"I won't be reading your blog again, as I won't be wasting my time reading something that has clearly no real intellectual merit or thoughtful prose."

Note: This will be my last blog entry on this site. Details at the bottom.

I blog. It's what I do. Generally I keep this blog updated with non-biased, neutrality-based facts of stories I re-report in my own words. I enjoy doing so for many reasons. For one, it's my way of keeping my reporting skills in shape since I'm not in school this semester. It also keeps me motivated to stay updated with politics in the news concerning the American Government and foreign affairs. Generally I'll post the link to this blog on my facebook once I've written a new one. I don't expect many viewers, but simply post it in case anyone feels like taking a glance

Last night I decided to write a story based on all of the "racial-based" stories being reported in the news. From former President Carter's remarks, to President Obama stating that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" and so on.

Although I try very hard to keep my blogs neutral, last night I picked a side. I was honestly inspired by Wes Nemenz' attacks on my friend as being a racist, simply because he disagrees with many of President Obama's policy-making decisions, leadership and actions thus far. Yes, as immature as it is, I called out Wes. After I wrote my blog, which you can find below this one, I posted it to his wall, respectfully asking for feedback. Instead, I got an attacked response in several comments. (I don't have to worry about him commenting this one, as he's assured me of the title of this blog - a direct quote from Wes). Afterward, I commented on his wall asking him why he tore my article apart instead of taking more of a constructive-criticism approach. His rebuttal was simply filled with more attacks. And then the irony of his defensive rebuttals hit me -- he's a socialist. In fact, right after I called him one, he quickly (and quite maturely) updated his status to "Today, someone called me a Socialist. I said 'thank you'".

You may not understand the irony I found, but allow me to explain.

Aside from Urban Dictionary's definition of Socialism -- "a word many would do well to look up in an actual FUCKING dictionary. NOT communism," there are some key elements to the hypocrisy of his self-proclaimed political stance.

Here are various definitions of "Socialism" from the Apple® Dictionary:

socialism

noun

•leftism, welfarism; radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;communism, Marxism, labor movement.

•A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

•(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

•The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as farapart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from thelate 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.

Now let's take a look of "Types of Socialism" from the Apple® dictionary:

The word "socialism" has been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves or their goals, generating numerous types of socialism. Different self-described socialists have used the term socialism to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character. Some definitions of socialism are so vague that they may include anything and everyone on Earth,[1] while others are so specific that they only include a small minority of the things that have been described as "socialism" in the past.

Basically hereinbefore lies the argument: What does Wes describe himself as? He was happy that I called him a socialist. I was so happy that I appeased him, that I even decided to dedicate this entire blog to his political "stance," -- or for a better term -- political imbalance.

So what is it that you stand for Wes? Other than calling someone a Racist because they don't agree with political decisions made by an African-American president. You know, there is such a thing as racism from being overly polite and defensive of people of color.

At least I have firm political grounds as to where my beliefs stand.

For anyone interested, I purchased a domain name and am in process of building a website. The site is still under construction, but still holds the name Political Assignments.

Jimmy Carter addresses Obama's Racial Country.

When President Obama gave his victory speech on November 4, 2008, he spoke of the progression that Americans have made; he spoke of the future of racial barriers in America being extinct in Governmental policies; he spoke of racism being of the past, and the future of America holding equality for all.

It is true in fact, that since that 28th day in August, 1963 when the slain Martin Luther King Jr. gave his famous "I have a dream" speech, that Americans have progressed significantly in the equality and acceptance of blacks and whites interacting as one.

But if King were alive today, would he agree on President Obama's claims of racial barriers being a thing of the past?

It came as no surprise to many Americans that controversy would follow the inauguration of Americas first African-American* President on January 20, 2009. But what does come as a surprise is the ideology of some that President Obama's policy decisions and political agendas are racially-driven. Furthermore, that certain Americans feel that President Obama is not qualified to run this country due to his race.

Considering the history of American politics and its majority-based conservatism ideals, putting an openly liberal democrat into the Oval Office -- hold his race -- is enough in itself for questions of future policies to arise in the American people. But for the first time in American history -- given the race of Obama -- questioning, disagreeing with, and attacking the decisions of our President (which has always been a right of an American) now deems this person a racist. But, I guess ignorance is, well ignorance.

So now the game of American politics "flip-flops."

A few months back the story broke of Cambridge police arresting a man in his own home. That man happened to be prominent Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. Gates, an African-American, has a track record of fighting for the equal rights of his own race, along with prominent studies of African-American culture, history, literature, etc.

