Author Archives: Emann Joasil

Nov 8 2011

HATRED FROM THE RIGHT IS CHAOTIC TO AMERICA

America is heading in a very dangerous direction with the right-wingers –NEWT GINGRICH, SARAH PALIN, RUSH LIMBAUGH, GLENN BECK, SEAN HANNITY, ANN COULTER, etc… -polluting the minds of the people. Here are some facts:

Just a year ago, GLENN BECK called President Obama a racist. He said on Fox & Friends on Fox News: “This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for White people, for the White culture… this guy is, I believe, a racist.”

Watch this Youtube video:

RUSH LIMBAUGH, the voice of the American Right, is among the 25 – 30% Republicans who strongly and wrongly believe that President Obama is a Muslim. On his show on Wednesday, August 25, 2010, he said: “How can America be Islamophobic? We elected Obama, didn’t we? If this is a nation that is Islamophobic, how do we elect a man whose name is Barack Hussein Obama?” Click here to listen to the sound bite

NEWT GINGRICH, one of the Republican presidential candidates, had associated Muslims to Nazis. On Fox News, just a year ago, reacting to the controversy surrounding the building of the Islamic Center in the vicinity of the World Trade Center site, he stated: “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a sign next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.”

Watch this Youtube video:

Their agenda is twofold: 1. Use the attacks on September the 11th to demonize ISLAM and push for a WAR on the religion; 2. link the president to Islam by spreading misguided information about his faith. The logic behind the strategy is that if they can get the American people to have a negative view of Islam, calling President Obama a Muslim will automatically get the people to have a negative view of him. This is what you call incrimination by association.

On Tuesday, August 24, 2010, Michael Enright, a 21-year-old American film student, asked 43-year-old Bangladeshi cab driver Ahmed Sharif if he was a Muslim before slashing and stabbing him in the face, throat and arm in broad daylight in New York. You should ask yourself how this young student got to espouse such bitterness against Muslims.

On Wednesday, August 25, 2010, an intoxicated man, identified as Omar Rivera, entered a mosque in Queens, New York, urinated on prayer rugs, stuck up his middle finger at everybody happened to be inside and called them terrorists and all types of names.

Now, folks, this is America we are now talking about -the country that values freedom of religion and free speech. How did we get to where we are today? Since when being a Muslim was a crime? How did we get to hate people of the Islamic faith? Are we going to be walking around identifying Muslims and slashing and stabbing them?

Mr. Enright, Mr. Rivera and others got their Islamophobia from the anti-Islamic sentiment coming from these aforementioned right-wringers. You don’t walk around hurting people and expect yourself not to be stopped BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. You find peace of mind by making peace with yourself and others, not by bullying and clinging to violence.

Nov 3 2011

WAY FOR MARTELLY TO DEFUSE THE BOMB

Haitian President Michel J. Martelly

When President Martelly returns to the country from his week-long trip in the United States, he will have to address the nation to state his administration’s position on the contention between the executive and the legislative –generated by the arrest on Thursday afternoon of Deputy Arnel Belizaire at the Toussaint Louverture Airport in Port-au-Prince as he was entering the country from his trip in France.

This speech will be the most important and delicate one he will ever have to deliver since he got in the National Palace six months ago, for it will have the potential to make or break his presidency.

The situation in Haiti as we speak is like a bomb that is ticking and needs to be defused as soon as possible. That means time is of the essence; there is absolutely no time to waste. As he is going to try his best to defuse it, he will have to be extremely careful to not let the unexpected worst occur.

My advice to him is to not try to pass the blame on anyone. The only best way for him to appease the situation and send everyone home with a happy face is to take personal responsibility for what happened and admit it was a technical faux pas in the way the prosecutor, Mr. Felix Leger, went about to carry out the order that was explicitly given to him.

Not only does he need to give the reasons as to why what he intended doing did not work out as expected, he also needs to include the nature of the miscalculation. Otherwise, he will have a hard time to get himself out of it and put the situation behind him.

There is nothing more humble when a leader is strong enough to be honest with his people to admit his missteps; the people love that. This will make him come out as a strong man, a man of character willing to go down so his lieutenants could be safe from enemy fire. That is, indeed, what responsible and resolute leaders do when the though gets going.

All responsible leaders mess up at some point in time during their tenure in command. And when they do, they always take personal responsibility because the bulk always stops with them. Only the coward ones pass the blame on their subordinates. President Kennedy, for instance, took full personal responsibility in the wake of the Bay of Pigs disaster.

Less than three months after President Kennedy took office, in April of 1961, as the United States wakening from the embarrassing disaster at the Bay of Pigs, when CIA-backed Cuban exiles hit the beaches of their home country only to face defeat in their attempts to overthrow the Fidel Castro government in Cuba, Kennedy took full personal responsibility for the disaster. He did not try to blame it on anybody but himself. In his address to the nation, he eloquently said: “I am the responsible officer of the government.” The strategy paid off. He then got his highest approval rating of his presidency -83% in the Gallup Poll.

President Kennedy, then a newly elected president, per most historians’ accounts, made many mistakes in his handling of the Bay of Pigs invasion. But he learned very quickly from them to better himself for the job he was elected to do for the country.

Politics is a learning profession, meaning politicians learn how to respond to issues and adapt as they go.  There is no one silver bullet or blueprint as to how to avoid and solve all problems. Each issue is unique in its own genre.

So this is President Martelly’s crisis to deal with just like the Bay of Pigs disaster was President Kennedy’s embarrassment to deal with. Like President Kennedy, President Martelly has a lot of learning do. The way he will respond to this issue will tell a lot of his character. I can only hope he does the right thing, what all responsible leaders would do in his situation –taking personal responsibility and not trying to pass the blame on anyone. That is how trust and confidence that leadership will be better in the future is instilled.

Oct 10 2011

MINUSTAH & OUR NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY

MINUSTAH peacekeepers

This United Nations Mission for the Stabilization of Haiti (MINUSTAH in French) has been established on June 01, 2004 by Security Council resolution 1542 -as a result of the fallout that followed the ousting of President Aristide.

The presence of this institution of the United Nations has been the object of many fulminating criticisms. Actions of certain members of the mission have infuriated people from many sectors in the population. Some see it as an occupation force that must leave the country by any means necessary and as soon as possible.

I think it is very unfair and dishonest to refer to MINUSTAH as an occupation force, for they did not come to soil the land of Dessalines, Christophe and Petion on their own; the Haitian government had requested it with the intent to stabilize the country after the ousting of former President Jean Bertrand Aristide in 2004. How can you call someone an occupier when that person is in your house upon your invitation? That does not make any sense whatsoever to me.

MINUSTAH, as a force, should not be discredited for the actions of some of its members, for those actions, I presume, do not reflect any of the institution’s policies. In any great and respectable human institution (military, business, philanthropic, academic, etc…), you will always find overzealous and corrupted personnel. But the actions of these people should not be used as a litmus test to totally disqualify or dismiss the establishment as a whole. When members of an institution violate the organization’s internal policies, disciplinary actions must be taken against them to address their violations. But to call for the complete eradication of the institution because of that is, in my opinion, illogical.

MINUSTAH must eventually leave because, in my humble opinion, it is an aberration to have a sovereign nation such as ours being under the tutelage of an international force –humanitarian or otherwise. That is an argument all of us Haitians can agree upon. We should have not gotten ourselves in this predicament in the first place. We Haitians put ourselves in it and now we are raising hell.

I am for the withdrawal of all MINUSTAH personnel, but that redeployment must be carefully studied, crafted and implemented. If anything, we must adopt a “step-by-step” approach to that, meaning we will die down the troop levels as we go.

The Martelly administration must immediately sit down with the United Nations Security Council to recalibrate and redefine the mission of MINUSTAH. We have work on the ground they can do. They can help to remove the tones of rubbles, plant trees and police our forest space to prevent further deforestation.

I reject the idea that MINUSTAH must leave now. President Martelly, being the man in charge of the security of the country, must not give in to the pressure coming from certain segments of the population protesting to ask MINUSTAH to leave -without any sort of structural preparation in place. That is very irresponsible on their part.

If MINUSTAH leaves now, there will be a security vacuum which will further destabilize the country. We must not let our emotions get the best of us. We must get it right so that we do not regret having taken the step later.

The Haitian government needs to lobby the international community for technical and financial assistance to accomplish three major things:

a)      double the size of the national police force;

b)      build from scratch a battalion/group of 500 – 1000 well trained and equipped professional special forces;

c)       institute a national intelligence agency

This national security structure, whose mission will be to stabilize and secure the country, can be put in place and fully operational in about 12 or 18 months -if we have the means and are really serious about it.

We do not need a big military like the ineffective one we had back then, which former President Aristide has deactivated and now the Martelly administration wants to emulate. We need a smaller, lighter, faster and smarter force –the model of all the modern militaries around the globe.

The mission of that small contingent of military personnel will be to back up the police force whenever necessary to secure the territory, which may include dismantling all the terrorist cells currently operating on the ground. With this level of coordinated action, capturing dead or alive these terrorists terrorizing the population will be just a piece of cake.

The professional intelligence agency will serve as eyes and ears of the police force. They will infiltrate the terrorist cells to get sensitive and highly classified intel on their locations, tactics, their next value targets, etc… These leads, once collected, will be sent to the rear, to the police, for treatment so they could mount their preemptive strategy to stop the terrorists before they carry on their mission.

Eventually, we will have to either close the Interior Ministry or change its focus. That ministry must be the center of coordination of the operations of the three independent institutions: the police, the small military and the intelligence agency. The head of that ministry must be someone with national security expertise and experience. He or she will be the president’s czar on issues pertaining to national security.

The constant babblings amongst us on the issue whether or not Haiti should have its own military really intrigues me. We need the return of the Haitian military by any necessary means.

It is a priority to secure the country. Nothing can be done without a secure Haiti. Secure nations appeal to investments (local and foreign), a necessary ingredient for economic development. Regardless how well-intentioned President Martelly can be, if he cannot arrive at securing the territory, he will not be able to do anything to better the lives of the majority poor.

Finally, these people speaking against the idea of equipping the country with a military force probably know nothing about the military. They probably have never served a day in their lives, yet, all of a sudden, they are all experts in military affairs. I am for a systematic and coordinated redeployment of MINUSTAH by using a step-by-step approach. Such redeployment should not go on until we have the structure in place to replace the mission when they leave. We need to stop the outsourcing of the country’s security. So we must prepare the nation to take charge of its own security. To achieve that, we must double the size of the police, put in place a small brigade of well trained and equipped professional special forces and institute a national intelligence agency.

Oct 5 2011

OPINYON M SOU ZAFÈ PATRIC A. MARTELLY GARÓ A

Patric Alfredo Martelly Garo

Sou dosye PATRIC ALFREDO MARTELLY GARÓ a, Dominiken ki di ke se PREZIDAN MARTELLY ki papa li a, m ta renmen di sa m panse.

Depi nouvèl sila fin tonbe a, tout moun alawonnbadè se yon sèl bagay y ap mande: “Ou kwè se vre misye se pitit PREZIDAN MARTELLY?” Gen moun ki di li sanble ak prezidan an, gen lòt menm ki di li pa sanble avèk li.

Pou m di nou byen, m pa wè bagay ki pou ap fè tout pale anpil sa yo. Si syansifikman se PREZIDAN MARTELLY ki papa l vre, se pou prezidan an pran responsablite l, e m rete kwè ke l ap fè sa kòmsadwa.

Li posib ke jenòm Dominiken sila a se pitit PREZIDAN MARTELLY li ye. Men jiskaprezan, se rablabla tout moun ap rablabla. Nou pa kapab ap gade sou resanblans pou nou di ke se papa ak pitit yo ye. Se sèl lasyans ki ka mete verite sila deyò.

Ke jenòm Dominiken sila se pitit PREZIDAN MARTELLY ou pa, m panse nou sipoze sezi opòtinite sa a pou n poze yon gwo pwoblèm ki chita kwaze pye l sou lestomak peyi a, e pwoblèm sa gen pou l wè ak mesye sa yo k ap gwòs fanm adwatagoch yo san yo pap pran responsabilite yo -pou yo okipe timoun sa yo. Pwoblèm sila detwi anpil famiy, ki limenm afekte negativman sosyete pa nou an. Timoun pa janm fèt san papa, espesyalman lè n konnen se pa loray ki kale yo.

An nou sitye dosye sila nan kontèks sosyal li pou n ka byen trete l. PREZIDAN MARTELLY, se yon mizisyen ki te trè fame e popilè l te ye pandan plizyè lane, avan l te vin prezidan peyi a. Nou konnen kòman mizisyen Konpa sa yo chaje fanm. Tout kote yo pase, yo plen fanm -anplis de fanm sa ke yo di ki se fanm andedan kay yo a. E trè souvan, fòk nou di sa tou, se fanm yo menm wi k ap ouvè lekò, vole sou mizisyen yo tankou se poulpoul, menm lè mizisyen sa yo pa menm sou bò yo menm.

Kidonk, li trè posib pou yon mizisyen tankou PREZIDAN MARTELLY te fè yon pitit ak yon fanm san l pa menm konnen. M pap di sa pou m jistifye zak la non, pou m di l moral oubyen imoral. M pap rantre nan lojik sila. M sèlman fè apwòch sa a pou m ka ede nou mye konprann reyalite sosyal e kiltirèl peyi a nan milye mizikal Konpa Dirèk la.

Si tès ADN an ta pwouve ke vrèman PREZIDAN MARTELLY ta papa jenòm Dominiken sila a, m panse prezidan an ap pran responsablite l kòmsadwa. Sa tou kapab vin yon okazyon ki ka fè lòt gason ki ta nan menm sitiyasyon avèk li yo vin pran konsyans pou yo menm tou pran responsablite yo nan vi pitit sa yo ke yo genyen ak plizyè fanm tout kote e ke yo pa janm okipe.

Mwen, m ta nan plas PREZIDAN MARTELLY, se pa kontan sèlman m t ap kontan pou m wè m ta arive vin fè yon sèl ak yon pitit mwen ta genyen ak yon fi, ki, pandan plizyè ane, t ap viv lwen m e ki petet m pat menm konnen menm.

M konnen gen anpil nan noumenm Ayisyen ki, pou dè rezon politik, ap pwofite de revelasyon sila a pou n lanse toya sou prezidan an. M ap di nou pa prese jije paske noumenm tou kapab gen grenn zanno pa nou kay òfèv la. Lè bab kamarad ou pran dife, oumenm, mete bab pa w alatranp.

Majorite nan noumenm ki prèt pou kritike prezidan an, si m ta noumenm, m t ap fèmen bouch mwen. Se si latrin ak twourego te kapab pale sèlman pou yo ta arive jwenn dosye nou. Anpil restavèk ak bòn ki t ap travay lakay nou ke nou te gwòs, nou pran yo fè yo fè dilatasyon, yon fason pou n pran fèy kouvri sa. Pafwa menm, yo fè timoun an, men paske se restavèk oubyen bòn yo ye, nou pa menm okipe l menm, pandan ke timoun an ap leve san papa. Kidonk, m pa ta swete nou pran chans pou n ap voye premye kout wòch la. Si syantifikman, nou ka arive pwouve ke evidamman se PREZIDAN MARTELLY ki papa misye, se pou prezidan an pran chaj li pou l pote l jan nenpòt gason responb e onèt te kapab fè sa.

Sep 23 2011

TROY DAVIS: LYNCHED BY THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Troy Anthony Davis

Troy Anthony Davis was born on October 9, 1968. His life abruptly came to a halt on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 11:08 PM EST-after the State of Georgia had ordered his execution by lethal injection for a crime which he has pleaded not guilty.

He was an African American man convicted of the August 19, 1989 murder of police officer Mark MacPhail, a White man, in Savannah, Georgia. Mr. MacPhail at the time was working as a security guard at a Burger King restaurant when he intervened to defend a man being assaulted in a nearby parking lot.

Mr. Davis was found guilty based largely on eyewitness testimony, which numerous studies have proven unreliable.

When it comes to eyewitness testimony or identification, according to a study conducted by the Innocence Project, the probability for the convicted to be misidentified is very high. The study shows that “[m]isidentification was a factor in 75% of the 273 DNA exonerations. In 38% of these mistaken identification cases, multiple eyewitnesses misidentified the same person.”

This case had gained international exposure, especially on the very last days preceding the execution of Mr. Davis.

Many national and international organizations such as Amnesty International and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and prominent national and international dignitaries in the caliber of former President Jimmy Carter; Reverend Al Shaprton; Pope Benedict XVI; Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa; former U.S. Congressman and one-time presidential candidate Bob Barr, a well known death penalty proponent; and former FBI Director and judge William S. Sessions had taken up Mr. Davis’ cause and called upon the courts to grant him a new trial or, at the very least, evidentiary hearing.

All these efforts were mounted on Mr. Davis’ behalf not for the sake of sympathy, but, rather, because the prosecution had failed to prove the convicted guilty of the crime as evidenced by the murder weapon not recovered, ballistic evidence presented at trial linked bullets recovered at or near the scene to those at another shooting in which Davis was also charged (one of the Jurors who sat on the case said that had she known about that then, she would not have voted to give Davis the death penalty). We also know that following the original trial, seven witnesses had changed or recanted all or part of their testimony. Here is the shocker: one of the original prosecution witnesses, Sylvester “Redd” Coles and other affiants asserted they had been coerced by the police to falsify their testimony. 

