Donald Trump is a .22 caliber mind in a .357 Magnum world.

blogBy announcing that he won’t be seeking his party’s nomination for the Office of the President of the United States come next general election, Vice President Joe Biden has literally handed the Democratic Party’s nomination to Hillary Clinton. Former first lady, former U.S.Senator, and former Secretary of State.

Hillary’s two out of four opponents in the first Democratic Party debate held earlier this month has withdrawn from the race for their party’s nomination. Only Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and former Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland are remaining on the Democratic Party field. But you can bet your money that the Clinton tide will easily sweep Senator Sanders and Governor O’Malley away once the primary season kicks in. You can bet your tuition money on that. Her campaign is poised to never repeat the mistakes and indiscipline they characterized their 2008 run. They are ready this time around. Suffice it to say then that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee for the 2016 presidential election and a breathe away from the Oval Office in 1/17.

A Hillary Clinton’s presidency has been trumpeted by Republicans as a third term for President Obama. As an opposition party, the Republicans see Obama’s presidency, irrespective of the progressive policies and programs the Obama Administration has put in place for the past 7 years, as a disaster. Hence a Clinton’s presidency will be a continuation of that disaster.

So assuming for a moment that Republicans are right, then who among their candidates or a combination of their candidates will be their weapon to prevent an almost palpable Clinton presidency from happening?



Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint Session of Congress on Tuesday March 3, 2015.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint Session of Congress on Tuesday March 3, 2015.

People ask me why I posted the address by Israel’s Prime Minister to the Joint Session of U.S. Congress on my blog and why I went ahead to like it on the Facebook page of my blog. And my answer is simple: journalism is not about reporting only news that I like or that I thought my readers will like. Objective journalism demands that I report every news story as it is to my readers, irrespective of whatever feelings it may elicit, and allow my readers the choice of deciding for themselves what side of the narrative they want to identify with. My job is to keep my readers informed about contemporary socio-political and economic issues facing our world. And to provide the platform for them to debate these issues for the good of the society. Ezeocha Post, by the way, is all about promoting informed debate.

Now if you ask me what I think about Benjamin Netanyahu’s address, I will tell you this: it is a political theatrics that amounted to little other than one politician trying to save his own political career by undermining that of another.

Netanyahu broke protocol by accepting to address the Congress without running it by the White House first. And by so doing, he stretched an already tense relationship between himself and the present White House.

Now if his address to Congress has a chance of influencing U.S. foreign policy position on Iran at it were, his dissing of the White House could have worth a peru. But Netanyahu, a Harvard educated politician who is schooled in U.S. politics, knows better than most people that it is the Oval Office that conducts U.S. foreign policy and not the House Speaker’s office. He knows that. He knows that ONLY President Barack Obama can give him the hawkish foreign policy approach towards Iran that he craves for. Yet he presumably came to address the Congress for something that Congress cannot give him. Why?

That brings us to his real reason for coming to America – Israel’s local politics.

Israel’s next general election is on March 17, 2015. And typical of politicians all over the world who during general elections at home, travel abroad to countries of importance to their domestic audience in order to shore up their credentials, Prime Minister Netanyahu came to the United States to shore up his credentials in order to increase his chances of winning re-election. And there is nothing wrong with that practice. It is unfortunate that he has ideological differences with President Obama. It is equally unfortunate that he had to badmouth President Obama in front of the U.S. Congress and the world so as to score political points in Israel.

That notwithstanding, it is important that we focus our attention to the crux of Bibi’s visit and answer the question below unequivocally:

Does Iranian’s nuclear weapons program pose immediate threat to the state of Israel and is President Obama naïve to believe that he can get any concessions from the Iranians on their nuclear weapons program?


Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Speech to the U.S. Congress

Watch, listen, and decide for yourself what you think the U.S. position on Iran should be. To continue the current course being taken by Secretary Kerry at the behest of President Obama or to take a more militaristic course.

