Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080305-122920/In-Crisis-a-Primer-from-A-to-ZTE
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : In Crisis, a Primer from A to ZTE
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 05, 2008
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) was considered a loyal ally of the United States until July of 2004 when she “caved in” to Iraqi hostage takers’ demands to withdraw the Philippine government’s 51 soldiers and police officers from Iraq a month early, in exchange for the release of the Filipino hostage Angelo De La Cruz.
In directing the Philippines to be the 5th country (after Spain, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Honduras) to withdraw from the US-led “Coalition of the Willing” in 2004, GMA incurred the wrath of the US government. It retaliated by reducing US military and economic aid and limiting loan assistance from US financial institutions.
Prior to that date, the Philippines had shown its loyalty to the US by rallying the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to deal as one bloc to push China out of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, where four ASEAN allies and China hold competing claims. The Philippines was hailed by the US for standing up to China when it successfully prodded ASEAN and China to sign a “Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,” to stop China’s growing military presence in the area.
After the US punished the Philippines by imposing de facto sanctions on and refusing any face-to-face meetings of GMA with President George Bush, the Philippines changed course.
As Barry Wain wrote recently in the Far Eastern Economic Review, “President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s hurried trip to China in late 2004 produced a major surprise. Among the raft of agreements ceremoniously signed by the two countries was one providing for their national oil companies to conduct a joint seismic study in the contentious South China Sea, a prospect that caused consternation in parts of Southeast Asia…The Philippines also made breathtaking concessions in agreeing to the area for study, including parts of its own continental shelf not even claimed by China.”
According to Philippine Star columnist Jarius Bondoc, “There might be a hint of the real reason there. For, soon after RP capitulated, China offered to lend $2 billion a year till 2010 for government projects. China wasn’t doing it out of the goodness of its heart, though. It was bursting at the seams with $2 trillion in reserves, and was to collect 4-percent interest, hardly concessional in a period of much lower rates. China was only too willing to look like it was accommodating a new ally.”
These generous Chinese loans may have helped the Philippines reach an unprecedented 7.3% growth in 2007, the highest in 30 years. But they laid the ground for the present crisis which may yet topple the Arroyo government.
In 2007 alone, the Philippines signed 33 new projects for financing by the China Export-Import Bank. One of the projects was the NBN-ZTE deal which the Philippine government signed in April of 2007, where Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE), the Chinese telecommunications giant, was awarded a contract worth US$ 329.5 million to set up the National Broadband Network (NBN) to improve government communications capabilities nationwide.
On August 29, 2007, Rep. Carlos Padilla in a privileged speech in the Philippine House charged that Philippine COMELEC Chair Benjamin Abalos brokered for the ZTE deal. A week later, the Philippine Senate called for hearings on the ZTE-NBN deal.
On September 10, 2007, Joey De Venecia, son of Joe De Venecia, then Philippine Speaker of the House, testified before the Senate and claimed that he was with Abalos in China when he heard Abalos “demand money” from ZTE officials.
Although Joey De Venecia was barred by Philippine law as the son of a high official from participating in and obtaining Philippine government contracts, he nevertheless submitted a losing bid for the NBN project as president of Amsterdam Holdings. He told the Senate that the president’s husband, First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, had counseled him to back off” from pursuing the project and offered to compensate him.
On September 22, 2007, GMA announced that she was suspending the ZTE-NBN contract. On September 26, National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Chair Romulo Neri and COMELEC Chair Abalos appeared at a Senate hearing. There Neri claimed that in a golf game earlier in the year, Abalos offered him $4-M (P200-M) for signing off on the ZTE deal. Abalos denied the charge.
On October 1, 2007, Abalos resigned his post as COMELEC chair. On October 2, GMA traveled to China to tell Chinese President Hu Jintao of her “difficult decision” to cancel the ZTE contract for the NBN project.
On January 30, 2008, the Philippine Senate issued warrants of arrest for Neri and NEDA consultant Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada, Jr. Neri went into hiding to avoid being served the warrant and Lozada flew to Hongkong. When he returned from Hong Kong On February 5, 2008, a Senate team was waiting to arrest him to take him to the Senate to testify on the ZTE-NBN deal. Before he could be served the warrant, however, he was whisked away by unidentified military personnel, only to be later dropped off under media pressure to join his family at La Salle Greenhills.
The day after his return, Lozada testified that Abalos and Mike Arroyo were behind the “kickbacks” in the deal, charging that they stood to make about $200-M from the $329.5-M contract. He said he warned them that the overcharge was too high and wouldn’t fly, but they ignored his warnings.
For allowing his son to testify against the GMA and the FG (First Gentleman), Speaker De Venecia would be voted out as Speaker of the House. On Friday, February 29, approximately 50,000 people gathered at the Ninoy Aquino monument in Makati in an Inter-Faith Rally that called for the resignation of GMA. The next day, Jose Maria Sison, leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), called for 100,000 Filipinos to gather in a street protest in Manila to unseat President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. This should be enough, he said, “to ignite the withdrawal of support from the regime by the bureaucracy and the military."
That’s the A to Z of this saga, from Angelo De La Cruz to the ZTE telecom giant, all in less than four years.
Please send comments to _Rodel50@aol.com_ (mailto:Rodel50@aol.com) or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Fatigue or indifference?
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080226-121292/Fatigue-or-indifference
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Fatigue or indifference?
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: February 26, 2008
Two months ago, I proposed to the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), which advocates for the Filipino WW II veterans, to direct each of its 12 regional chapters to sponsor local activities to mark the 62nd anniversary of the infamous Rescission Act of February 19, 1946.
The purpose: to highlight the law that stripped Filipino veterans of the USAFFE of their US military benefits and mobilize support for the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill pending in the US Congress. I also suggested that we distribute 500,000 armbands inscribed with “2/18/46 – Rescission Act” to supporters all over the US.
My proposal was tabled for future discussion. February 18, 2007 came and went with only a march-forum in Los Angeles and a wreath-laying ceremony in Washington DC to commemorate it. When I went to Washington DC two weeks ago to lobby the US Congress to support the bill, I wrote about my concern that the Filipino veterans were getting caught in the crosshairs of the anti-foreigner anti-immigrant sentiment of Republican lawmakers. Unlike columns on other subjects, I received no feedback from readers about this issue.
Was this an indication that the Filipino community has lost interest in the fight of our Filipino WW II veterans to regain the benefits denied them 62 years ago?
Was the level of interest in the community always a mile wide but only an inch deep? In other words, was the Filipino community leadership’s professed interest in the issue not actually shared by the Filipino community at large?
