nation and is baffling the experts and its critics.

In 1979, when the Iranian people toppled Mohammad Reza, the “Shah of Iran”, a self-proclaimed king and favorable to British and American interests, the Iranian people spoke loudly and deliberately, but in an ironic twist of history, two of its 1979 revolution Islamic young students are now rivals in a quest to lead the Iranian Islamic Republic. On the ballot were two prime candidates for the presidency; one, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; the other, the rival reformist, Mir-Houssein Mousavi. This time however, the Iranian people, tired of a despot leader and a closed society, the Iranian people went to the polls en masse this last Sunday (June 13, 2009) and voted for fundamental change. Regrettably, the next day, their hopes and aspirations for change were dashed as the incumbent president was declared the winner in an election that was seen by the Iranian people as rigged.

The mass demonstrations and civil unrest by the Iranian people shows us that no nation has a monopoly or “the” cornerstone for democratic values, but rather, it is the nature of the power of the human spirit and the aspiration for freedom which brings about change. Therefore, the Iranian people have taken to the streets with demands for a fair election and not a pre-selection. The masses of discontented Iranians have therefore taken the Iranian clerics by surprised, but more so, the West is incredulous, confused, but supportive. This time, the unexpected uprising of common folk Iranians was not spurred by U.S. military special-opps, the CIA, UK’s MI6, or the Israeli Mossad. Instead, the Iranian people did not take a cue from Western ideals for democracy, but were driven by the only recourse in human events; when tyranny rules, there is a natural desire for freedom. Therefore, the Iranian people should know that they have the support of every family of nations in your quest for justice, transparency, freedom of expression, and rule of government by the consent of your people. It is your fight, you way, it is your destiny.

President Obama, you sir, also deserve much respect for your practical restraint on the outcome of the contested election, unlike the neo-cons in this country, which are currently salivating for an opportunity to take advantage of the critical situation in Iran. One can only imagine if George Bush and Chaney were at the helm of our government- presumably, in defense of our national security and that of Israel, this would be the right time in which to unleash our democratic values. Notwithstanding, the West should not confuse the Iranian social revolution as total support for your unfair foreign policy in the Middle East or sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran, for such western counter productive foreign policies only hurt those who yearn for freedom.

Intervention from the outside only seeds the next struggle for freedom.

ISSUE OF JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR IS A NON SEQUITUR

2009-05-27T18:08:00.000-07:00

Non sequitur - It does not follow, the argument by Republicans that nominee for the United States Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, is a racist. Starved for attention and relevancy, Republican strategist and pundits have grabbed on to a statement made by Judge Sotomayor, and have taken it out of context to paint this nominee as a racist. Clearly, these "macaca" crowd have began a smear campaign against this eminent judge, solely for the purpose of derailing the nomination process. What's more, these aggrieved "white-male" Republicans are not only beating the war drums, but are also vent on character assassination of the nominee. Further, while they can only muster a charge of a perceived racist statement, these Republicans have prominently shown their cross and stars. One prominent Republican stated that Judge Sonia Sotomayor's name is too hard to pronounce and that she should change her name. Perhaps, he did not like the foreign sounding name. Another leading Republican and former candidate for the presidency even called the nominee by the wrong name and called her "Maria." Ooops! But one pundit stooped so low, that he called Judge Sotomayor an "affirmative pick."

So, while these Republicans can not attack Judge Sotomayor's eminent academic credentials or her skillful jurist temperament, they are acting like the crowd that they are; a group of grumpy white-males whose elephant emblem is fast transforming into a soon to be an extinct mammoth. Further, it is apparent by their actions, that usage of race innuendo and/or reference to her ethnicity is by all accounts - race baiting. Thus their argument that Judge Sotomayor's statements were racist, is simply a non sequitur (does not follow).

Further, it should be noted that Judge Sotomayor does not deny she ever made such a statement which included the term "white-male." However, she made such reference only in the context of wanting to distinguish her perspective as a Latina, as opposed to that of a "white male." Conversely, one would not infer or conclude that by using the phrase- "as a white-male, my perspective would be different from that of a Latina"- that such statement could be construed as derogatory against a white male making such statement. Therefore, it follows, that Judge Sonia Sotomayor's statement should not be construed as racist, for she is not known to be of such fabric. Thus, a legal maxims states: an act does not make a person guilty unless his mind (or intention) is guilty.

It does follow however, that nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, an American, is eminently qualified to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. She brings to the Court eminent academic credentials, experience from the bench, proven intellect, a jurist temperament, but also brings a unique perspective to the Court that is lacking.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, ...bienvenida.

Joseph Chez

A LIBERAL VIEW: MADAM SPEAKER, STEP DOWN.

2009-05-14T19:11:00.001-07:00

Madam Speaker,

During the Bush Administration when much concern was being shown regarding the abuse of power by the Executive Branch, you adamantly refused to entertain congressional hearings on many relevant issues, such as torture or even consider impeachment hearings for President Bush. In fact, you were too accommodating to the Republican opposition, not because you sided with them, but perhaps because you did not want to make waves or fight a conservative backlash.

Further, as a ranking democrat member in the intelligence committee, you caved in to the deceit by the Bush administration in not protesting the use or potential use of waterboarding. If however, the Republicans pulled one over on you and misled you, how could you have been so naive and abdicate your oversight responsibility? You therefore must now step down from your post as Speaker of the House and allow another Democrat who can robustly represent the Democratic agenda without flinching.

Joseph Chez

A SAVAGE VERMIN CRIES FOUL

2009-05-07T19:45:00.000-07:00

Koodos Madam Jackie Smith, Home Secretary of United Kingdom's Department of Law and Order. Your decree to barr American radio talk show host, Michael Savage, from entering England is well received by all nations and hopefully that should include the United States of America.
A muck worm thrives where it exists. Likewise, certain "vermin," to use Michael Savage's own words, enjoy spewing trash-talk on the radio. Yet, this radio talk show host is clueless as to why Great Britain has placed him on the undesireable list of names which are deemed "would be contrary to the public interest". But, I guess it is understandable why Mr. Weiner, (his real last name) is dumbfounded by England's recent action, since a muck worm could also not explain why its surroundings stink. However, we should not be surprised why someone other than United States of America would take the necessary steps to publicly indict this individual.
For a number of years, this radio talk show host has been spewing hate through the American public airways. To many of us, he has been yelling fire in a crowded theater. But, while this vermin may hide behid the privilige of freedom of expression under the First Ammendment, many feel that he has crossed the threshold into hate speech. My question however, is where is the oversight by the FCC, the Justice Department or condemnation by the Anti-Defamation League?
Regrettably, while this individual has been demeaning gays, immigrants and even President Obama on a daily basis, his incindiary hate speech seems to resonate well in America's living room. Yet, despite his Jewish background, this would be savage, is also well understood by the likes of neo-nazis and anti-immigrant haters. Thus, I can only surmise why this radio talk show host feels so comfortable trashing certain groups of people; for he may well be dillutional or he may simply identify with enemies of his Jewishness.
Notwhithstanding, this external warning should be a wake-up call to all of us here in the U.S; in that too many conservative extremists make use of our public airways, posing a clear and present danger to our communities. You have, of course, heard recently of the Pensynlvania teens who bludgened a Mexican immigrant to death, simply because he was an immigrant. More regrettably, was that the jury found them not guilty of a hate crime. Surely, Morris Dees, a lawyer for the Sourhter Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate crimes from sources such as neo-nazi groups or other intolerant groups - could well have made the nexus of hate speech on the radio and hate crimes on the streets.
Thus, Michael Savage is indeed a clear and present danger to our society. But what else should be done? Well, Great Britain took the first step, and we in the United States should petition the federal government for more oversight of hate speech on the public airways. A word of caution though - if you contact the FCC, as I did in one occasion to file a complaint, you may not get an a response.
In sum, I must tip my hat to the queen's land, but we should also make this "vermin" persona-non-grata in our homes.
Joseph Chez

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SHOULD RECOGNIZE PALESTINE AS AN INDEPENDENT STATE

2009-05-05T15:56:00.000-07:00

.....Whereas the United States of America believes in equality and justice for all of mankind, the people of the United States of America declares its support and recognition for the independent State of Palestine effective June 1, 2009.

Mankind remains hopeful. However, the Prime Minister of Israel will soon meet and greet President Barack Obama in Washington D.C. We know of course that the main topic of conversation will focus on the world's point of origin for its primary geo-political problem; the Israeli continued occupation of Palestinian territory and world efforts to bring about a two-state solution. Yet, once again the new Israeli leader comes to Washington to get its credentials legitimized and receive a nod and a wink of the eye. But, will President Obama follow the failed pattern of a failed foreign policy for the Middle East? Of course, President Barack Obama has publicly indicated that he hopes and supports for a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. On the other hand, the new Israeli leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for "strong measures" and containment of the Palestinian people. Conveniently however, he has also avoided supporting a two-state solution.

Since 1967, Israel has occupied land, in clear and defiant posture to the United Nation Security Council's Resolution 242, which called for Israel to withdraw to pre-5 June 1967 lines. Still, each and every Israeli government, with the aid and abetting of the United States, has made little effort to abide by the UN Resolution. Instead, the process has been set up to deceive the world, by mock-trials placed on the Palestinians to see if they will meet certain criteria - before concrete peace talks could began. The requirements placed on previous agreements, were so insurmountable, they were conceived and designed to make any and all efforts for peace doomed for failure. In other words, the road to peace has had the look and feel of a mirage. Consequently, nothing changes in respect to resolving the issue of occupied lands or abiding by international law or UN mandates.

This time, Benjamin Netanyahu, on his subsequent second post as prime minister for Israel, again leads a far-right Israeli government. His agenda is a no-holds- bar against the Palestinians; "harsh measures and containment" he has said. Should we surprised? After all, it has been Israel's policy to only withdraw to pre 1967 lines, if and when the State of Israel felt safe and its boundaries were secured. Thus, under such pretext, Israel's only concern has been to retain and annex much of the territories it now occupies since June 1967.

Clearly, President Barack Obama without equivocation, must invoke its own posture for a two-state solution and not be drawn into a deceptive peace process as did his predecessors. Of much concern, is PM Netanyahu's support from the extreme right in Israel. His foreign minister , Avigdor Lieberman has made no secret of wanting to ethnically cleanse Israel and occupied lands of all Arabs. This should send chills to every decent American. Thus, continued complicity with Israeli deception can only be counter productive to the safety and stability of the entire world.

Notwithstanding, many sectors of opinion believe that the issue of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is unsolvable and thus, peace unattainable. Driving this premise is of course, far-right religious groups in the United States and in Israel. But, is a two-state solution difficult, or peace attainable? The answer is relative to the willingness to truly wanting peace and a Palestinian state along side the Israeli state. In my view, peace can only be accomplished when an independent Palestinian state is established. There should be no pre-conditions set by Israel or the United States, and UN Resolution 242 must be enforced. Jerusalem can be divided in to two sectors and either or both parties can choose to make their portion - their capital. A major concession by by Israel could be that it accepts the Arabs not accepting Israel as a state- as it would matter little since the world body, the UN, would give its full recognition. On the Arab side, Palestinians could concede to a "no right of return" for former Palestinians who previously owned land and were illegally driven out by Israeli authorities -and became refugees. Of course, there should be a just compensation for these Palestinians who lost their legal property.

Further, it is ironic that in the United States, its people democratically toppled the far-right Bush government, but only to have a far-right government elected in Israel. Consequently, President Obama and its Israeli counterpart now find themselves diametrically positioned - at opposite ends of the issue. So what President Obama must do? He must remain resolute on his judicious views and convictions - but also realize that PM Netanyahu is willing and able to continue the deception for peace. And yet, there is hope. For in the State of Israel, there are still voices of reason, sensibility and peace seekers. Yesterday, Shimon Peres, a former prime minster of Israel, went before AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby group in the U.S. which lobbies in behalf of the State of Israel) and touching on the issue of peace, he said it best, "I only have one question, WHY NOT NOW"?

In 1948, when the Jewish state declared its independence, the United States of America was the first to recognize Israel's sovereignty and thus - the State of Israel was born. Today, 60 years later, the insurmountable Israeli/Palestinian problem can and should be resolved. In fact, putting aside deception and religious obstacles, the United States of America can just as easily put an end to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict by simply, not just giving support to the peace process, but by officially proclaiming recognition for the sovereignty and independent State of Palestine - and peace will follow. Yes we can.

Joseph Chez

PIRATES, OBAMA WALKS SOFTLY BUT HE CAN TALK TURKEY

2009-04-17T09:39:00.000-07:00

"Signals passed to set the stage.............. about surprise these men were sage".

So goes the U.S. Navy Seals theme. Thus, game day came and Commander and Chief, President Barack Obama, cool and collected gave the order to brave men to "set the stage". What followed is kinetic action with resolute precision from U.S. Navy Seals. Game day saved the day, with Captain Richard Phillips freed and three gnarly pirates met their fate.

Thus, let no one question our resolute intentions, and while President Obama would rather communicate and/or negotiate, he can also talk turkey. In fact, no one can argue that we first put our boot in their butt, for our US Navy personnel from the Bainbridge ship were so gracious, that when the teen pirate asked to come on aboard to make a phone call, we indeed agreed and went further; we provided medical care for his wounded hand. That's okay because part of being American, is to show that we still care. In the end however, coming on board for this teen pirate - indeed saved his life. His comrades on the other hand, were not so lucky, they got what they deserved.

Still, the Mersk Alabama hostage situation was successfully resolved. A second American Flagged ship, the Liberty Sun, was subsequently ambushed - unsuccessfully I might say. However, what should we do next time these lawless bums try or do hijack one of our ships?

It should be known that piracy in the high seas of the Indian Ocean is not new, but actually flourished within the last couple of years. In fact, many ships from many countries have already been victims of this pirate scourge and millions of dollars and Euros have been paid to these low-life sea urchins. And sadly, up to 200 mariners from various countries are still held hostage - waiting for ransom monies to be paid.

So what's the cry some have said. Let's just bomb them all to hell - they dare say. Let's bomb them from where they came, other say. In reality, these lawless urchins do have a point of origin and are significantly organized. For the most part, these pirates originate for the failed society of Somalia - a country located off the coast of the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, and Indian Ocean. However, complicating matters is that Somalia is a country in name only, as it has no real government. Consequently, countries whose citizens or flagged ships have been hijacked or crews held hostage, can not go to Somalia and scour for the culprits. The fear is real, as one can only envision another "Black Hawk Down" scenario. You've seen the movie right? In that movie, the United States made it its own business to go after some warlord thug, but paid dearly - and nothing changed. So, lets learn from our own past mistakes or those of others, and this time - it should be a concerted military effort in which we do not touch down in Somalia, but under the auspices of the U.N., a multi-national force patrols those vast oceans and takes appropriate and deliberate action when necessary.

But, let's not allow or nationalistic feelings get the best of us and take up the helm, for as in the U.S. Navy Seals, Rambos are not effective and usually end up dead heroes. Let's instead navigate these waters - cool and collected and when necessary, we'll talk turkey.

Joseph Chez

ANTI-TAX TEA PARTY - UNDER COVER

2009-04-15T18:00:00.000-07:00

It is totally American to exercise the right of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to object with our government - especially over the issue of high taxes. It is another another thing to cover up hidden agendas under the guise of populist issues such as high taxes or excessive government spending.

Today, April 15, 2009 thousands of Americans through out the nation attended anti-tax rallies, described by the Fox News network, as a grass-roots "Tea Party" protest rallies, that have no specific political leaning. Oh yeah? Well, I know of no friends of mine who are Democrats or Liberal, who attended such anti-tax party rallies. On the other hand, some of my ultra conservative personal friends invited me out to dinner last week and pitched an invitation for me to join them in an anti-tax tea party. For a week, I was deluged by e-mails from them urging me to commit. An although my friends on the right mean well and have sincere hopes for our country, I am afraid that their patriotism is being high-jacked by underlying forces to the extreme right, such as the abolish the IRS crowd, the anti-immigration Minute Men, the anti-gay-anti-abortion religious righteous, the pitch fork revolutionist who follow Glen Beck, the narrow-minded Hannity zombies, the malitia-KKK types, and last but not least, the entire Fox News Network staff. Yes, thousands of well-intentioned Americans whose hopes and aspirations for a better America, took it to the streets, to protest high taxes and high government spending. My question however, is who is leading this "Tea Party" agenda?

Why rally at the Alamo? Why posters of President Obama, depicting racist caricatures? Why, if legitimate anti-tax or anti- high government spending, why such emphasis against President Obama? Why the code words of socialism? And why did these patriot Americans not protest these very same issues during the Bush administration? After all, for the past eight years, government spending took a quantum leap, taxes were lowered for the ultra-rich and business corporations ransacked our nation. Why did these sincere Americans not protest the no-bid contract mentality, the absent oversight of the investment banking industry, or the the Bush Administration's blind eye to the oil industry gouging the American public? So why now?

Coincidentally, these anti-tax patriots seemingly just now realized that our country is in deep doo-doo. Conveniently however, out of nowhere, a grass-root revolution against high taxes and high government spending is happening in the fourth month of President Obama's presidency. So is this a coincidence or some GOP malcontent's plot to broaden its political base for 2012? Or, is it that the extreme-right still, can not stomach the thought of having lost the election?

Certainly, high taxes and high government spending is hurting the broad base of the American fabric, but why the red-meat rhetoric of hate and revolution? So like I reminded my conservative friends; beware of who is leading your protest. Remember that Newt Gingrich is using you for his own agenda, a contract ON America, again in 2012. Remember, that Dick Armey is also behind the curtain, with fists-full of money from the extreme-right and corporate America. But not limited to; remember that while you may believe that protesting a populist issue, Fox News Corp. is profiteering from your love of country.

In sum, I uphold and support your right to protest, but I reject any intolerance and yelling fire in this crowded nation. Fox News, it is also not for you to profit and further your extreme-right agenda at the expense of our nation. Finally, yes, it would be nice if we all paid a per-capita and an equal pro-rata share of taxes - without deductions or considerations for special groups.

You want to be a real patriot? Don't be used by those who see an opportunity that is self serving, or those who mean ill to our country by spouting intolerant garbage.

Joseph Chez

BORN AGAIN FISCAL CONSERVATIVES RISE FROM THE RUBBLE LEFT FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION

2009-03-03T20:50:00.000-08:00

Out of the rubble, from a tattered and violated U.S. national economy, Republican legionnaires are once again becoming born-again fiscal conservative.

With the likes of Rush Limbaugh who has taken the helm of the Republican party -from the grip of Michael Steel (RNC Chairman); Joe the plumber who is now a book author with a ghost writer; Sara Paling who sees herself executive savvy and the future of the party; and Joe Six-pack who unabashedly waves the stars- and-stripes with blind devotion - these acolytes of corporate America are back once more, touting the virtues of the free-market forces vis-a-vis government oversight. However, these fellas conveniently forget that they were once blind to the free-market acts under the Bush Administration which led us to where we are.

Newt Gingrich, whose "Contract with America" was in reality, a contract on America, is on the speaking circuit damming the Democrats and President Obama's economic and social agenda. Sean Hannity, the Fox News show host and pundit, has asked his listeners, what kind of revolution they would like to see against the Democrats in control of government. His "let's take America back" message is becoming red meat for the intellectually-poor Joe six-pack crowd. In fact, the pompous Grand Old Party leader and dean for the center for conservative studies, Rush Limbaugh, has publicly announced that he wishes President Obama's agenda to fail, so the country will win.

Yes, these corporate-America apologist, are coming out of the economic rubble the Bush Administration left for President Obama, and they are fiercely joining the ranks of malcontent Republicans who want to start a ( fiscal conservative) revolution to take back America. Their rhetoric is so inflammatory, that many of the Joe six-pack crowd are confused with the message, and wait patiently for a call to arms. Glen Beck was so enamored with his pitch fork advocacy, that he left CNN and moved to Fox News where he could get a better feel of the grip.

Today, these Republican born-again fiscal conservatives, are denouncing President Obama's $787 billion dollar stimulus package designed to rescue the crumbling economy. An economy so severely damaged, that it may rival the 1930's great Depression. However, these individuals continue to argue that government over-spending is unnecessary, but propose, as they did before, that government should tax less and stay out of the private sector.
But excuse me? Do these nut-jobs not realize that the present economic situation is so dire? Do they not understand that our nation's economic state of affairs is, the result of the prior - Republican; get government off my back, let industry police itself, less taxes-less government, no bid-contracts, less paper work for less paper trail, and turn government over to the private sector by way of out-sourcing? Did they not raped and pillaged our economy?

In 2001, when former President George Bush took office, with a stroke of a pen, by Presidential Order, he ordered all government agencies under the executive branch, to immediately begin a transfer of government services and resources to the private sector. This became known as privatizing government or "outsourcing". In reality however, it was the beginning of ransacking public resources. In fact, the Bush Administration put in place a plan "to get to the green" for each federal agency. The plan was to privatize up to 50 per cent of services and resources for each federal agency. Yes, "green" as in money. Thus, each agency played the game to get to the green with incentives for the head of agencies receiving fat juicy bonuses.

But you know of course, that it was under the former Republican Bush Administration, that even part of the U.S. arm forces became out-sourced (private). Until recently, much of the Iraq war was in the hands of private security companies - under "no-bid contract" of course. Further, you should know that under the Bush Administration, mineral and oil claims were sold to the private sector for pennies on the dollar. You should also know that much of our industry became self-regulated. Peanuts anyone? In sum, industry pollution and profiteering became rampant.

But, what really sacked our kitty, was the investment banking industry. These necro-mongers lavishly lobbied the White House and Congress. Yet, the Bush Administration was the biggest capitulator or "the decider" and thus, the kitty went to bed as the rats ate the cheese. Where was government oversight you ask? Absent. Better yet, embedded with the enemy. In fact, the so called fiscally -conservative Republicans were so inebriated with the free market forces, that they made it possible for Wall Street to have an atmosphere of a free reign. A situation in which Wall Street become more of a gambling casino than an investment industry; Investment banking houses packaged mortgages into security schemes, hedge funds into derivatives and concocted monetary schemes such as credit-default-swaps (insurance for non-secure, non-existent investments).

And there is more; the gas and oil industry was well connected with the Bush Administration, and consequently - were allowed a free reign in the regulation of its own price controls and marketing. So free was the market forces, that the oil industry was putting billions of dollars into the commodities market, betting that the price of oil would be going up, knowing full well that they were controlling the rise and fall of the market. What a scheme. Consistently, oil companies enjoyed the historic billion(s) dollar profits. These oil fellas owe their fortune to their fellow Republican friends - George"W" and Darth Chaney.

But then, the casino free-market forces atmosphere came tumbling down. The American investor was once again beaten by the house, although the house also lost because, crooks within the casino were skimming the profits all along, until there was no more. And thus, the revered American economic model became the emperor with no clothes. Yet, believers of the GOP conservative doctrine are back again, preaching that "fiscal conservatism" is better and the only solution to the economic problem this country is having. They are sharpening their tongues and pitch forks. Sadly, their legion seems smaller and less credible.

So when Rush Limbaugh says, he wants President Obama's economic agenda to fail, I say, bite your tongue sir ! It is you and your like-minded that got us into this economic mess.

President Obama, god speed....
Joseph Chez

ANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST MR. PRESIDENT?

2009-02-10T19:33:00.000-08:00

Last night, President Obama held his first national news conference and he was very eloquent and confident. However, despite a prevailing spirit of change in this new administration, he failed to answer the question posed by the "first lady of the press", White House correspondent, Helen Thomas. She asked, Mr. President, "do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?" Of course, it's been the policy of the United States government not to confirm or deny any fact of existing nuclear weapons dead center in the Middle East. Consequently, President Obama skirted Helen's question and stated that "he did not want to speculate". So he said, " what I know is this, if we see a nuclear arm's race in a region as volatile as the Middle East, every one will be in danger...". But Mr. President, we do understand the sensitivity of the issue and the nuance of diplomacy. What we do not understand, is that your omission of the facts or not answering the questions about existing nuclear weapons in the Middle East does nothing to change the status quo in the Middle East. Why should known facts of our involvement in such issue continue to be shrouded in mystery or a cover-up? After all, our country is knee-deep in the middle of the issue.

Helen's question was of course designed to call into question why our government remains adamantly protective of one state in the Middle East which has a huge existing arsenal of nuclear weapons - which should be of concern to the entire world. Her question perhaps, was also meant to debunk the hyper scrutiny of Iran's infant nuclear research and development.

The fact is, the state of Israel is a major nuclear power rivaling perhaps known major nuclear countries such as France or England. Regrettably however, the United States has long been protective of Israel unjustifiably, but has also been bias when there is any attempt to enforce any United Nations inquiry or resolution against Israel.

Notwithstanding, I am sure Helen knew the answer to her question; that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons - enough to pulverize the entire Middle East. In fact, its territory is dotted with nuclear research or assembly facilities. For example, in the north west part of Israel, the Rafael and Yodefat facilities assemble missile ballistic systems that carry nuclear weapons. In Eilabum, also in the north east of Israel, this is where you find Israel's second largest nuclear facility. This is where all of the tactical nuclear shells and land mines are kept. To the south east of Israel, we find Israel's main nuclear depot, at Dimona. At this facility, the largest facility in Israel, most nuclear weapons are assembled and stored. Therfore, it should be known that Israel has for the last 30 years been producing no less than 40 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium per year. Keeping in mind that it only takes about 4 kilograms to make a weapons-grade nuclear bomb. So you do the math and get an idea of how many plutonium base nuclear bombs Israel has. Additionally, Israel also has up to 100 lithium-6 deuterium base thermal-nuclear bombs.

Currently however, there is much concern in the intelligence community because Israel is closely working with India in an attempt to obtain India's new tritium technology in order to develop more sophisticated and more efficient nuclear weapons. So this may explain why there was a terrorist attack in Mumbai India by an alleged Pakistani group. Mmmmm? An arms race in that region, with Israel, India, Pakistan and the U.S. as the major players?!

Yet Mr. President, it is time that we take off the cloak of deception and let the people know the facts about Israel's monstrous arsenal of nuclear weapons. It is time Mr. President that our government let its people know that each nuclear facility in Israel is defended by American defense missile systems. It is time that we own-up to the fact that our government skirts international convention by conducting illegal research and development of more sophisticated nuclear weapons in Israeli facilities.

As far as Iran being a nuclear concern, yes it is. Although, their technology is simply infant and diminimus. Their recent rocket carrying a satellite into orbit, well, in reality, it is equivalent to when the Russians sent their Sputnik satellite into orbit in 1957 - still rather crude and does not pose an immediate threat. However, within 5-10 years, there will be enough nuclear weapons in the Middle East to pose a mutual assured destruction- with our help. So this is where you come in Mr. President; under your government of change, we must change the course of history by not allowing anybody in the middle east, including Israel, to bring about a foreseeable Armageddon.
Helen, I hope the above answers part of your question......

Joseph Chez

THE AUDACITY OF HOPE

2009-02-05T15:01:00.000-08:00

As much as it is a TIME of hope and pride for our country, it is much more for history; a time to reset nature's hope for peace around the world. It is a time in which the United States of America can rejoin the families of the world as an equal and not as the first among the many.

Congratulations Mr. President, Barack Obama.

Joseph Chez

OUR COUNTRY WANTED CHANGE

2009-02-05T13:40:00.000-08:00

Our country is under new management - not new ownership. We the people got tired of incompetence, greed, and the trampling of our Constitution. So, we cleaned house. Thus, with a new beginning, we will restore the fundamentals by which this country was founded; life, liberty and the rule of law. Pursuit of happiness will only come when those civil liberties are restored.I believe that we the people will restore our nation to its original greatness. We all need to pitch in.

Joseph Chez

MALCONTENT CONSERVATIVE PUNDITS LEFT BEHIND BY HISTORY

2009-02-05T13:23:00.000-08:00

Conservative radio pundits and the like, are all riled up about Democrats taking the whole cake. However, they do not accept the fact that their governance agenda of the last eight years, broke the bank, took our country to war in Iraq - without justification, degraded our environment, and ruined our national economy.
One radio hooch recently alluded to predicting that President Obama's agenda will fail. Even during the historic event of the inauguration of our new President, where two million plus Americans braved the below-freezing weather, these fellows such as the Ryliies, Hanaddies, Rush Bimbos, Beckies and Savages, could not stomach the sight of Libbies rejoicing in their victory. Instead, these necro-mongers have began their campaign of demagoguery, misinformation and pompous outcry. But, not wishing our new president success, well, that is like wishing our country ill. To use their own lingo, that is un-American!!!

In sum, neo-con(s) as well as these viperous pundits are in reality, sad. It seems that history has left them behind - and they are all alone. No need to worry, though, for in the annal's of history, they are just now a CRACK IN THE WIND.

Joseph Chez

ISRAEL USES CHEMICAL WEOPONS IN GAZA

2009-02-05T12:31:00.000-08:00

A massacre unfolded in late December 2008 and continued through January 20, 2009 in the Gaza area of the Middle East. Israel, under the pretext of the Bush doctrine invaded the Palestinian territory of Gaza. According to the United Nations, only a few Israeli casualties resulted while several thousand Palestinians were wounded and or killed. Astonishingly, the world watched in horror as innocent men, women and children were corralled - with no exit for cover or safety - while Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) blanketed civilian areas with bunker-busting bombs that crumbled buildings similar to the bombings of cities like Dresden or London during WWII.

The storm of death in Gaza also obliterated homes, hospitals, schools, places of worship and even United Nations sponsored food- warehouses. Further, our country did little to stop the bombardment and instead, held that Israel had the right to defend itself. In fact, in the last month of his presidency, president Bush gave the wink and the nod, allowing for Israel to use chemical weapons - with full knowledge that those weapons would likely hurt innocent civilians in Gaza.

Those who know history can remind those who don't know or care, that the world united into a League of Nations to stop future chemical weapons such as those used during WWI . Can the world still then tolerate the use of chemicals as used in crematories in WWII or in Gaza today? Yet, it should be known that in Gaza, Israel consistently and deliberately used phosphorous bombs. Those fluffy fire works that blanketed the Palestinian cities in Gaza were indeed chemical weapons. These chemical explosives exploded overhead and caused mist to rained down on the population. But on the ground, as the mist came in contact with the population, human flesh of the young and old blistered and burned. As the mist was inhaled, lungs irritated and burned. For small children and weak-elderly, such chemical contact only proved fatal.

But where were you when these atrocities were happening? Should we really care? A good program on TV you say? Not my problem? They were the bad guys you say? We know of course, that President Bush has had a biblical connection, veiled with the fact that Israel and its US lobby placed him in office, and therefore, he had an agenda that allowed him to accept and be complicit with such atrocities. However, what was President-elect Obama's excuse in not forcefully calling a halt to the atrocities? He was not yet president?

At one time, the world stood uncommitted and allowed Nazi Germany to exterminate 6 million human beings, until we decided to intervene, but it was too late for those 6 million. In January 2009, the Bush Administration blocked a United Nations resolution forcing Israel to stop the bombings. Regrettably, Secretary Rice of the U.S. Department of State went before the world body to personally argue for a no cease fire. President Bush on the other hand, publicly blamed Hamas for the collateral damage of the Israeli bombardment. Washing his hands of any responsibility, President-elect Obama also remained silent. He simply stated, that there was only one president at a time.

Not surprisingly, long before President Bush's term came to a close, the order went out to the Pentagon to rid itself of unusable or no-longer-needed sophisticated armament, such as missile defense systems, tanks, bunker-busting bombs, and helicopter gun ships. Thus began the emptying of US warehouses of war material, which was shipped to, you got it, the state of Israel. Now Israel has enough weaponry, U.S. made, to kill more innocent civilians. For you and I however, if we were to supply a weapon to an individual who would commit a lethal act, you bet, you or I would be complicit in the crime, tried and convicted for the act.

But now, we have a newly elected president of our nation, President Barack Obama, who is the hope of our future and messiah for peace. So what does he have to say now about the atrocity of civilians with American weapons? Incidentally, Israel stopped the hostilities in Gaza immediately before our new president took the oath of office. Yet, the question remains; why did President-elect Obama stand silent during the Israeli massacre of innocent civilians in Gaza, and what will he do now that he is president?

Mr. President, take inventory and don't let Pentagon officials or neo-cons determine our foreign policy. You are now in charge. Keep in mind that the audacity of silence is complicity.

Joseph Chez

CLOSE GUANTANAMO U.S. FACILITY AND RETURN TO CUBA

2009-02-04T18:36:00.000-08:00

The American people voted for change and the Guantanamo stain was a big factor. Why? Undeniably, Delta Camp in Guantanamo Bay Cuba became a moral disaster for the reputation of our nation. This is because the prison or detention camp, was deliberately set up by the Bush Administration outside U.S. borders for the specific reason of circumventing U.S. Law. However, the thought of naming the detainees with convoluted terms such as "non-combatants" and thus, believing they would not be covered by either U.S. law or International convention, was sadly, a sloppy and goofy attempt that failed. Instead, the world saw GITMO, the giddy way of calling the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, as an illegal prison camp which violated the norms of U.S. law as well as international law. Moreover, the reports of inhumane treatment in many cases were further illegal acts under international convention. Thus, what has resulted from this GITMO fiasco is a moral issue for our nation's reputation, but additionally, a definite stain on the virtue of our law. Recognizing that the Guantanamo detention camp had become an overwhelming disapproval with the American people, no less with the entire world, (now) President Barack Obama promised he would immediately close GITMO. But when? Just yesterday, January 22, 2009, he signed a presidential order to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp within one year. But Mr. President, how can we accept the stain of an illegal premise for a whole year? Surely, there should be caution, but what is prevailing is uproar by the right and neo-cons to the extreme. The main argument is that if they are let out, they will return to harm us. Correct. They will come back, but only to file suit against our government in our courts for unlawful detention. For those not released, we should submit them to the process of our legal system. What do we have to fear? That our legal system is worthless?
Imagine if you will, what if the value of our U.S. dollar only had value within our borders? Conceivably, our dollar would be worthless. Nobody outside the US would accept our currency and thus, no US goods would be bought, and we would not be the power that we are. In like circumstance, the law applies in this same concept. My point is, that our legal system is the greatest concept conceived by mankind and its value will withstand any test, including determining the guilt or innocence of those in detention at Guantanamo Bay.
We know however, that the Bush Administration precisely did not want to have these detainees processed by our laws because most of the detainees were either tortured, victims of rendition, or the charges could not be substantiated even in traffic court. For such reasons, the Bush Administration set up a new military tribunal system that was designed deliberately so detainees could not present witnesses, present evidence in their behalf, or demand to see evidence to support the charges.
In many cases, individuals detained in Guantanamo were merely picked up in various areas of the Middle East simply because they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Others were merely accused by enemy warlords, or for as little as receiving a cash reward. But in more sinister situations, middle eastern individuals, whose names were similar to names on a US government presumptive terrorist list, were detained at many parts of the world, even though, the only connection to the war on terror, was that they were Muslim or had a middle eastern name.
So yes! The Guantanamo Bay Delta Detention Camp should be immediately dismantled and closed. And every individual within the camp should immediately be given their habeas corpus, which is a right to secure a speedy relief from an unlawful detention+.+ Which brings me to the second most heard argument against releasing those detainees; that because much of the evidence against many of the prisoners has been compromised or is top secret, such nonsense holds no water. For if evidence has been compromised and the prisoner is still believed to be a bona fide suspect, under our present legal system, the prosecution can present other verifiable evidence against the subject. And if no such evidence exist, release them.
For those who we can prove their alleged guilt, lets bring them to the proper federal jurisdiction. Yes, in the mainland an not in Guantanamo or in CIA field detention camps which dot many areas of the world. What you say? Our laws and legal protections are not for non-citizens? Remember what I said about the value of our money. If our money does not bear value to the outside world, it is worthless. Hence, the same applies to our laws.
In sum, lets take this opportunity to redeem this shameful act of our former government under the Bush Administration, and let's close the dammed camp. It's an embarrassment, it is unlawful and immoral. And by the way, there is no strategic reason for us to maintain the lease of Guantanamo Bay Cuba, as that is also a shameful reminder of the Monroe Doctrine which bullied Latin America. And for those who may not know, Guantanamo Bay is not U.S. property. We forced a lease onto the Cuban people in a shameful act. Thus, we should close GITMO and return Guantanamo Bay to the rightful owner - Cuba.
Joseph Chez