Make your thoughts known.

Let the debate continue…




The Ezeocha Post will be celebrating the one-year anniversary of the registration of the domain name on March 23, 2015. We at Ezeocha Post are proud of and grateful to our followers who visit and comment on our website regularly, share our posts on our Facebook page, and retweet our tweets on Twitter. We appreciate your encouragements and comments, which are very invaluable to the work we do.

As a way of encouraging more debate on the issues we write about, and to commemorate our one-year anniversary, we are announcing a 2-Category $100 Cash Prize Awards to our esteemed readers.

The 1st Category $100 Cash Prize Award which will go to the person who between today March 02, 2015  and the 19th of March, will provide the most objective comment(s) to each of the essays we have published so far on our blog. Not our Facebook page. And not our Twitter account. Rather, at That is to say that if we have published, say 15 essays so far, the person that posts a comment on all 15 essays will win the cash prize. If more than one person meet this criteria, the objectivity of the comment(s), whether the comment to each essay is pertinent to the issues raised on that particular essay, and whether the comment inspired further debate on the issues raised, will be used to determine who the winner will be. The prize will go to only one winner.

Our 2nd Category $100 Cash Prize Award for our one-year anniversary will go to the person who writes-in the best essay on any of the contemporary challenges facing the international community.

The topic of the essay can be related to

  1. The terrorist group, ISIS,
  2. The negotiation between the U.S. and Iran to put a brake to Iran’s nuclear weapons program,
  3. Israeli-Palestinian crisis,
  4. Insecurity in Nigeria,
  5. Russia’s territorial ambitions and its aggression in Ukraine,
  6. The future of the Eurozone,
  7. The challenges facing the continuous existence of one Nigeria after the general election,
  8. Poverty,
  9. Global distributive injustice, or
  10. Income inequalities at the workplace.


Is President Obama sympathetic to ISIS?

President Obama, just like every other human can misspeak and sometimes let slip some lines that are not thoroughly thought through. From his ISIS-JV team analogy to his ISIS-European Christian crusaders comparison, it is obvious that one of the smartest man to have occupied the Oval Office has problem with drawing equivalences. However, Obama’s remarks is not the reason why ISIS and Boko Haram are perpetuating evil of unprecedented magnitude. Organized religion is the ace that have turned to a menace.

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama interact with Hilton banquet server Kitty Casey during the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., Feb. 5, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama interact with Hilton banquet server Kitty Casey during the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D.C., Feb. 5, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

European Christian crusaders killed in the name of religion. They desecrated Africa. They ransacked communities, exploited natural resources, and stole national treasures of African nations and shipped them back to Europe to build their continent. They killed anything and everything that stood on their way to their looting. In Wilbur smith’s book, Men of Men, we saw the brutality and single-mindedness of the British when it came to the exploitation of Zimbabwe immediately Cecil Rhodes came to town. They dethroned kings and exiled them, they sacked villages, raped communities, and laid waste towns. They took over their diamond caves and mines, they killed and maimed in the name of stones, and their avariciousness led them to break the bonds of friendship and kill even their own friends who challenged them to the moral values they thought they knew them for. They killed the young and they killed the old alike. Their viciousness was immeasurable. Their barbarism unquantifiable. They were, simply put, terrorists.

These happened in the colonial days era. But it is still happening by proxy in contemporary Africa through fifth columnists who will rather enrich their own selves than have their own country develop. We see this in Congo DR and other West African countries rich in natural resources that the European tech companies depend on for raw materials to build their wares.

Anyways, this is a topic for another day. If Africa should open its arms to vicious Europe to continue to exploit Africa and steal the wealth of its posterity from her, that is Africa’s problem. And we will tackle this issue objectively in our subsequent essay.