Is there a Filipino veterans "compassion fatigue" with the community somehow developing numbness to due to constant media stories on the plight of suffering Filipino WW II veterans?
These are questions our community should raise and grapple with. Honest answers to them should guide us in our campaign for the veterans.
It may be an indication not just of community-wide indifference to the veterans issue but simply of an indifference to all issues. For instance, this week marks the 22nd anniversary of People Power, perhaps the most shining moment in Philippine history, the spark that ignited similar People Power uprisings in South Korea, Taiwan and all of Eastern Europe. But there are no celebrations of this glorious moment anywhere in the Filipino community this week. Why?
Five months ago, the Filipino community expressed outrage at the veiled attack on Philippine-educated physicians in the premiere episode of “Desperate Housewives” on September 30, 2007. There were demonstrations, on-line petitions (signed by 150,000 people), a barrage of protest letters and e-mails to ABC and a national conference in Las Vegas in November to mobilize the community to demand a meaningful on-air apology from ABC.
But three months after the November conference, the issue has been forgotten. ABC dangled the carrot of a collaborative partnership with NaFFAA to accept Filipino interns into ABC, a carrot apparently sufficient to prompt NaFFAA to discourage any lawsuits or protest actions against the network.
With all the Democrat-Republican, liberal-conservative, pro-GMA/anti-GMA divides in the Filipino community, it was believed that support for the Filipino WW II veterans was the one issue that all sides could agree on and rally behind.
But there are divisions even on this issue. There are supporters of the veterans who believe that the community should not compromise on full equity, that Filipino veterans in the Philippines should receive the same benefits as those in the US.
But even that formerly inflexible position has given way to support for the proposal of Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), chair of the House Veterans Committee, whose bill would provide $900 a month to the 6,000 US-based veterans, and $500 a month to Philippine-based veterans. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this would amount to $1-B over 10 years or about $100-M a year.
There are those who believe that the veterans should get whatever they can get. As the ranks of the surviving veterans dwindle at an exponential rate, what good would it do them if the US Congress passes a bill giving all the veterans full equity several years from now and no one is left alive to receive it?
A group of aging veterans supports the Senate bill of Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, which would also provide $900 a month for US-based veterans and $375 a month for Philippine-based veterans with dependents, $300 for single veterans, and $200 for widows of veterans. The CBO believes this bill would amount to $365-M over 10 years.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) proposed a more modest bill that would also grant $900 a month to US-based veterans but only $100 a month to Philippine-based veterans. He withdrew this proposal on December 13, 2007 and currently backs the bill of Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) to totally eliminate benefits to Philippine-based veterans.
Divisions on this issue within the Filipino community discourage many of our supporters in the US Congress and provide a convenient cover to those unwilling to back the bill. (“If you guys can’t agree on what bill to support, why should we?”)
I strongly suggest that the Filipino community rally behind a veterans’ bill that can pass the US Congress. If even US Pres. George W. Bush has to regularly compromise with the US Congress now, why shouldn’t we?
The final paragraph of the 4-page letter to Sen. Craig written by the veterans advocate Gen. Delfin Lorenzana reads: “As we commemorate the Anniversary of the Rescission Act of 1946 on February 18, we pray that this 62-year old claim for recognition and benefits of these remaining gallant men and women who served America with utmost loyalty and devotion during WWII be finally granted.”
Prayers have been known to work wonders.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com, log in to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080226-121292/Fatigue-or-indifference
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Fatigue or indifference?
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: February 26, 2008
Two months ago, I proposed to the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), which advocates for the Filipino WW II veterans, to direct each of its 12 regional chapters to sponsor local activities to mark the 62nd anniversary of the infamous Rescission Act of February 19, 1946.
The purpose: to highlight the law that stripped Filipino veterans of the USAFFE of their US military benefits and mobilize support for the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill pending in the US Congress. I also suggested that we distribute 500,000 armbands inscribed with “2/18/46 – Rescission Act” to supporters all over the US.
My proposal was tabled for future discussion. February 18, 2007 came and went with only a march-forum in Los Angeles and a wreath-laying ceremony in Washington DC to commemorate it. When I went to Washington DC two weeks ago to lobby the US Congress to support the bill, I wrote about my concern that the Filipino veterans were getting caught in the crosshairs of the anti-foreigner anti-immigrant sentiment of Republican lawmakers. Unlike columns on other subjects, I received no feedback from readers about this issue.
Was this an indication that the Filipino community has lost interest in the fight of our Filipino WW II veterans to regain the benefits denied them 62 years ago?
Was the level of interest in the community always a mile wide but only an inch deep? In other words, was the Filipino community leadership’s professed interest in the issue not actually shared by the Filipino community at large?
Is there a Filipino veterans "compassion fatigue" with the community somehow developing numbness to due to constant media stories on the plight of suffering Filipino WW II veterans?
These are questions our community should raise and grapple with. Honest answers to them should guide us in our campaign for the veterans.
It may be an indication not just of community-wide indifference to the veterans issue but simply of an indifference to all issues. For instance, this week marks the 22nd anniversary of People Power, perhaps the most shining moment in Philippine history, the spark that ignited similar People Power uprisings in South Korea, Taiwan and all of Eastern Europe. But there are no celebrations of this glorious moment anywhere in the Filipino community this week. Why?
Five months ago, the Filipino community expressed outrage at the veiled attack on Philippine-educated physicians in the premiere episode of “Desperate Housewives” on September 30, 2007. There were demonstrations, on-line petitions (signed by 150,000 people), a barrage of protest letters and e-mails to ABC and a national conference in Las Vegas in November to mobilize the community to demand a meaningful on-air apology from ABC.
But three months after the November conference, the issue has been forgotten. ABC dangled the carrot of a collaborative partnership with NaFFAA to accept Filipino interns into ABC, a carrot apparently sufficient to prompt NaFFAA to discourage any lawsuits or protest actions against the network.
With all the Democrat-Republican, liberal-conservative, pro-GMA/anti-GMA divides in the Filipino community, it was believed that support for the Filipino WW II veterans was the one issue that all sides could agree on and rally behind.
But there are divisions even on this issue. There are supporters of the veterans who believe that the community should not compromise on full equity, that Filipino veterans in the Philippines should receive the same benefits as those in the US.
But even that formerly inflexible position has given way to support for the proposal of Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), chair of the House Veterans Committee, whose bill would provide $900 a month to the 6,000 US-based veterans, and $500 a month to Philippine-based veterans. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this would amount to $1-B over 10 years or about $100-M a year.
There are those who believe that the veterans should get whatever they can get. As the ranks of the surviving veterans dwindle at an exponential rate, what good would it do them if the US Congress passes a bill giving all the veterans full equity several years from now and no one is left alive to receive it?