When President Obama was requested comment of the arrest, he stated that he was unaware of the facts of the incident which took place, but from mainstream media reports, he stated that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly" in the arrest of Gates. Immediately this struck racial controversy -- regardless of President Obama's disclaimer of "not knowing the complete facts." Maybe the President shouldn't have made those remarks, but does that mean he is a racist? Or is it mainstream media that is portraying him as one?

In a recent interview with NBC Nightly News, former President Jimmy Carter stated, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American . . ." He then followed up, by saying, "That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."

Former President Carter is wrong. Americans of every color, race, nationality, sexual orientation, and ethnicity put this man into office -- not because of his race -- but because of his promises for change. As to reiterate, the only reason why President Obama is facing challenges from the American people, is simply due to policy disagreements with American Citizens. But, as a miniscule example, since many Americans disagree with his proposed public healthcare option, those people are now suddenly racists.

"African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country," Carter said. Taking his statement slightly out of context, let's take a look at the educational background of Carter, vs. Obama; a white President, Vs. an African-American President:

• Jimmy Carter enrolled at Georgia Southwestern College after graduating high school in 1942. At the time of his enrollment, GSC was a two-year institution. Carter then applied to the United States Naval Academy -- and after taking additional mathematic courses at Georgia Tech, was admitted in 1943. He graduated 59th in class out of 820 Midshipmen.
• President Obama enrolled in and graduated from the prestigious Columbia University. He then went on to earn a law degree from Harvard Law School, where he was the first African-American to be president of Harvard Law Review. From 1992-1994 he taught constitution law at the University of Chicago Law School.

You decide. Was Carter more qualified then than Obama is today?

The basic fact comes down to this: had John McCain won the election, the American people would be able to wholeheartedly disagree with his policy-making decisions, tax or healthcare reform, etc., without being anything but an ordinary, free American, practicing their first amendment. Hold the race card.

*President Barack Obama is bi-racial.

© Jeff Kelleher

September 17, 2009

Political Assignments

The Day America Changed: Eight Years Later

As today marks the 8th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks which shook the foundation of United States domination, memorial services are being planned not only nation wide, but worldwide as well. While construction remains underway for a memorial, museum and five new skyscrapers where the twin towers once stood, citizens of lower manhattan and America alike will reunite at ground zero to remember the heroes we lost that day.

Many Americans are still in question as to why two high-voltage lights remain eight years later in place of what were once ranked the 5th and 6th tallest buildings in the world. Why has Manhattan yet to complete the memorial buildings? Plans for the lavish memorial site have been put on the "back burner" of American priorities for a few basic reasons. While the American tradition is to always honor our fallen men and women of any battle zone, the preceding war in Afghanistan and Iraq following the attacks have reached over one trillion dollars. Placing only second to World War II (which estimates costing $2 trillion in current U.S.D.), former president George Bush spent more money on occupations in both 3rd world countries than World War I, The Korean War, and Vietnam combined.

In addition to the debt that America has fallen into in attempts of defending its homeland security, debates have been ongoing between site developers and the landowner of the former location of the twin towers, as well as financial legal disputes and politically-driven agendas.

So what will this anniversary bring to Americans? Maybe it will bring a reminder that our country will always remain target to Islamic Extremists.

If 9/11/09 isn't significant enough in itself, perhaps Americans need focus on the recent developments of the hijacked commercial jet in Mexico City, Mexico.

Former drug-addict Jose Flores Pereira, a 44-year-old Bolivian, is suspect of the Boeing 737-800 AeroMexico hijacking which was en route from Cancun, Mexico to Mexico City -- one of Mexico's most notorious cities for high crime and drug trafficking. Although the hijacking ended safely with Pereira in custody and no reported serious injuries, the date of the hijacking is enough to send chills down the spine of America. If the fact that the hijacking took place only two days prior to the 8th anniversary of the September 11 attacks doesn't alert Americans, the date of 09/09/09 should. In comments to the police, Pereira, who is a current preacher, claimed that the date held significance to him, as 9/9/9 can be translated to 666 upside down. Many Christians believe the number 666 is symbolic to the Anti-Christ. Stating that he wanted to "warn Mexico of an earthquake," Pereira shouted "Chris is coming soon," as he was being escorted off by Mexican officials.

Many Americans still report on the significance of the terrorist attacks on America, as 9-11 is the same number dialed anywhere in the country in presence of an emergency.