In spite of all the doubts in the case, the State of Georgia had decided to carry on with the execution of Mr. Davis by lethal injection.

That decision, in my opinion, was unjustifiable. It was a systematic lynching of a Black man ordered by a White-dominated, racist judiciary system. There is one thing we all can agree upon -justice did not prevail in this case.

The prosecution could not prove Mr. Davis’ guilt without any reasonable doubt. Because they had to convict someone to “solve” the case, he, unfortunately and sadly, was used for that matter as a scapegoat.

I am for the death penalty only in cases where all the pieces of evidence presented in a case can prove the convicted criminal to be the author of the crime he or she has been accused of. But if there is a slight percentage of doubt that the person is guilty, like in Mr. Davis’ case, the case must be further investigated to rule out the reasons for the doubt.

On Wednesday, September 21, 2011, Mr. Davis’ life was taken away for a crime all the pieces of evidence in the case failed to prove his guilt. That means the actual criminal, if not already dead or being bars, is on the loose possibly committing more crimes.

I hope those who took his life will never come to the conclusion that he was not the one to have killed Mr. MacPhail because it will be too late by then to recover his life and bring him back to life.

Troy Anthony Davis was lynched by the State of Georgia on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 11:08 PM EST because he was Black and unable to afford the expensive American justice system for a fair trial. The State of Georgia has proven once again to the whole world that race and socioeconomics do matter in the American justice system.

Retrieved from The Innocence Project website on 09/23/2011: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Troy_Davis_Executed_in_Georgia_Despite_Substantial_Evidence_Pointing_to_Innocence.php

Sep 19 2011

TO ALL YOU FAKE HAITIAN NATIONALISTS

Haitian flag

You say Dr. Gary Conille is the choice of the international community. As of yet, as always, you are engaging in what most of us Haitians do best, and that is “voye monte.” Until you show me proof that he is the choice of the international community, you can keep your nonsense to yourself.

Let’s assume that your allegation is factual in that Dr. Conille is, indeed, the choice of the international community. So what!!!! Has anything ever happened in Haiti without the infringement of the international community in our internal affairs?

When Duvalier left the country in 1986, that did not happen because he wanted to; it was because the international community asked him to. That was not interference of the international community in our affairs to you? I did not hear you so-called nationalists asking them to stay out of it and let you deal with him. Instead, you were praising them for having “liberated” the country.

Namphy, Cedras, Avril, etc… did not leave the country because they wanted to; they left because the international community stepped in to ask them to leave. And in each of these cases, we praised the international community for having taken the side of the people. Where were you so-called nationalists? How come you did not put on your nationalist hat to ask the international community to stay away?

When the US Marines landed in Port-au-Prince to pick up President Aristide, the country’s then democratically elected president, aside from his sympathizers, I did not hear you so-called nationalists protesting against the intrusion of the US in our affairs. Where were you then? You were, instead, rejoicing because you had enough of Aristide and wanted him to leave.

All the millions we just spent to organize the last presidential and legislative elections, which Preval and his crook Gaillot Dorsainvil tried to manipulate, do you know that the international community gave them to you? That’s not their interference in the country’s affairs to you? How come you did not tell them to stay away and keep their money because you don’t want them in your business?

When Preval and his crook and vassal Gaillot Dorsainvil tried so hard to steal the people’s vote, what had happened? The international community felt obliged to step in to force them to respect the people’s will. That’s not interference of the international community in the country’s internal affairs to you? How come all you so-called nationalists did not ask them to stay away and let you solve the problem on your own?

Let me answer the question for you. For each of these situations, you did not ask the international community to step aside because the intrusion appealed to your politics. You only put your nationalist hat when it is politically convenient and advantageous to you. You are nothing but a bunch of fake nationalists having nothing better to do but to mislead the people. You all need to just shut up and let the country breathe. You are acting like a bunch of animals fighting each other in the jungle, what do you expect the behavior of the international community to be? They will stop getting in your business when you can show that you are grown and mature enough to act like civilized people do, in the way you handle your affairs.