ISIS is a terror organization peopled mostly by Muslims of Middle East origin and to a lesser number, their western recruits who they brainwash and indoctrinate to follow the ways of evil. Everybody knows that. ISIS is mostly a Middle East problem because they have already declared their territorial ambitions and their goal of forming an Islamic caliphate carved out of nations in the Middle East. Everybody knows that also.

Now to a significant degree, ISIS has become America’s problem too, because, first, like al-Qaeda, they have the capacity to export terror to the United States, despite President Obama’s preliminary assessment of their resources and capacity to do so when he erroneously equated them to a JV team. Secondly, by killing Americans, ISIS challenged America to action. And ISIS is getting a reaction from the United States of America. Is the reaction proportional? That is up for a debate. Will ISIS be defeated and decimated as Barack promised, without a defined strategy? That is up for debate too. What is not up for debate though is the imprudence of the 14th paragraph of President Obama’s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. on February 5, 2015 wherein he drew a parallel between the contemporary terrorism ISIS is waging on humanity to the terrorism waged by European Christian crusaders in the past.

Continue reading “Is President Obama sympathetic to ISIS?”


The 114th Congress

Washington DC and the political world is agog with punditry after the 2015 State of the Union Address by the President last night. Political pundits call most of his legislative proposals to Congress a political machinations which the president knows will not yield any credible policy dividend, but proposed them he still did so as to push the Republicans further right and give Democrats fodder to paint the Republicans as anti-middle class in the 2016 election.

This could be true. It could also be a wrong analysis. We stand to see which way Republicans will be leaning in days to come.

I am no Democrat. Neither am I a Republican. I am an independent intelligent man who knows that the president’s proposals are commonsensical and if Republicans can take him up on it, at least half the way, can re-position America back to global economic dominance – A unipolar world. We already enjoy military, political, and cultural dominance.

Take this line below from the president’s address for example:

“Twenty-first century businesses need 21st century infrastructure — modern ports, and stronger bridges, faster trains and the fastest Internet.  Democrats and Republicans used to agree on this.  So let’s set our sights higher than a single oil pipeline.  Let’s pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan that could create more than 30 times as many jobs per year, and make this country stronger for decades to come.  Let’s do it.  Let’s get it done.  Let’s get it done.”

Can you pause to imagine the genius of this proposal? Rebuilding America is not a Democratic Party idea. And of course it’s is not an Obama idea. It seems closer to an idea of Republicans of the past. GOD bless their soul. The Rockefellers, the J.P. Morgan Chase’, the Vanderbilts, and the Carnegies. These are men that built America and they were Republicans. In their wisdom, they understood that a country that enjoys modern infrastructural development is a country that enjoys economic prosperity. And they built America. The built the railways. They built the dams. They built up Chicago. And they also built steel plants and refineries all over America. They were geniuses and they were great statesmen. Traits that the present troves of Republicans apparently lack. If only they can relearn our history and model their ways according to the ways of past leaders of the party.

At this age and time when bullet trains and high speed rails is a sine qua non to national development and characterize developed economies in Asia, the most powerful nation on earth should not be found wanting. John Boehner, let us build America once again.




I call on owners of media houses across the world to ensure that acts that violates the morality of mankind, such as the brutal killings of innocent civilians in Nigeria by Boko Haram, receives similar coverage as the coverage the terrorist attacks in France is receiving.

Some have argued that the terrorist attack in France is receiving more media coverage and global outcry because of the symbolism. That the attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attack on freedom of speech, which is a Western core value. To those trumpeting this line of thought, I say: freedom of speech is not a Western core value. It is a universal right of every mankind, an inalienable right given by God.

Meanwhile, even if the terrorist that struck Paris did so to attack Western Values, it is then pertinent for me to point out, for analysis sake, that Boko Haram’s mission, as has been reported in the news, is to stop “Western Way Of Life,” such as girl-child education, as practiced in Nigeria. There you go. Not as if I am endorsing girl-child education as a Western value in itself. It is a universal human value.

