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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.