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dramatic explanation for her resignation, she simply stated that after serving her country for so many years, she could no longer represent the policies of an administration of the United States.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.

///     

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?  

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 a royal fool.  Wheeoow!

(An extended article may be found at: http://universalwrit.blogspot.com/ .)

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.  

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 PRICE - 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.

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. 

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 committee 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 worse, at 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.

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 even more, 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. 

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, theWye 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 of the three parties since the 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 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. 

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.

                                                                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. 

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 dominos 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 intensions 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. Boloney, 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.

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 dominos 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 intensions 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. Boloney, 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.

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 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 safety or fear for our life. 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, there is a fear factor when dealing with the very same individuals entrusted to keep us safe.

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 what they refer to as "professional courtesy"  which allows them to protect each other, cover-up for one another, 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 created by our society?  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 if need be, appeal.  But more importantly, when choosing your community leaders, 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. However, society must require that our police be better educated, more understanding of their role in society, and that police officers be held accountable to the same rules of society and the law, for which we are all subject to.

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 no justifiable cause 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.

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 the 4th of July.  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 Palin was to get a hold of the presidential foot ball in 2012.  No Sarah!.  That is not the presidential Blackberry!

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 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, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Condi Rice, Donald Runsfeld, John R.Bolton, James Woolsey, Douglas Feith 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 to war, we should know its history, its potholes, and where it may lead us to.