If radical extremists of any belief are still taking dangerous initiative based on significance of dates, maybe Americans should be concerned about the coming of dates such as 9/11/19.

Regardless of what the future of America holds, today we will all hold moments of silence for the heroes we lost that dreaded day.

I will personally be remembering a family friend, a flight attendant who lost her life on Flight 93 in the fields of Pennsylvania.

But most importantly, Americans must never fail to remember the sacrifices that our own people give every day to maintain our own freedom.

© Jeff Kelleher

September 11, 2009

Political Assignments

Healthcare Clarification? Or more confusing questions?

Aside from being the first Presidential address to joint congress since February 24 of this year, nothing of undiscussed news for President Obama's healthcare proposal was heard.

What was heard loud and clear -- for maybe the first official time nationally -- was the strongly divided isle of politicians.

It was clear from tonight's address that the President was primarily directing his speech towards reassuring the American people, while entertaining a group of congressman and women who either stood in support, or held up their signs which proclaimed "What Bill?" But can the promises that President Obama made tonight stand with truth in the coming years?

The proposed bill would require individuals to sustain some sort of healthcare insurance. (I've never seen John McCain smile with such sincerity towards the president in my life). According to the President, Americans who are uninsured currently and either cannot afford health coverage, or find it of little importance, would be required to maintain an affordable insurance plan at little or no cost. Here are the options he gave:

• Individuals who are unemployed when the bill is signed into law would be covered under a public healthcare option.
• Individuals who are employed when the bill is signed into law, but do not have health coverage, would receive health coverage from their employer. For small and less profitable businesses who cannot afford to provide healthcare coverage to all employees, would be required to "chip in" to the medical expenses of their employees.

As of 2007 the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that only 82% of Americans had adequate healthcare coverage. While the numbers have probably decreased tremendously since, President Obama claims that current health insurers will not be able to change any policies that would counteract the benefit of patients once the bill is put into law. Citizens who have healthcare coverage would continue to have the option of choosing doctors, and would not have benefits dropped, or healthcare coverage increased due to pre-existing medical conditions.

The estimated budget of this plan is $900 billion over the next 10 years, making costs lower than the Iraq war.

"I will not sign a bill that adds a dime to the country deficit," Obama claimed, stating that the money spent on this healthcare plan would come from the excess money that is currently being spent for healthcare costs across the country.

But how does this healthcare plan break down to certain individuals and groups?

In addressing not only the American citizens, but the joint Congress as well, the President took a stand-of-defense in efforts to "clear up" false controversy surrounding negativity of this bill. If you tune into any cable television network, you're apt to see at least 10 commercials per day saying that Congress plans on taking $500 billion dollars away from primary senior healthcare plans such as Medicare and Medicaid. "Medicare remains a sacred trust that must be handed down from one generation to the next" President Obama said, stating that "not a dollar of the medicaid trust fund would go towards the cost of this plan." The phrase "divided isle" never held such literalness, while the left followed Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of House Nancy Pelosi in a standing ovation, leaving behind the right who held up copies of their own proposed healthcare reform.

And it didn't stop there.

On the subject of illegal immigration the President stated that no illegal immigrant would be covered in any way shape or form under the new healthcare bill; this caused an uproar of disagreement which was almost inaudible based on the right-wing boos, and the left-wing cheers and claps. South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson could be heard yelling "you lie" as the crowd came to a still. Is the President lying?

Sick or injured, insured or penniless, hospitals do not in fact turn people away. Who would be paying for their medical costs? President Obama failed to mention that.

Finally, President Obama stated that under his new healthcare bill, unjust annual and lifetime limits on health coverage would be eliminated and illegal. Ring any bells? The late Sen. Edward Kennedy joined a bipartisan group of Senators in 1996 to enact the Mental Health Parity Bill which was directed towards the same issues.

On a personal note, I can only wonder how this will affect the annual 200,000 Americans who lose a limb. As an amputee, the health coverage I receive is, exactly as the President put it, unjust; in fact, it is simply preposterous. "One Prosthetic per Lifetime" as many health insurers state in their policies, is like saying you're allowed one shoe per lifetime.***

Will the $900 billion dollars -- which the President claims will only come from excess health coverage costs -- be enough over the next 10 years to cover the some 50 million uninsured Americans?

Will doctors be able to reform their malpractice coverage in order to avoid "defensive medicine?"

Will senior citizens be able to maintain equal and adequate healthcare under Medicare or Medicaid?

