Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

Sunday, October 28, 2012

DESPICABLE JOHN H. SUNUNU

                       

                                                  DESPICABLE JOHN H. SUNUNU

One of the hallmark traits of the Republican Party campaign for this 2012 presidential election has been its fervent animus and despicable campaign modus operandi.  Republican operatives are depicting President Obama as a socialist, communist, not a true American, or that his is a Muslim. However, one can argue that in political campaigns, it can get down and dirty. Besides, this type of crud campaign tactics is not new to American politics. But, is President Obama being portrayed differently? The a answer is yes.

Finding the most craven characterization of Republican dirty tactics truly does fail me, but, it is clear to me that President Obama is unfairly being thrashed not because of his politics but because of his perceived non-anglo profile.  During the primaries, outright racist placards were common amongst the Tea Party following. But still, today, coded words or phrases from the mouths of GOP operatives fill conservative radio talk shows as well as on TV.

What is not acceptable to me or to many other reasonable Americans, is the cowardly turn-a-blind-eye from the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney.  In fact, Mitt Romney himself through innuendo, has questioned the President's US citizenship, but denies that was his intention.  However, it appears that he gives consent for others to insight the animus malus from those prone to embrace racist and/or intolerant views.  One such Mitt Romney surrogate is former governor of New Hampshire and President Bush Sr. chief of staff, John Henry Sunnunu.

Republican, John H. Sunnunu, has recently been rabid in his rhetoric when attempting to portray President Barack Obama. But just recently, in reference to General Collin Powell's endorsement of the President, Sunnunu slithered into craven politics by suggesting the endorsement was because of race. 

Mitt Romney and John H. Sununu, your principles can only be described as DESPICABLE AND NOT WELCOMED.

Joseph Chez
Oct. 28, 2012

Thursday, October 11, 2012

 
A Mormon GOP Candidate #MittRomney notwithstanding, the VP debate tonight is more about politics.
 
In the Vice Presidential candidate debate for this 2012 election, two catholic boys will be duking it out in the debate. And although, the politics will be about American issues, the essence behind each party's philosophy will be constructed through their religious values.  Interestingly, both VP candidates are Catholic, and yet, each represent the great divide within the Catholicism credo. VP Joe Biden of course, is the Liberal or progressive wing of the church, while Paul Ryan, the Republican, overtly pushes its conservative gospel. 
 
 
The Liberal/Progressive Catholics believe in freedom of conscience, thus, are pro-choice.  The Conservative Catholics, such as Paul Ryan, promote a conservative/evangelistic approach to family values, such as asserting to be anti-abortion.  Furthering the rift in the Catholic gospel, is that Liberal Democrats who choose to label themselves as Catholic, actively promote providing economic assistance and health care for the poor and the needy, while conservative Catholic Republicans, preach for a personal responsibility of meeting one's needs and strongly want government to impose regulations against women wanting to choose to abort. Furthermore, Conservative Catholics, who label themselves as Republicans, do so based on one issue; the issue of abortion. However, many go further, such as Paul Ryan, who object to government assistance to the poor.
 
Even within the church, bishops are countervailing the work of Catholic nuns who promote social justice - as well as freedom of conscience.
 
Thus, the question must be asked: Which group would Jesus support?
 
 

Monday, March 26, 2012

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 ///


Wednesday, November 4, 2009

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!

Thursday, May 14, 2009

A LIBERAL VIEW: MADAM SPEAKER, STEP DOWN.


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