A group of aging veterans supports the Senate bill of Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, which would also provide $900 a month for US-based veterans and $375 a month for Philippine-based veterans with dependents, $300 for single veterans, and $200 for widows of veterans. The CBO believes this bill would amount to $365-M over 10 years.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) proposed a more modest bill that would also grant $900 a month to US-based veterans but only $100 a month to Philippine-based veterans. He withdrew this proposal on December 13, 2007 and currently backs the bill of Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) to totally eliminate benefits to Philippine-based veterans.
Divisions on this issue within the Filipino community discourage many of our supporters in the US Congress and provide a convenient cover to those unwilling to back the bill. (“If you guys can’t agree on what bill to support, why should we?”)
I strongly suggest that the Filipino community rally behind a veterans’ bill that can pass the US Congress. If even US Pres. George W. Bush has to regularly compromise with the US Congress now, why shouldn’t we?
The final paragraph of the 4-page letter to Sen. Craig written by the veterans advocate Gen. Delfin Lorenzana reads: “As we commemorate the Anniversary of the Rescission Act of 1946 on February 18, we pray that this 62-year old claim for recognition and benefits of these remaining gallant men and women who served America with utmost loyalty and devotion during WWII be finally granted.”
Prayers have been known to work wonders.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com, log in to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
The Filipino American Catholic Vote
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080213-118569/The-Filipino-American-Catholic-Vote
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : The Filipino American Catholic Vote
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: February 13, 2008
Filipino Americans are part of the broader Asian American group that constitutes 6% of the US population. Filipino American Catholics (85% of Filipinos are Catholics), however, are part of the larger US Catholic community that constitutes more than 25% of the registered voters in the country.
That it is also the largest group of swing voters in the US is especially significant because Catholics have backed the winner of the “national popular vote” in every US presidential election since 1972.
As Jim Dwyer noted in his New York Times column, since 1972, Catholics voted for five Republican and three Democratic presidents and one “popular-vote-winning but presidency-losing” Democrat, Al Gore. “No other large group has switched sides so often or been so consistently aligned with the winners,” Dwyer wrote. “Over that same period, a majority of white Protestants typically voted Republican, while blacks of all faiths and Jews strongly backed Democrats.”
There was a time more than 40 years ago when US Catholics were overwhelmingly Democrats especially because of John F. Kennedy, the first and only Catholic ever to be elected US president. But now Catholics don’t even vote for Catholic Democrats. In 2004, Protestant George W. Bush received 53% of the Catholic vote over Catholic John F. Kerry who received 47%.
Catholics supported Bill Clinton in his two presidential runs and Hillary Clinton in her two senatorial campaigns, including her re-election campaign against a Catholic Republican opponent. In the Super Tuesday New York presidential primary on February 5, 66% of the Catholic voters voted for Hillary compared to 30% for Barack Obama.
Brian O'Dwyer attributed Catholics support for the Clintons to what he said was their attention to the issues ethnic and working-class Catholics cared about, like social security, health care, education and immigration reform.
New York Assemblywoman Catherine T. Nolan believes there’s another reason Catholics, especially older ones, support Hillary. It's because older Catholic voters grew up with women in charge of daily life, she said.
“Maybe we’re a little bit more open to female leadership,” Ms. Nolan told Dwyer. “We had female role models from an early age. When I was growing up, all the Catholic school principals were women, and almost none of the public school principals were. The nuns were the people we saw every day, and they were running the whole show.”
Unlike other Asians, Filipinos are accustomed to seeing women in authority. There have been two female presidents in the Philippines since 1946; there have been none in the US since George Washington became president in 1789.
Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980 and re-elected in 1984, on both occasions with the backing of what are still called the "Reagan Democrats." Who will this group of disaffected Democrats support this November?
Raymond Flynn, a former Democratic mayor of Boston who was president of the Washington DC-based Catholic Alliance, endorsed Bush over Gore in the 2000 elections because he felt abandoned by the Democratic Party on issues of trade, health care, and abortion. Flynn, who regularly speaks to Catholic groups all over the US, senses that Catholics are now returning to the fold.
"Right now, the so-called Reagan Democrats, they're going Democrat," Flynn said. "Health care, education, human rights — these issues are so compelling in this election that they're voting Democrat."
A nationwide poll of Catholic voters conducted by the author (William D'Antonio) of "American Catholics Today: New Realities of Their Faith and Their Church," found 82% of Catholic Democrats and 52% of Catholic Republicans favored "more government funding to provide health care to poor children."
This position was opposed by Pres. Bush who in 2007 vetoed the SCHIP (State Children Health Insurance Program) bill that would have extended health insurance to poor children. In the 2006 congressional elections, Democrats won 55% of the Catholic vote.
Two years earlier, in the 2004 presidential elections, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput openly endorsed Bush over Kerry because of their positions on abortion. But many Catholics agreed with the National Catholic Register newspaper that opposition to the death penalty was also a “right to life” issue because abortion and the death penalty fall under the same Fifth Commandment heading -- “Thou Shall Not Kill.”
Today most Catholics tend to be “Cafeteria Catholics,” picking and choosing which Catholic doctrine to accept or reject. Many liberal Catholics, for example, reject “creationism” and accept evolution, reject “pro-life” and are “pro-choice.” They support the church’s position on helping the poor and supporting a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Many conservative Catholics, on the other hand, oppose abortion and amnesty for illegal immigrants but support the death penalty and tax cuts for the wealthy.
With John McCain as the certain Republican Party presidential candidate, the “right to life” issue will be more complicated. In a 1999 statement to the San Francisco Chronicle, McCain said he did not advocate repealing Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
“I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
This position explains why John McCain received strong backing from pro-choice Republicans. In Missouri, those favoring completely legalized abortion voted 48 % for McCain. In California, McCain received 49 % of the vote from those who want abortion to be “mostly legal.”
With the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates holding generally similar views on abortion, Catholics will have to look at the candidates’ positions on war and peace, the death penalty, immigration reform, tax cuts, housing, economic justice, welfare reform, the federal deficit, civil liberties, education and health care.
Filipino American Catholics will also have to look at the candidates' position on the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill which is supported by both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, and opposed by Sen. McCain.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080213-118569/The-Filipino-American-Catholic-Vote
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : The Filipino American Catholic Vote
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: February 13, 2008
Filipino Americans are part of the broader Asian American group that constitutes 6% of the US population. Filipino American Catholics (85% of Filipinos are Catholics), however, are part of the larger US Catholic community that constitutes more than 25% of the registered voters in the country.
That it is also the largest group of swing voters in the US is especially significant because Catholics have backed the winner of the “national popular vote” in every US presidential election since 1972.
As Jim Dwyer noted in his New York Times column, since 1972, Catholics voted for five Republican and three Democratic presidents and one “popular-vote-winning but presidency-losing” Democrat, Al Gore. “No other large group has switched sides so often or been so consistently aligned with the winners,” Dwyer wrote. “Over that same period, a majority of white Protestants typically voted Republican, while blacks of all faiths and Jews strongly backed Democrats.”
There was a time more than 40 years ago when US Catholics were overwhelmingly Democrats especially because of John F. Kennedy, the first and only Catholic ever to be elected US president. But now Catholics don’t even vote for Catholic Democrats. In 2004, Protestant George W. Bush received 53% of the Catholic vote over Catholic John F. Kerry who received 47%.
Catholics supported Bill Clinton in his two presidential runs and Hillary Clinton in her two senatorial campaigns, including her re-election campaign against a Catholic Republican opponent. In the Super Tuesday New York presidential primary on February 5, 66% of the Catholic voters voted for Hillary compared to 30% for Barack Obama.
Brian O'Dwyer attributed Catholics support for the Clintons to what he said was their attention to the issues ethnic and working-class Catholics cared about, like social security, health care, education and immigration reform.
New York Assemblywoman Catherine T. Nolan believes there’s another reason Catholics, especially older ones, support Hillary. It's because older Catholic voters grew up with women in charge of daily life, she said.
“Maybe we’re a little bit more open to female leadership,” Ms. Nolan told Dwyer. “We had female role models from an early age. When I was growing up, all the Catholic school principals were women, and almost none of the public school principals were. The nuns were the people we saw every day, and they were running the whole show.”
Unlike other Asians, Filipinos are accustomed to seeing women in authority. There have been two female presidents in the Philippines since 1946; there have been none in the US since George Washington became president in 1789.
Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980 and re-elected in 1984, on both occasions with the backing of what are still called the "Reagan Democrats." Who will this group of disaffected Democrats support this November?
Raymond Flynn, a former Democratic mayor of Boston who was president of the Washington DC-based Catholic Alliance, endorsed Bush over Gore in the 2000 elections because he felt abandoned by the Democratic Party on issues of trade, health care, and abortion. Flynn, who regularly speaks to Catholic groups all over the US, senses that Catholics are now returning to the fold.
"Right now, the so-called Reagan Democrats, they're going Democrat," Flynn said. "Health care, education, human rights — these issues are so compelling in this election that they're voting Democrat."
A nationwide poll of Catholic voters conducted by the author (William D'Antonio) of "American Catholics Today: New Realities of Their Faith and Their Church," found 82% of Catholic Democrats and 52% of Catholic Republicans favored "more government funding to provide health care to poor children."
This position was opposed by Pres. Bush who in 2007 vetoed the SCHIP (State Children Health Insurance Program) bill that would have extended health insurance to poor children. In the 2006 congressional elections, Democrats won 55% of the Catholic vote.
Two years earlier, in the 2004 presidential elections, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput openly endorsed Bush over Kerry because of their positions on abortion. But many Catholics agreed with the National Catholic Register newspaper that opposition to the death penalty was also a “right to life” issue because abortion and the death penalty fall under the same Fifth Commandment heading -- “Thou Shall Not Kill.”
Today most Catholics tend to be “Cafeteria Catholics,” picking and choosing which Catholic doctrine to accept or reject. Many liberal Catholics, for example, reject “creationism” and accept evolution, reject “pro-life” and are “pro-choice.” They support the church’s position on helping the poor and supporting a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Many conservative Catholics, on the other hand, oppose abortion and amnesty for illegal immigrants but support the death penalty and tax cuts for the wealthy.
With John McCain as the certain Republican Party presidential candidate, the “right to life” issue will be more complicated. In a 1999 statement to the San Francisco Chronicle, McCain said he did not advocate repealing Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
“I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”
This position explains why John McCain received strong backing from pro-choice Republicans. In Missouri, those favoring completely legalized abortion voted 48 % for McCain. In California, McCain received 49 % of the vote from those who want abortion to be “mostly legal.”
With the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates holding generally similar views on abortion, Catholics will have to look at the candidates’ positions on war and peace, the death penalty, immigration reform, tax cuts, housing, economic justice, welfare reform, the federal deficit, civil liberties, education and health care.
Filipino American Catholics will also have to look at the candidates' position on the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill which is supported by both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, and opposed by Sen. McCain.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Sliming Barack Obama
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080206-117119/Sliming-Barack-Obama
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Sliming Barack Obama
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: February 06, 2008
If American voters were free to choose between a candidate who supported keeping US troops in Iraq for another 100 years (at a cost of $2 trillion for the last six years and 3,000 US lives), or a candidate who vowed to pull US troops out and use the money saved for the health and education needs of
Americans in the US, there would be no question that Americans would overwhelmingly vote for the latter.
But elections in the US are not decided by the people who vote for the candidate who best reflects their views and interests. They are decided by people adept at manipulating voters into supporting or opposing candidates according to their prejudices and fears.
In January of 2000, Sen. John McCain scored an impressive victory in the New Hampshire primary and was on his way to securing the 2000 Republican presidential nomination when he entered the South Carolina primary as the heavy favorite. But supporters of Texas Gov. George W. Bush found a clever Karl Rovian way to stop McCain. They simply made poll survey phone calls asking South Carolina voters: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"
In fact, there was no truth to the spurious claim other than the
widely-known fact that McCain and his wife had adopted their daughter Bridget as a baby from Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh. But the “black” propaganda proved brutally effective as McCain lost the 2000 primary in South Carolina and the Republican nomination to George W. Bush.
A similar underhanded smear campaign is currently being waged against Sen. Barack Obama. In the last 2 months, I have already received more than a dozen e-mails from various sources asking the recipient to “forward the e-mail to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?”
Entitled “Who is Barack Obama?” the e-mail claims that Obama is "the son of a Black MUSLIM from Kenya and a white ATHEIST from Kansas" who was educated in a "Wahabi Islamic fundamentalist school in Indonesia". The e-mail also claims that Barack is a Muslim who took his oath of office as a US senator on a Koran, not on a Bible and that he will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor show any reverence for the US flag.
It ends with this ominous warning: “The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!” Another anti-Obama Internet blast which I also received claims that Obama’s church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, is anti-American, will only accept black parishioners and tilts toward Africa at the expense of the United States. The e-mail claims that Obama is "certainly a racist" and "desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa."
At a Filipino social gathering I attended over the weekend, I heard a matron asking people "Have you heard?", proceeding to spread the anti-Obama information she had received via e-mail and which she proclaimed to be gospel truth. Even though I support Hillary Clinton, I could not help but ask the lady to please check her facts and not to blindly accept the scurrilous claims of anonymously written e-mails forwarded to her. I suggested that she check out http://www.snopes.com/ referred to in the e-mail as well as http://www.factcheck.org/ to determine the truth of the allegations.
Both online sources, I told her, debunked the anti-Obama e-mail information as false. Barack has never been a Muslim and his mother was not an atheist but one who instilled in him a respect for all religions. As Barack wrote in his book, Audacity of Hope, “In her mind, a working knowledge of the world’s great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education.”
Obama and his wife Michelle are members of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago which counts Oprah Winfrey as a member. The Trinity Church describes itself in its website as "a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian" and which "does not apologize for its African roots." It openly proclaims its commitment to Africa (where Oprah recently opened a school for girls in South Africa) and to the "historical education of African people in diaspora." Although the congregation is overwhelmingly black, it has a few white members and whites are welcomed at the church.
Obama took his oath of office before Vice President Dick Cheney on a Bible and not an a Koran and he regularly recites the pledge of allegiance.
The source of the anti-Obama smear is a January 2007 Insight Magazine article which is a publication owned by the News World Communications of Unification Church founder Rev. Sun Myung Moon which also owns the very pro-Bush, pro Republican Washington Times.
CNN sent reporter John Vause to Jakarta to check on the Wahabi story and learned that the school Obama attended was not even a Muslim school. Hardi Priyono, the school’s deputy headmaster, told CNN: "This is a public school. We don't focus on religion."
Aside from the fact that I believe she is the most qualified, one of the reasons I support Sen. Hillary Clinton is my fear that the Republicans will have an easier time destroying (“swiftboating”) Barack in the general elections than they would Hillary, who has been hit with everything the GOP could possible throw at her since she became First Lady in 1993.
In the 2004 presidential elections, I received dozens of e-mails directed at Filipino Catholics telling us that Sen. John Kerry, the Catholic Democratic candidate, was pro-abortion and that it would be a mortal sin to vote for him. The e-mail asked the recipient to forward the e-mail to everyone they knew who was a concerned Catholic. This Karl Rovian e-mail campaign proved effective in delivering the Filipino vote to Bush.
We can expect the sliming of Barack Obama to be even more vicious. I just hope the Filipino community will focus on the issues and reject the slime that has already reared its ugly head in this campaign.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com, log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 (tel. 415- 334-7800.)
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080206-117119/Sliming-Barack-Obama
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Sliming Barack Obama
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: February 06, 2008
If American voters were free to choose between a candidate who supported keeping US troops in Iraq for another 100 years (at a cost of $2 trillion for the last six years and 3,000 US lives), or a candidate who vowed to pull US troops out and use the money saved for the health and education needs of
Americans in the US, there would be no question that Americans would overwhelmingly vote for the latter.
But elections in the US are not decided by the people who vote for the candidate who best reflects their views and interests. They are decided by people adept at manipulating voters into supporting or opposing candidates according to their prejudices and fears.
In January of 2000, Sen. John McCain scored an impressive victory in the New Hampshire primary and was on his way to securing the 2000 Republican presidential nomination when he entered the South Carolina primary as the heavy favorite. But supporters of Texas Gov. George W. Bush found a clever Karl Rovian way to stop McCain. They simply made poll survey phone calls asking South Carolina voters: "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"
In fact, there was no truth to the spurious claim other than the
widely-known fact that McCain and his wife had adopted their daughter Bridget as a baby from Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh. But the “black” propaganda proved brutally effective as McCain lost the 2000 primary in South Carolina and the Republican nomination to George W. Bush.
A similar underhanded smear campaign is currently being waged against Sen. Barack Obama. In the last 2 months, I have already received more than a dozen e-mails from various sources asking the recipient to “forward the e-mail to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?”
Entitled “Who is Barack Obama?” the e-mail claims that Obama is "the son of a Black MUSLIM from Kenya and a white ATHEIST from Kansas" who was educated in a "Wahabi Islamic fundamentalist school in Indonesia". The e-mail also claims that Barack is a Muslim who took his oath of office as a US senator on a Koran, not on a Bible and that he will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor show any reverence for the US flag.
It ends with this ominous warning: “The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!” Another anti-Obama Internet blast which I also received claims that Obama’s church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, is anti-American, will only accept black parishioners and tilts toward Africa at the expense of the United States. The e-mail claims that Obama is "certainly a racist" and "desires to rule over America while his loyalty is totally vested in a Black Africa."
At a Filipino social gathering I attended over the weekend, I heard a matron asking people "Have you heard?", proceeding to spread the anti-Obama information she had received via e-mail and which she proclaimed to be gospel truth. Even though I support Hillary Clinton, I could not help but ask the lady to please check her facts and not to blindly accept the scurrilous claims of anonymously written e-mails forwarded to her. I suggested that she check out http://www.snopes.com/ referred to in the e-mail as well as http://www.factcheck.org/ to determine the truth of the allegations.
Both online sources, I told her, debunked the anti-Obama e-mail information as false. Barack has never been a Muslim and his mother was not an atheist but one who instilled in him a respect for all religions. As Barack wrote in his book, Audacity of Hope, “In her mind, a working knowledge of the world’s great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education.”
Obama and his wife Michelle are members of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago which counts Oprah Winfrey as a member. The Trinity Church describes itself in its website as "a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian" and which "does not apologize for its African roots." It openly proclaims its commitment to Africa (where Oprah recently opened a school for girls in South Africa) and to the "historical education of African people in diaspora." Although the congregation is overwhelmingly black, it has a few white members and whites are welcomed at the church.
Obama took his oath of office before Vice President Dick Cheney on a Bible and not an a Koran and he regularly recites the pledge of allegiance.
The source of the anti-Obama smear is a January 2007 Insight Magazine article which is a publication owned by the News World Communications of Unification Church founder Rev. Sun Myung Moon which also owns the very pro-Bush, pro Republican Washington Times.
CNN sent reporter John Vause to Jakarta to check on the Wahabi story and learned that the school Obama attended was not even a Muslim school. Hardi Priyono, the school’s deputy headmaster, told CNN: "This is a public school. We don't focus on religion."
Aside from the fact that I believe she is the most qualified, one of the reasons I support Sen. Hillary Clinton is my fear that the Republicans will have an easier time destroying (“swiftboating”) Barack in the general elections than they would Hillary, who has been hit with everything the GOP could possible throw at her since she became First Lady in 1993.
In the 2004 presidential elections, I received dozens of e-mails directed at Filipino Catholics telling us that Sen. John Kerry, the Catholic Democratic candidate, was pro-abortion and that it would be a mortal sin to vote for him. The e-mail asked the recipient to forward the e-mail to everyone they knew who was a concerned Catholic. This Karl Rovian e-mail campaign proved effective in delivering the Filipino vote to Bush.
We can expect the sliming of Barack Obama to be even more vicious. I just hope the Filipino community will focus on the issues and reject the slime that has already reared its ugly head in this campaign.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com, log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 (tel. 415- 334-7800.)
Super Tuesday Endorsement
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080130-115721/Super-Tuesday-Endorsement
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Super Tuesday Endorsement
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: January 30, 2008
After a year and a half of non-stop campaigning by Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, the rubber finally meets the road on the Super Duper Tuesday of February 5, when the following 22 states hold their primaries: Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Montana, Minnesota, Oklahoma,
Delaware, Alabama, Tennessee, Utah, Georgia, Kansas and West Virginia.
For the Democrats, these 22 states will award a total of 1,681 pledged
delegates, 51% of all those awarded nationally. For the Republicans (the ‘Grand Old Party’ or GOP), these 22 states will award 975 delegates, 41% of their total number. The Democrats will award their delegates proportionately, according to the percentage of votes received above the threshold 15% minimum; the GOP will have the winner take all delegates in many states.
New York senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois senator Barack Obama are the two major Democrat candidates remaining, with former South Carolina senator John Edwards back of the pack. Edwards’s hopes are slim but he remains a candidate of hope – hope that Hillary and Barack will be deadlocked at the convention and delegates at the Democratic National Convention meeting in Denver in August will choose him as alternative.
For the Republicans, the race has narrowed down to Arizona Senator John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney with former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee barely hanging on. Giuliani went from a lead of 32% in the national polls to a current low of 12%, a precipitous drop brought about by his decision to skip all the presidential primaries until Florida, which he now has slim hopes of winning. Huckabee’s prayer is to land a vice-presidential slot.
Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will make history. Hillary hopes to be the first female presidential candidate of a major party; Barack seeks to be the first non-white to win that honor. Romney hopes to be the first Mormon to win; McCain, at 72, will be the oldest candidate. Giuliani will be the baldest (and first Italian-American); Huckabee, the first evangelical minister.
But the choice of either Barack or Hillary is not just about being a major “first,” but about changing America’s global image, its role in the world and its national priorities. It has not been an easy choice for me as my college-age sons have urged me to endorse Barack Obama whose “Audacity of Hope” is not just the title of his book but also the challenge of his campaign. Barack is this generation’s John F. Kennedy, the candidate whose fiery eloquence has moved the youth to
look into the promise of the future as no candidate has been able to do since JFK. As the New York Times wrote, “he shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship.”
But I believe Hillary is more prepared to lead the country now because of her experience. When she was First Lady in 1993, she understood how critical it was for the US to have a universal health care system and sought to create a health care system that would benefit everyone. Unfortunately, she was crushed by the powerful pharmaceutical interests and the American Medical Association. But now 47 million Americans are without health care and the more than
100 million with health care do not have enough to cover them through catastrophic illnesses.
The European countries with universal health care, Canada, China, Japan and other industrialized countries are moving forward while the US economy is bogged down by an inadequate health care system serving only the rich and those with adequate health care coverage.
But now that the huge costs of health care is killing American industries and bankrupting states spending more to care for those seriously ill than they would otherwise have spent to keep them healthy, health care is now viewed as a universal right, not just of a privileged few.
As the Times noted, Hillary’s health care proposals “reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans.”
Both Hillary and Barack will work to shift government resources from the Bush emphasis on helping the wealthy with tax cuts to helping the poor and middle income Americans to have health coverage. Hillary will know how to do it, from experience.
She’s also closer to the Filipino American community than any other presidential candidate from either party. She became only one who has addressed a major Filipino community gathering when she spoke at the national conference of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations in New York in 1999. Among her closest advisers are Filipino Americans like Loida Nicolas-Lewis, Irene Bueno, Irene Natividad, and Mona Pasquil. She also supports the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill and comprehensive immigration reform.
Vote Hillary.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com, log on to rodel50.blogspot.com, write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080130-115721/Super-Tuesday-Endorsement
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Super Tuesday Endorsement
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: January 30, 2008
After a year and a half of non-stop campaigning by Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, the rubber finally meets the road on the Super Duper Tuesday of February 5, when the following 22 states hold their primaries: Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Montana, Minnesota, Oklahoma,
Delaware, Alabama, Tennessee, Utah, Georgia, Kansas and West Virginia.
For the Democrats, these 22 states will award a total of 1,681 pledged
delegates, 51% of all those awarded nationally. For the Republicans (the ‘Grand Old Party’ or GOP), these 22 states will award 975 delegates, 41% of their total number. The Democrats will award their delegates proportionately, according to the percentage of votes received above the threshold 15% minimum; the GOP will have the winner take all delegates in many states.
New York senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois senator Barack Obama are the two major Democrat candidates remaining, with former South Carolina senator John Edwards back of the pack. Edwards’s hopes are slim but he remains a candidate of hope – hope that Hillary and Barack will be deadlocked at the convention and delegates at the Democratic National Convention meeting in Denver in August will choose him as alternative.
For the Republicans, the race has narrowed down to Arizona Senator John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney with former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee barely hanging on. Giuliani went from a lead of 32% in the national polls to a current low of 12%, a precipitous drop brought about by his decision to skip all the presidential primaries until Florida, which he now has slim hopes of winning. Huckabee’s prayer is to land a vice-presidential slot.
Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will make history. Hillary hopes to be the first female presidential candidate of a major party; Barack seeks to be the first non-white to win that honor. Romney hopes to be the first Mormon to win; McCain, at 72, will be the oldest candidate. Giuliani will be the baldest (and first Italian-American); Huckabee, the first evangelical minister.
But the choice of either Barack or Hillary is not just about being a major “first,” but about changing America’s global image, its role in the world and its national priorities. It has not been an easy choice for me as my college-age sons have urged me to endorse Barack Obama whose “Audacity of Hope” is not just the title of his book but also the challenge of his campaign. Barack is this generation’s John F. Kennedy, the candidate whose fiery eloquence has moved the youth to
look into the promise of the future as no candidate has been able to do since JFK. As the New York Times wrote, “he shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship.”
But I believe Hillary is more prepared to lead the country now because of her experience. When she was First Lady in 1993, she understood how critical it was for the US to have a universal health care system and sought to create a health care system that would benefit everyone. Unfortunately, she was crushed by the powerful pharmaceutical interests and the American Medical Association. But now 47 million Americans are without health care and the more than
100 million with health care do not have enough to cover them through catastrophic illnesses.
The European countries with universal health care, Canada, China, Japan and other industrialized countries are moving forward while the US economy is bogged down by an inadequate health care system serving only the rich and those with adequate health care coverage.
But now that the huge costs of health care is killing American industries and bankrupting states spending more to care for those seriously ill than they would otherwise have spent to keep them healthy, health care is now viewed as a universal right, not just of a privileged few.
As the Times noted, Hillary’s health care proposals “reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans.”
Both Hillary and Barack will work to shift government resources from the Bush emphasis on helping the wealthy with tax cuts to helping the poor and middle income Americans to have health coverage. Hillary will know how to do it, from experience.
She’s also closer to the Filipino American community than any other presidential candidate from either party. She became only one who has addressed a major Filipino community gathering when she spoke at the national conference of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations in New York in 1999. Among her closest advisers are Filipino Americans like Loida Nicolas-Lewis, Irene Bueno, Irene Natividad, and Mona Pasquil. She also supports the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill and comprehensive immigration reform.
Vote Hillary.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com, log on to rodel50.blogspot.com, write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800.
Myths of Sentosa/Avalon
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080124-114546/Myths-of-SentosaAvalon
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Myths of Sentosa/Avalon
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: January 24, 2008
There are myths about the American legal system that Filipinos blindly subscribe to. The most common is that it's generally free of the kind of corruption and political manipulation its Philippine counterpart is subject to.
The Filipino nurses recruited by the Sentosa Recruitment Agency (SRA) to work at the Avalon Garden nursing home facility in New York entertain no such illusions. Their trial on trumped-up criminal charges is set to begin next week on January 28.
Their problems all began when they signed up with the SRA in the Philippines in 2004. They chose SRA over other nurse recruiters from the US because SRA offered to provide them with green cards to work at nursing home facilities, which individually petitioned them, upon their arrival in New York. As an added enticement, they were offered two months of free housing and reimbursement of all their travel expenses.
Among the Filipino nurses who signed up with SRA was Elmer Jacinto, the physician-nurse who topped the Philippine medical board exams in 2004 but opted to work as a nurse in the US rather than as a doctor in the Philippines. Jacinto was recruited by SRA to work for the Franklin Center nursing home which signed up as his immigration sponsor.
The owner of the Philippine-based SRA, Francris Luyun, facilitated all the immigration paperwork for the nurses and even flew to New York to greet them when they arrived and escort them to their staffing house.
A few days after their arrival, however, the nurses were informed by Luyun that they could not work for the nursing home facilities that petitioned them because they had no work permits (SRA forgot to submit them). Luyun mentioned that he could provide them temporary work through Sentosa Services where, it turned out, he was the recruitment contractor.
Because the nurses had no other choice, they accepted Sentosa’s offer. Jacinto and nine other nurses were given work at the Avalon Gardens nursing home while other nurses were doled out to around a dozen different nursing homes. It turned out that all of them were owned and operated by Sentosa Care, LLC, whose CEO was Bent Philipson, the man who signed all the employment contracts with the Filipino nurses on behalf of the various New York nursing homes which had petitioned them.
They were not employees of the nursing homes where they worked but “agency nurses” employed by Sentosa Services to work as independent contractors at their assigned locations. They were paid below the prevailing wage of the Department of Labor and not paid for the overtime they were compelled to put in.
Felix Vinluan, the lawyer consulted by the nurses, reported that they were provided substandard living accommodations upon their arrival. “Some had to sleep on the cold floor; some had to alternate in using the beds; and most of them complained that their staff house was not properly heated. In fact, two of them who had to sleep on makeshift beds in the garage, because there was no more space for them inside the house,” Vinluan said.
The nurses complained to both Luyun and Philipson about their working conditions and about patient safety as they were each tasked with taking care of 40 to 60 patients. Their complaints were ignored, prompting them to seek lawyer Vinluan’s counsel. Approximately 27 Filipino nurses signed up with Vinluan; he advised them all to file discrimination charges against their respective sponsoring or contracting employers with the US Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices.
Because they were employed by Sentosa Services and not the nursing homes they were assigned to, and because they never signed employment contracts with Sentosa Services, Vinluan advised them that they were “at-will” employees who could resign anytime, the same way their employer could fire them anytime.
On April 6, 2006, the Filipino nurses at one Sentosa facility resigned at the end of their shifts, followed the next day by Filipinos working at four other Sentosa facilities, including ten nurses at Avalon. In response, Philipson and Sentosa Care, LLC filed a civil suit for “breach of contract” against the Filipino nurses and a “tortuous interference with contractual relations” cause of action against their lawyer, Vinluan.
The nurses filed a cross-complaint against Sentosa for breach of contract. Sentosa then filed complaints against individual nurses with the New York Office of Professional Discipline (OPD), causing the licenses and permits of the nurses to be placed on hold.
The Filipino nurses filed administrative cases against the SRA in Manila for violations of Philippine recruitment rules and regulations before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). On March 24, 2006, the POEA administrator issued a preventive suspension order against the SRA.
After US Sen. Charles Schumer contacted the POEA on behalf of Bent Philipson, a campaign contributor, the POEA lifted its suspension order just two weeks after it was issued. Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor also reportedly intervened to prompt the POEA to lift the suspension order.
On September 13, 2006, the New York Office of Professional Discipline (OPD) informed Vinluan that the administrative cases against the Filipino nurses were closed, and that there was “no finding of patient abandonment and that there was no good moral character issue that would prohibit the nurse-permittees from securing their limited permits or nursing licenses.”
After failing to secure a preliminary injunction against the Filipino nurses, Sentosa’s lawyer next sought a meeting with the District Attorney of Suffolk County to discuss their complaints against the Filipino nurses and Vinluan. Because Sentosa's lawyer was a heavy campaign contributor to the DA, he could call in some chips.
On March 22, 2007, the District Attorney secured a Suffolk County Grand Jury indictment against the 10 nurses working at Avalon Gardens, including Elmer Jacinto, as well as their attorney, Felix Vinluan, for “endangering the welfare of pediatric patients” at a Suffolk County nursing home. The nurse-defendants and their attorney have become known as the "Avalon 11".
Last week, the New York Department of Health released the results of its investigation, finding that the pediatric residents of Avalon Gardens "were not placed in jeopardy" by the mass resignation of 10 nurses in 2006. This report was released less than two weeks before the immigrant nurses were scheduled for a January 28 jury trial in Suffolk County, New York, on charges of conspiracy and endangering patients in a pediatric ventilation unit at the Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center.
Despite this exculpatory report, the Avalon 11 defendants are still concerned about their case because of the political connections of Sentosa’s lawyer with the Suffolk County District Attorney. They have launched a campaign to convince New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer to appoint a Special Prosecutor to take over the case from the Suffolk County D.A. Members of the Filipino community are encouraged to send letters to Gov. Spitzer at the State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224 or by faxing him at 518-474-1513.
Will justice be a myth at the Avalon 11 trial?
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to www.rodel50.blogspot.com/) or send your letter to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080124-114546/Myths-of-SentosaAvalon
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Myths of Sentosa/Avalon
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: January 24, 2008
There are myths about the American legal system that Filipinos blindly subscribe to. The most common is that it's generally free of the kind of corruption and political manipulation its Philippine counterpart is subject to.
The Filipino nurses recruited by the Sentosa Recruitment Agency (SRA) to work at the Avalon Garden nursing home facility in New York entertain no such illusions. Their trial on trumped-up criminal charges is set to begin next week on January 28.
Their problems all began when they signed up with the SRA in the Philippines in 2004. They chose SRA over other nurse recruiters from the US because SRA offered to provide them with green cards to work at nursing home facilities, which individually petitioned them, upon their arrival in New York. As an added enticement, they were offered two months of free housing and reimbursement of all their travel expenses.
Among the Filipino nurses who signed up with SRA was Elmer Jacinto, the physician-nurse who topped the Philippine medical board exams in 2004 but opted to work as a nurse in the US rather than as a doctor in the Philippines. Jacinto was recruited by SRA to work for the Franklin Center nursing home which signed up as his immigration sponsor.
The owner of the Philippine-based SRA, Francris Luyun, facilitated all the immigration paperwork for the nurses and even flew to New York to greet them when they arrived and escort them to their staffing house.
A few days after their arrival, however, the nurses were informed by Luyun that they could not work for the nursing home facilities that petitioned them because they had no work permits (SRA forgot to submit them). Luyun mentioned that he could provide them temporary work through Sentosa Services where, it turned out, he was the recruitment contractor.
Because the nurses had no other choice, they accepted Sentosa’s offer. Jacinto and nine other nurses were given work at the Avalon Gardens nursing home while other nurses were doled out to around a dozen different nursing homes. It turned out that all of them were owned and operated by Sentosa Care, LLC, whose CEO was Bent Philipson, the man who signed all the employment contracts with the Filipino nurses on behalf of the various New York nursing homes which had petitioned them.
They were not employees of the nursing homes where they worked but “agency nurses” employed by Sentosa Services to work as independent contractors at their assigned locations. They were paid below the prevailing wage of the Department of Labor and not paid for the overtime they were compelled to put in.
Felix Vinluan, the lawyer consulted by the nurses, reported that they were provided substandard living accommodations upon their arrival. “Some had to sleep on the cold floor; some had to alternate in using the beds; and most of them complained that their staff house was not properly heated. In fact, two of them who had to sleep on makeshift beds in the garage, because there was no more space for them inside the house,” Vinluan said.
The nurses complained to both Luyun and Philipson about their working conditions and about patient safety as they were each tasked with taking care of 40 to 60 patients. Their complaints were ignored, prompting them to seek lawyer Vinluan’s counsel. Approximately 27 Filipino nurses signed up with Vinluan; he advised them all to file discrimination charges against their respective sponsoring or contracting employers with the US Department of Justice's Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices.
Because they were employed by Sentosa Services and not the nursing homes they were assigned to, and because they never signed employment contracts with Sentosa Services, Vinluan advised them that they were “at-will” employees who could resign anytime, the same way their employer could fire them anytime.
On April 6, 2006, the Filipino nurses at one Sentosa facility resigned at the end of their shifts, followed the next day by Filipinos working at four other Sentosa facilities, including ten nurses at Avalon. In response, Philipson and Sentosa Care, LLC filed a civil suit for “breach of contract” against the Filipino nurses and a “tortuous interference with contractual relations” cause of action against their lawyer, Vinluan.
The nurses filed a cross-complaint against Sentosa for breach of contract. Sentosa then filed complaints against individual nurses with the New York Office of Professional Discipline (OPD), causing the licenses and permits of the nurses to be placed on hold.
The Filipino nurses filed administrative cases against the SRA in Manila for violations of Philippine recruitment rules and regulations before the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). On March 24, 2006, the POEA administrator issued a preventive suspension order against the SRA.
After US Sen. Charles Schumer contacted the POEA on behalf of Bent Philipson, a campaign contributor, the POEA lifted its suspension order just two weeks after it was issued. Presidential Chief of Staff Michael Defensor also reportedly intervened to prompt the POEA to lift the suspension order.
On September 13, 2006, the New York Office of Professional Discipline (OPD) informed Vinluan that the administrative cases against the Filipino nurses were closed, and that there was “no finding of patient abandonment and that there was no good moral character issue that would prohibit the nurse-permittees from securing their limited permits or nursing licenses.”
After failing to secure a preliminary injunction against the Filipino nurses, Sentosa’s lawyer next sought a meeting with the District Attorney of Suffolk County to discuss their complaints against the Filipino nurses and Vinluan. Because Sentosa's lawyer was a heavy campaign contributor to the DA, he could call in some chips.
On March 22, 2007, the District Attorney secured a Suffolk County Grand Jury indictment against the 10 nurses working at Avalon Gardens, including Elmer Jacinto, as well as their attorney, Felix Vinluan, for “endangering the welfare of pediatric patients” at a Suffolk County nursing home. The nurse-defendants and their attorney have become known as the "Avalon 11".
Last week, the New York Department of Health released the results of its investigation, finding that the pediatric residents of Avalon Gardens "were not placed in jeopardy" by the mass resignation of 10 nurses in 2006. This report was released less than two weeks before the immigrant nurses were scheduled for a January 28 jury trial in Suffolk County, New York, on charges of conspiracy and endangering patients in a pediatric ventilation unit at the Avalon Gardens Rehabilitation and Health Care Center.
Despite this exculpatory report, the Avalon 11 defendants are still concerned about their case because of the political connections of Sentosa’s lawyer with the Suffolk County District Attorney. They have launched a campaign to convince New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer to appoint a Special Prosecutor to take over the case from the Suffolk County D.A. Members of the Filipino community are encouraged to send letters to Gov. Spitzer at the State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224 or by faxing him at 518-474-1513.
Will justice be a myth at the Avalon 11 trial?
Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to www.rodel50.blogspot.com/) or send your letter to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