Sep 16 2011

MY POSITION ON THE CHOICE OF GARY CONILLE

It really irks me to witness the level of enthusiasm with which some of my fellow Haitians are arguing that the choice of Dr. Gary Conille for the Prime Minister position is that of the “blan,” decrying the interference of the international community in the internal affairs of the country. Oh please!!! Spare me your lame nationalist verbosity. You praise the blan’s actions only when they go in your favor and denigrate them when they don’t.

Tell me… not that I am condoning the meddling of the international community in the country’s domestic affairs, but when do things happen in Haiti for the international community not to have a say in it? You could not even organize an election –the simplest thing; they had to step in to force you to get it right and respect the people’s will, yet you want to be left alone so you could further embarrass the nation. Please get off the nationalist high horse you are riding on before you fall off and break your spine.

The people of Haiti did not send troops to come to get President Aristide, the country’s constitutionally elected, and send him into exile in South Africa for seven long and depressing years. When that happened, all you today’s so-called nationalists who were against Aristide were acclaiming the United States for “liberating” the country from the paws of the former president. The interference was great and liberating for you then, wasn’t it? And now you are against it? Give me a break.

Now that President Martelly chooses Dr. Conille, a United Nations functionary, you are making all types of ridiculous allegations arguing that he is the choice of the “blan” and does not respond to the residency requirement as stated in the article 157 of the 1987 Constitution. So what he is the choice of the international community!!! If or when you are acting like a bunch of fools who don’t know how to act, your neighbors, whom you share the neighborhood with, must come together to force you to act a certain way that could guarantee their safety and security. Start acting grown, no one will have the need to get in your business and treat you like a bunch of insane kids on an elementary schoolyard.

From a global relations perspective, political instability in one country directly or indirectly tends to endanger the stability of other countries. Do you really think the international community is going to sit with its hands and legs crossed watching you, with the level of instability in your country, putting in jeopardy the security and stability of the other countries in the region? If you think that is going to happen, think again.

If the international community must step in to prevent the country from falling deeper into the abyss you fools have plunged it, I say go for it. They will stop getting in our business when we learn how to handle our business as grownups, not as a bunch of insane little kids. So needless to say, I welcome with open arms the choice of Dr. Gary Conille for Prime Minister. The country is psychologically tired and cannot afford to go through another round of ratification process of another Prime Minister. I join my voice with those of many concerned citizens and grassroots organizations inside the country and in the Diaspora to demand that Dr. Conille be ratified urgently so we can start moving forward with the materialization of President Martelly’s vision for the country.

Sep 13 2011

2012 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: MY ANALYSIS

The next presidential election in the United States is just fourteen months away, yet the battle is shaping up already. It is going to be an interesting fight between the Republican contender and President Obama, who is seeking reelection.

President Obama is in a very tough situation right now –an economy in shambles (14 million jobless Americans, representing a 9.1% unemployment rate).

The effects of such dismal economic conjuncture are beginning to be very plausible. Whenever an issue is not going well with the American people, the single most effective way to see that is by looking at the president’s approval rating. We saw that in G. W. Bush’s approval rating during and after the invasion of Iraq. As we speak, the president’s approval rating is 44%, the lowest it has ever been since he took office. No doubt, the slow economic recovery has something to do with that.

Will the economy create jobs at a faster pace than it has been to bring the unemployment rate down to at least 8% by November of 2012? That’s the buck of the challenge the president is facing right now. And the odds of him getting reelected with the economy as it is now are very slim. So time is of the essence for the president. Every second counts. Since he has his $447 billion jobs bill in Congress as we speak, let’s see if:

a) it will pass the congressional gridlock;

b) it is going to make that much of a difference in the economy.

Now, on the Republican side of the fence, whoever is going to win the primary, if that person does not distance himself or herself from the Tea Party, he or she will lose the election easy to Obama; the American people are not out to vote in office anyone carrying the colors of the Tea Party “extremists.”

The Tea Party represents the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. From experience, the American people don’t usually vote political “extremists” in power –whether it be liberals or Tea Partiers. The reason for that is because the independents are often the ones to call the winner in presidential elections.

If you have been closely following American politics, you can see that no liberals have ever won the presidency in recent history. Let’s take President Obama, for instance. In Illinois, he was a stark liberal. But for him to win nationally, he had got to move to the middle.

The liberal agenda can only appeal to the base of the Democratic Party. The same can be said about the Tea Party agenda. It can only appeal to the base of the Republican Party. So for the purpose of primary election politics, liberal talking points and those of the Tea Party can only get politicians to win primary elections. That’s it. But should they win general elections, they must move to the center.

I think Mitt Romney is playing smart and safe when he refuses to be called the “Tea Party candidate.” He knows such label, once sticks, will be a heavy weight on his shoulders to prevent him from winning the general election. Right now, since Michele Bachmann is losing the Tea Party endorsement, Rick Perry is now emerging as the “Tea Party candidate.” This could be beneficial to him in the primary, but not in the general election.

In all earnest, between Perry and Romney, as a Democrat, I would rather see President Obama run against Perry. Romney will be more of a challenge to Obama than Perry will. With Perry’s fierce attack on social security (during the Republican debate at the Reagan Library on Wednesday, September 07, 2011, he called social security a “Ponzi scheme”), I don’t see how he is going to convince the American people that he is the candidate they should vote for to replace Obama, not when, according to the Pew Research Center opinion poll released on June 07, 2011, “an overwhelming majority (87%) [of the American people] says that Social Security has been good for the country.”

Furthermore, there is a strife going on inside the Republican Party, which in my opinion is worsening the situation. There are the Tea Party Republicans (Michele Bachmann, Rand Paul, etc…) and the establishment Republicans (Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, etc…).  The Karl Rove wing of the Republican Party has been working tirelessly to dim down the influence of the Tea Party which they believe is taking the Party of Lincoln to the far right of the spectrum. And if they let that happen, it will be very difficult for the Party to win the presidency. That’s exactly what the establishment Republicans are afraid of, and that’s what they are trying to prevent.

So it is a good think for Obama to see the Tea Party embracing Rick Perry, currently in the lead, according to the most recent polls out there. If Perry wins the Republican primary, he will have to make a 180-degree about-face to the center -if he wants to win the election. And when that happens, you know it will infuriate the Tea Partiers, which may cause them to stay home on Election Day. So needless to say, the Republican Party is in big trouble with Rick Perry as their candidate in line to face Obama in the general presidential election.

Aug 25 2011

BELLERIVE: POLITICAL SUICIDE FOR MARTELLY

Jean Max Bellerive, Haitian Prime Minister

The political landscape in the Haitian legislature, in terms of power distribution and concentration, is looking dull on President Martelly’s side of the spectrum. With no political weight in the Parliament to begin with, it appears very impossible for him to get his choice for Prime Minister ratified -unless he accepts to compromise to pull a majority in the Parliament.

So like President Obama did after he lost the House of Representatives to the Republicans last November, President Martelly must compromise. That’s the political reality of the moment. Now that we know he must compromise, the issue is how he should compromise.

It has been noise in many political circles on the ground in Haiti that President Martelly may be opting for Bellerive to stay as Prime Minister. I strongly oppose to such idea. I hope it is nothing but a rumor, for it will not play well politically for the president.

Keeping Bellerive in his function as Prime Minister is political suicide for Martelly. The president should remember that he campaigned and got elected on the promise to break ties with the corruptive and failed Preval-Bellerive administration.

There is a reason why the people did not elect Preval’s protégé –Jude Celestin. The reason is simple: they did not want a continuity of the failure of the Preval-Bellerive administration. Let us not fool ourselves! Bellerive and Preval are the two sides of the same coin.

The people have already rejected Bellerive and his acolytes, why recycling them? Imagine what would have happened to Obama if the US had the same system of government as Haiti and he had decided to choose Dick Cheney as his Prime Minister. It would have been political suicide for him, would it have not?

President Martelly, as politically weak as he is now, needs to be very careful to not lose his political base –his only political strength. His political base is all that he has to live and die for. Losing that will render him very vulnerable to sustain the political storms he will have to endure during his term in office. So I am urging him to be very careful.

We are experiencing Bellerive fatigue; therefore, President Martelly should look the other way.

It is good for the sake of political psychology to have a fresh face in the Prime Minister position, explaining the reason why the Bellerive option has got to be off the table. Such will play in the president’s political best interest in terms of bragging points.

Recycling Bellerive would be like a political capitulation for the president, who had made it clear many times that Bellerive is a bad card -the continuity of the failure of the previous administration. For him to turn around and recycle Bellerive, that will be very bad for him politically speaking. So he must not go with that “bouyon rechofe.”

If I were to advise him, I would honestly convince him to go with Jean Henry Ceant, the former presidential candidate, for the Prime Minister position -just for the sake of compromise.

The question you may be asking is, why Jean Henry Ceant?

Politically speaking, Ceant, whom many see as a disguised Lavalas sympathizer, seems to be a guy who could inspire confidence and trust on both sides of the political fence. He is what you would call a political centrist with a high degree of political commonsense and cleverness. Do you sense what that means? It means that his choice could appeal to a strong majority in the Parliament, which is eminently necessary for him to be ratified.

Furthermore, since he was a presidential candidate in the last contest, I do not think there could be issues with his record -proof of nationality, proof of residency, criminal background, tax document, etc… as required by the Constitution. Those should have already been cleared by the officers of the Provisory Electoral Council (PEC).

I would definitely urge the president to push the Ceant card hard to pass the congressional gridlock. Ceant seems to be a consensus builder. If/when ratified, he will have the mandate to join head with the president to build a hybrid government to represent all the sectors of the nation’s political life in an effort to implement the president’s vision for the country.

This hybrid government will have a clear agenda to execute in a realistic time frame. It will have to:

1. work along with the Interim Commission for the Reconstruction of Haiti (ICRH) to take care of the housing projects for the victims of the earthquake;

2. bring the rampant insecurity under control;

3. revamp our economy by encouraging and/or attracting private investments, developing our sector of tourism, promoting our national production, reforming our agriculture, etc…

Finally, the political conjuncture in Haiti is called for compromise to solve the political stalemate (between the executive and the legislative) the country has been in since the inauguration of President Martelly, who does not have any political leverage do get anything done in the Parliament. President Martelly must compromise, but not compromise at any cost, making the idea of recycling Bellerive unacceptable and unpalatable. So the choice of a centrist in the caliber of former presidential candidate Jean Henry Ceant for the Prime Minister job -to build a consensus and inspire trust and confidence on both sides of the political spectrum -makes plenty of political sense. In all earnest, we are Bellerive fatigued. NO MORE BELLERIVE!!!

Aug 13 2011

MARIJUANA: IT MAKES SENSE TO LEGALIZE IT

This debate over whether or not marijuana should be legalized has been waged for years. Some believe that the cost to society of legalizing it outweigh the benefit. Therefore, it should not be made legal. And I wholeheartedly oppose to that argument from two important parameters: economic and social.

From an economic perspective of supply and demand, the one best way to control, suppress or discourage demand is to increase supply. This same rationale could be used in the case of marijuana. The best way to discourage its consumption is to decriminalize it. Doing so will automatically increase supply, which, in turn, will bring demand down.

The argument that most of the people who are against the idea of legalizing cannabis are presenting is that such measure will turn more people into addicts than ever before, which will have a negative toll on society’s welfare and well-being. Such argument is to me baseless and preposterous; I refuse to be bought into it.

Alcohol, a more potent of a drug than marijuana by most researchers’ accounts, is legal, is it not? I believe it is. Does that make everybody an alcoholic? Absolutely not!!! So do not tell me that legalizing marijuana will turn more people into addicts. That argument is refutable.

Go on this website http://bit.ly/a7VLRG to access 25 scientific research studies published on the facts about marijuana and why legalizing it will not cause any more health-related harms than most of these legal drugs out there, such as alcohol and tobacco.

Marijuana has become a lucrative crop because of its limited supply on the market to meet the demand. Hence, now you have people making a living out of selling it; they are even willing to kill over it. If you legalize it, supply will increase and more structured points of access will be made available to the consumers, meaning all the violence that surrounds the distribution and sale of the product will cease.

Also, what seems to be funny, though, is that people are making a living out of the sale of the substance, yet the government is not getting its share of the pie. How stupid is that! If we legalize it, the government will tax it, meaning more tax revenue to go into our treasury. And the more money we have coming in, the better off we will be economically and socially speaking.

Criminalizing marijuana is to some extent destructive to the foundation of our society. People are getting years behind bars just because of a small possession of marijuana. And when they do get out, because of their criminal record, it is hard for them to find jobs and be reintegrated into society. What impact you think that is going to have on these people? Of course, they are going to go back in jail because they are left to commit illegal acts to survive. That’s the vicious circle of the American penitentiary system.

Those are my motives for being an advocate for the legalization of marijuana, though I have never smoked it in my life. I believe it is causing more harms to the people and the economy by keeping it illegal. Legalizing/ regulating the production, sale and consumption of it is the way to go and the right thing to do.