These are an iota of questions that the President answered through ambiguous tactics tonight. Maybe the American people need to decide.

***The Prosthetic I currently wear costs $20,000.

© Jeff Kelleher

September 9, 2009

Political Assignments

The Political Power of Twitter

It hasn't been long since tech-savvy Jack Dorsey introduced the world to yet another social networking site in 2006. But since its birth, Twitter has become the third most used social network, according to a February 2009 blog entry by complete based on their count of 6 million unique monthly visitors, and 55 million monthly visits. Besides being the timeliest user-generated site to inform other Twitter users of celebrity deaths and sporting event victories, Twitter has become a makeshift political news outlet itself. The worldly impact of Twitter has quickly -- and with much accuracy -- bypassed many news outlets on bringing political news to the spotlight of attention.

Aside from the ongoing controversy surrounding the Iran Election, which maintained its spot in the "trending topics" sidebar of twitter as #iranelection for months, many new political stories have made its claim-to-trending-topics as well.

If you're a familiar Twitter user, it isn't surprising to see President Obama as a "trending topic" frequently, given his newly proposed healthcare plan and interesting policy directions he's taken since his inauguration in January; however, what isn't frequently seen in the sidebar is the name of a Presidential Adviser.

As mentioned in my previous blog, differentiation among published stories from CNN and Fox News is nothing of new or surprising nature; however, I do find it interesting for a reputable news corporation to leave out facts entirely; facts of which hold vital details.

Saturday, September 5th was when I first took note to "Van Jones" and "Glenn Beck" both being "trending topics" on Twitter, and, upon more research found the story on CNN. The story surrounded controversy of Jones referring to the Republican party as "assholes," and also brought back to light his signing of a petition in 2004 that the Government be further investigated surrounding the September 11th attacks. Okay, I thought. Any political figure who at one point prior to being an advisor to the highest authority of the nation, signed a petition which basically says the United States could be suspect in the terrorist attacks, will without a doubt be scrutinized. I, for one, took more out of that detail than him referring to Republicans in the ignorant way he did. But something did not seem right. Especially when Jones was quoted saying that his opposers have started a "smear campaign" against him.

Then I found Glenn Beck's side of the story.

One would think that before bringing in someone to advise you on decisions that could potentially affect the status of America for centuries to come, many hours of research would be done on what that person stands for. Hopefully just that was done. Or, hopefully not.

In many different interviews aired of Jones, which beck refers to as "Jones in his own words," radical socialism, communism, and racism is all heard. The last time I checked, a smear campaign is a tactic used to make others question the credibility of one, not to make factual evidence known.

"White polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color communities" Jones said in an interview aired on Beck's prime time show. The point I find interesting is the direct attack made by Jones, and with such confidence of its absolute truth. President Obama made it clear in his victory speech that race should never, and will never be an issue in the future of our Government. Is he not aware of Jones' stance on "white environmentalists?"

"No more broken treaties, no more broken treaties, give them the wealth" Jones said in a March 2009 speech referring to Native Americans and their inequality in the country. He followed be stating, "We're going to change the whole system." This brings up a new question: change the whole system in what aspect?

Many people reading this may be angered at this point in defense of the man they put into the Oval Office, however I feel it necessary to add this tid-bid of information: I voted for President Obama. And while I'm yet to question "who" I helped put into office, I'm beginning to question "what."

Do we want a communist America? Aren't we based upon liberty and justice for all? Freedom of speech? The pursuit of happiness?

It is important to note that Jones did in fact help create a "Revolutionary Communist Organization," and if you aren't aware of what I'm referring to -- or simply think it's false -- I urge you to do more research. Maybe during that research you'll come across an audio clip of an interview Jones had with Mumia Abu Jamal; however, you may not be able to find a lot on Jamal, as he is currently in prison because he murdered a police officer execution style. Justify that association.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Jones' resignation: "What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this President was bigger than any one individual. . . "

Maybe all of this is coincidental. Or maybe I and other Americans are trying to dig for something that just simply isn't there. But what is not of coincidence, is what holds factual truth.

• Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement -- Truth

• Accusing "white environmentalists" of polluting "people of color communities" -- Truth

• Claiming "We're going to change the whole system" -- Truth

Now that I think about it, I hope President Obama didn't research Van Jones enough.

© Jeff Kelleher

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Political Assignments

Socialist America?

Are we headed towards a socialist country? Do we have radical extremists in the Oval Office? Is President Obama one of them? These questions and more come to mind given recent political developments.

Many of the left-wing and some right-wing people alike were anxious and excited about a new beginning; a change in American politics that so many of us had awaited for so long -- or at least the past eight years. But what exactly does "change" mean? As the definition states: Change: to make or become different. So to what extent of the definition is taking place in D.C. currently? Unfortunately for us, (you the reader, me the writer, and the society of America) many people voted to elect President Barack Obama based on ignorant factors: race, "change" (of what many people didn't look further into) and based on the state of our country given the past president. So what happens now?

Let's go back to some of the beginning promises that President Obama originally campaigned with.

The vast majority of the LGBT community rallied for, stood behind, and voted for Barack Obama, and, as the vast majority of the community is progressive, it would only make sense for his vote to be sealed from their end. During his campaign, Obama promised to fight for the equality of all, including the LGBT community and gay rights. So what exactly has he done to keep his promise?

On September 21, 1996, as public law number 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, the Defense of Marriage Act was introduced as new federal law. This law has two effects:

1) No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2) The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

To reiterate, Presidential hopeful Barack Obama campaigned with promises of equal rights for the LGBT community. How does one define "equal?" I would assume it would be defined by everyone as the definition states, without any incentive-based reservations. Maybe I'm wrong.

"If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."

Interesting, don't you agree? Just one promise that has since been retracted.

Many other promises have been retracted as well, including Government reform of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" act that President Clinton signed into law in 1993, however, it wouldn't be fair to only include issues that primarily affect the gay community.

So let's focus on the original questions of this article. Where is the state of American politics headed?

President Obama has adamantly been campaigning for a public healthcare option in America, as part of attempts for an American Healthcare reform. Is a public option what we need for reform? Maybe we need more of an Insurance Company reform, on a national level. People who are for this public option base their vote primarily on the fact that they themselves, or a close friend or family member, have experienced illness or injury while being uninsured and have had an astronomical amount of bills to pay. Thus, people tend to think that a free public healthcare option would be the answer to all their medical wishes. News flash: the cost of your healthcare will be taken from your pocket with or without a public option; with or without insurance. Regardless, we do need reform. But is this the way? Maybe it is. However it does give the President another strike on claims of his socialistic ways.

Today CNN reported of the resignation of presidential adviser Van Jones, "following controversies over a petition he had signed and his comments about Republicans. . ." It is only natural for CNN to vaguely add in their sentence of Jones' recent comments about Republicans, without elaborating on such. Granted, CNN does post links to a video of Jones giving his opinion on the right winged party, but the title of the story is "Presidential Adviser Quits amid 9/11 Controversy." Reportedly Jones signed a petition in 2004 "calling for an investigation into whether government officials deliberately allowed the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to occur" as CNN reports. Whether or not this petition is essential to his resignation, this is what CNN reports.

Glenn Beck from Fox News took the investigation into Jones a little deeper. Naturally, Fox news not in favor of the Obama Administration, would dig deeper to find any sort of flaw against it. Beck had interesting facts to report. From a speech in March of this year given by Jones, Beck airs segments of which Jones talks of change in the way "we treat others." In his speech, Jones speaks on many levels of radicalism under socialistic views. Unfortunately many people would like the reports of Beck to be false, however, the video speaks for itself: "Jones in his own words."

The differentiation of reports between CNN and Fox isn't of any surprise as they're often in opposition politically; however, the extra details reported by Beck aren't of impossible findings. The video can be googled, and could be found prior to Beck even reporting it. Now, however, YouTube has exploded with videos of Beck's report, and Jones' original speech alike.

The new developments of the resignation of Jones following the report of Beck are interesting and questionable. Did Jones resign for the good nature of his party? (Given he is a capital America democrat). Did Jones resign because he couldn't handle such scrutiny? Or maybe Jones resigned out of fear that the American people would educate themselves on who he really is (if Beck's opinions are on key).

Regardless, the resignation of a Presidential Adviser who now has factual-supported claims of social radicalism against him, which coincides with a socialistic proposition of American Healthcare reform raises a lot of questions in Americans who put Obama into office. But hopefully we can take the President for his word that he "didn't pay attention" during the 20 years of attendance under the religious, radical preaching of Jeremiah Wright.

I guess we will have to wait and see where we are headed, and hope that the President has the fundamental tactics of our Founding Fathers within him.

Essentially, all we want is Freedom and Justice for All, right?

© Jeff Kelleher

Sunday, September 6, 2009.

Political Assignments