We are all humans. We all bleed red. And we are interconnected in some ways.

Covering terrorist attacks in France which claimed 17 lives around the clock while treating similar terrorist attacks in Nigeria which claimed far more lives as afterthought on TV doesn’t augur well for the human race. So is the global outcry and optics by world leaders. It sends signals that some lives are more important than others. And that certain things happening in certain geographical locations is of more concern to the world community than when similar things happen elsewhere. I choose to sound naïve. It is unfair. And it is this perception of unfairness that many a times causes us more harm than intended. Let us be wise in our conducts. And if these barbaric acts of cowardice and hate and intolerance should happen anywhere else in the world, God forbid, let us show the kind of solidarity in acts and deeds towards such, irrespective of the geographical location of where it happened.
Let the debate continue. . .


Call it manifesto, agenda, or ideas, every leader aspiring for a public office have one, which they market to the people, and upon election, hits the ground on Day One to start its implementation for the good of the people. The Republican Party in the 2012 general election perpetuated hate for Obama and making him a one-term president their agenda. That fell flat. However, repealing Obamacare sold for Republicans in the 2014 midterms and handed them Congress. But repealing Obamacare is not an idea. It is simply an act of  trying to undo a necessary but not-so-perfect program which works well for majority of Americans and replace it with………….nothing.

The Republican Party now controls both chambers of Congress. But it requires ideas to lead. Ideas that can put folks back to work. Not just any other job. But good-paying career jobs. Ideas that can shore up the economy and spur the United States to reclaim from China the #1 spot as the world’s largest economy. Ideas that can make college affordable for all Americans that desires to earn a college degree. Ideas that can rebuild and modernize infrastructure across the country. Ideas that acknowledge that our veterans who put their lives on the line in both far and near countries for the freedom we enjoy deserves to have roof over their heads when they return rather than dwell in homelessness. Ideas that will work for all Americans irrespective of political party leanings, ideology, sexual orientation, race, or economic status.

So far it seems like there are dearth of ideas among the Republican Party fold.

It is easier to outline and in your arguments to the electorate on why they should choose you to lead, articulate your ideas to them before being elected to any public office. It makes the work easier for the public official to lead because he already have a manifesto that he campaigned on and which the population gave him/her the mandate to come on down and implement. So on getting to office, he runs with his manifesto. But when there was nothing that you ran on than vilifying the dude doing something, on getting to office, you may waste your first year in office because there is no clue on what is priority for the people and what is not. There will be many interests clawing for your attention. Political party interests. Special interests. Concerns to retain your seat in the next election cycle, and at the bottom of the list, concern for the welfare of the people and country.

Meanwhile, folks do get lost at the onset on how to lead and the direction to lead a country to. Both smart and dumb folks.  But the good news is that smart people who have caught themselves clueless in the middle of the road do manage to recalibrate their steps and position themselves to implement well thought-out policies for the good of the people. And despite being somewhat lost at the onset, they succeeded at creating a legacy for themselves. I honestly hope, for the good of the country, that the GOP will find their way sooner than later.





There is no dearth of data that African-American men and youths are indiscriminately stopped, brutalized, jailed, and many of the times, especially in recent times, killed by the American society and its judicial system. The data abounds. From Amadou Diallo in New York in 1999, Trayvon Martin in Florida in 2012, and just in this 2014, we have Eric Garner in Staten Island: July 17; Michael Brown in Ferguson: August 9; Akai Gurley in Brooklyn: November 20, and Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio in November 22. The list continues.

Call it accidental killing or whatever cliché authorities across America may come up with to euphemize the forceful taking of an innocent life, African-American men and teens are killed like flies all over the country without any form of justice for the dead or consequences for their killers. Everybody knows, from the George Zimmerman trial charade in Florida, the grand jury travesty in Ferguson, and in the word of Fox News panelist Charles Krauthammer, the ‘totally incomprehensible’ grand jury decision in Staten Island, that America is saying unequivocally to the world that the life of an African-American man means shit (forgive my French) to them.

