Scoundrels vs. ObamaCare

Scoundrels Inc. vs. ObamaCare

March 26, 2012

Today marks a historic day in the life of these United States of America.  A land-mark case such as Dread Scot (1857) is before the U.S. Supreme Court. This time however, race is not the issue, although, there are underlings in the greater scope of the political contention, but a case of major proportions which questions federal jurisdiction over states rights and the power of the Federal government over individual rights. 

Twenty six dissident GOP-led states in a united front, filed for review before the United States Supreme Court in objection to President Barack Obama Administration’s “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” signed into law in March 2010, and today, the Court began hearing arguments.  The complainant opposition is a GOP-TeaParty and allied with BigBusinessUnited effort, in hopes of undermining the Democratic aim of providing affordable health care to all Americans.    

After a successful opposition by the Republicans in Congress to the #SinglePayer health Care legislation, as initially proposed by Democrats, efforts to bring affordable health care to the American people failed, thus resulting in a watered-downed health care law which is now being challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Under the scurrilous name of “ObamaCare” as tagged by the Republican/Tea-Party opposition, the law called for penalizing those individual citizens who would opt out of not purchasing health care insurance. Thus, herein lays the trap laid by the Republican-led opposition; after Republicans realized they could not entirely prevent Democrats from passing a form of health care legislation, Republicans in Congress pushed Democrats into providing a mechanism by which the new legislation would be paid for. Hence, Democrats placed a requirement for every citizen to be enrolled, and if healthcare was not provided by their employer or already not enrolled in a government program, individuals were required under this law to purchase individual insurance – with no option to opt out.  Accordingly, opposition to #ObamaCare argues before the Court; whether Congress can compel citizens to purchase health insurance?

 Conveniently, present-day US Supreme Court is heavily influenced and packed with adulterated Justices who are often seen cuddling with special business interest and who also hold extreme religious convictions. In fact, Chief Justice and Associate Justices in the Court with Conservative/extreme-religious credentials make up the majority of the Court and therefore, often tip the balance on the side of conservative/religious causes. So far however, the most adulterated Justice (Thomas) has remained mum in this Court’s session and on this particular case. This silence notwithstanding, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy comprise the known pack of conservative/religious scoundrels in the Court who will ultimately decide Scoundrels vs. ObamaCare.

Joseph Chez ///

Donald Trump, the consummate opportunist now BIRTHER.

By

Joseph Chez
April 27, 2011

Donald Trump 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. Trump has seemingly entered the race bait for 2012, his political dump has not only embraced right-wing extreme positions, but has also taken the lead in the republican “birther” movement.

Yet, while the American public was becoming tired of the birther nonsense, Donald Trump and Republicans continue to pursue what they purport to be a legitimate issue; of whether the President is indeed a US citizen. But let's be frank about this; Republicans are using the birther issue to belittle the President.

Indeed, the once respected Donald Trump - 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 this individual wallowing in political turpitude which can only soil his personal credits?

Moreover, it appears that Mr. Trump is trolling the political waters perhaps to give shine to the fading Trump crest. This fired up individual has truly surprised the American public by his ludicrous behavior. However, his persistance on the birther issue has not only tickled the fancy of CONservatives but has the media's thong in a tizzy. Thus, the media blitz continues and this emboldens Donald Trump.

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 sadly, some 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 would not 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 his 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. However, Mr. Trump has in the past held political views which were deemed somewhat liberal. Of course, the country has since taken a turn to the right, politically –with most Republicans even embracing ultra-right political and 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. Accordingly, republicans consider the 2010 elections results as a referendum for the country to politically, take a turn to the right. Now, racist remarks, xenophobic rants and rhetorical assassination are now the norm in the political arena. Further, with newly earned extreme-right credentials, republican candidates for the 2012 presidential election have begun to jockey in an attempt to reach for the coveted world leadership role – the US presidency. However, these republican candidates are more of the same; political retreads, flesh-repentant repeats, or Pollyannaish CONservatives- with no metaphysical prowess sufficient to measure up to President Barack Obama and win the 2012 presidential election. But, to no one's surprise, in comes the consummate opportunist, Donald Trump. Of course, Mr. Trump has since changed his political feathers and now 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. Yes, the pompous opportunist now aims to discredit and take down the mighty sitting President. His modus operandi? Troll the bottom of the cesspool for snake-oil and sell it to the American public.

The 2012 presidential race is now in full swing, but regrettably it is filled with racist innuendo and malevolant intrigue against President Barack Obama. But what else is to be expected from the CONservative right-wing but to resort to old Jim crow South. Thus, one must wonder; whether Republicans have continued their White Citizen’s Council affinity but now wear Trump’s Country Club clothes. And let's not be fooled by Trump's assertions; that he has good relations with “the blacks."

The good news today, April 27, 2011 is that once again, President Obama released his long-form birth certificate to ease concerns from the American public, and 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? Really, Mr. Donald Trump is looking rather foolish.

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

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!

ISSUE OF JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR IS A NON SEQUITUR

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