Have you ever watched television and seen some white kid get shot by accident?

Charles J. Johnson, digital news editor at the Chicago Tribune, has detailed his firsthand experience of how the police, during presumed hostile situations alters their rules of engagement, depending on the race of the presumed criminal involved. If the situation involves an African-American man, the default reaction would be to kill him on sight. The very reason officer Timothy Loehmann of the Cleveland Police killed 12-year old Tamir Rice within split seconds of arriving at the scene where the child was playing with his toy gun. Conversely, when the situation involves a white man, the rules changes and the default police training of negotiating a peaceful surrender of the criminal comes to play. And no situation demonstrates this better than the arrest of 31-year old Eric Frein – a white man. Despite killing a state of Pennsylvania trooper and injuring another, and despite being one of the FBI’s 10-most-wanted fugitives, when he (Frein) was reportedly cornered by U.S. Marshalls at his hideout on October 30, 2014, after 48-days of manhunt following his killing of the trooper, he was given a chance to surrender. A known killer. A grown man who has used firearm to kill and was reportedly armed, according to USA Today, at the time of his “surrender.” But a 12-year old child with a toy guy wouldn’t even be spared a 1 minute window to respond to police.

An analysis by ProPublica, a non-profit news company shows that young African-American men are 21 times more likely to be killed by police than young white men. These data are in public domain for all to see. They are irrefutable, they are not subject to argument, political manipulation, or any leap of intellectual faith. They are a national embarrassment, a threat to national cohesion, and renders ludicrous the U.S. international posture on justice anytime injustice is carried out against the citizenry of other nations by their own government.


Annise Parker: The Villian Of Freedom Of Speech

Annise Parker

 By Chinedu Ezeocha for Ezeocha Post
Originally Published on Monday October 20, 2014 at 1:57 AM CT

Annise Parker; the Mayor of Houston is a lesbian. That is the choice she made for herself. We Houstonians love her as both a person and as a politician. And that was why we elected and re-elected her into the hallowed Office of the Mayor of the City of Houston.

Annise Parker is first an American, and then a member of the Democratic Party. Being an American and a politician, I have no doubt in my mind that Mayor Parker is very familiar with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America which prohibits the making of any law or decree or ordinance to abridge the freedom of speech of any U.S. citizen.

I am not an expert in American history. But I know a little more than the average Joe about the past of the United States. And from the little that I know, I can say that dating back to the early 20th Century, the only time an elected official have tried to suppress, through the powers of his or her office, the rights of other citizens to freedom of speech, is during the era of Joe McCarthy. Joe McCarthy was an eccentric senator from Wisconsin who saw almost everyone with opposing ideas to his as a communist or a communist sympathizer who deserves to be treated as enemy of the United States. And Joe McCarthy was a Republican.

Republicans are known for making laws to disenfranchise citizens from their voting rights just because they vote Democratic Party; they are known for thinking that only them have monopoly of wisdom and love for ole America, and of course, Republicans have this weird inkling that if democracy doesn’t work for them, then fuck democracy. Forgive my French. Why else would an elected official in Jefferson County, in the beautiful state of Missouri call for military coup d’état to remove President Obama from power?

Those kind of stuff are what Republicans are known for. It’s atypical of Democrats. Hence my surprise, the surprise of every lettered man, and the surprise of every constitutional law scholar at what Mayor Annise Parker is doing in the City of Houston, trying to be a ‘modern day authoritarian in a democracy,’ by demanding that preachers bring to her sermons they have written to preach in their churches for her approval [first] before they can preach it in their various churches. Because she want to filter anti-LGBT rhetoric [If any] from the sermons the preachers have penned down to preach to their congregation before they can go ahead and preach her approved version.

Continue reading “Annise Parker: The Villian Of Freedom Of Speech”

%d bloggers like this: