THE FIL-AM PERSPECTIVE

Can the Next Pope Revitalize the Catholic Church?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

Who will be the next Pope? 

 

This has been the question many people have been asking after the surprise resignation of Pope Benedict XVI last Monday. 

 

Kababayans from all over the world even went as far as to ask: Could the next leader of the Catholic Church be Filipino? 

 

According to Reuters, Manila Archbishop Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle is among the list of potential candidates. While no official list has been made public yet, Reuters' list reportedly included the 55-year old Tagle, who has been reportedly compared to the late Pope John Paul II, in terms of leadership style.

 

The announcement of the Pope’s resignation (effective February 28) has fueled a lot of discussions about the present state of the Catholic Church and speculations about the organized religion’s future. 

 

A Pope's resignation has not happened in the last 600 years, prompting many people to ask: Why now, when the Church is facing a lot of challenges? When it is desperately trying to fulfill its mission, in a world that has increasingly become more secular?

 

The Vatican’s official statement about the Pope’s resignation, however, seemed to show that the Pope’s decision supports the greater mission of the Church. 

The 86-year-old Pontiff resigned due to lack of physical strength and his frail health -- impediments for him  to effectively lead 1.2 billion Catholics in this time of turmoil.

 

Though saddened by the news, faithful followers have accepted and respected the Pope’s decision. They praised him for his humility and courage in making that decision. They say that this proves that the Pope believes the papacy is bigger than him, and that he will not allow himself to get in the way of the Catholic Church’s fulfillment of its mission -- proclaiming the Good News about Jesus Christ’s salvation of mankind, and helping people around the world be saved through the Catholic Church.

 

The Pope has been accused of covering up sexual abuse of children by priests, when he was still Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger. 

 

Critics -- especially victims of alleged sexual abuse by Catholic priests -- said that while Pope Benedict XVI may have sounded and appeared compassionate about their plight, he has not really done anything about the situation. 

 

Now, his detractors challenge him to do the right thing: open the records of the Church and expose the names of the clergymen, who have been accused of sex abuse. They ask him to turn these records over to secular law enforcement agencies and let the State (not the Church) put them on trial and make them pay for the consequences of their actions, as secular people are asked to do. 

 

This, they say is in line with the kind of justice, fairness and true compassion they expect from the Catholic Church.

 

With Pope Benedict's resignation, the Catholic Church faces a crossroad in its 2,000-year-old history. Many people wonder if this impending change in leadership will bring about reforms that many followers have been clamoring for. 

 

Will the still-to-be-named successor help the Catholic Church connect with the changing world, or will he carry on Pope Benedict XVI’s conservative and uncompromising position on social and theological issues?

 

Will he allow women to be ordained as priests? 

 

Will he heed the call to allow priests to be married and have a family? 

 

Will he bless the union of gay people in the holy sacrament of matrimony? 

 

Will he allow the use of birth control methods (other than abstinence and the calendar method)? 

 

Will he endorse the theory of evolution? 

 

Will he support embryonic stem cell research? 

 

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Pope Benedict XVI is expected to go into isolation after his resignation, so as not to influence the decision of the cardinals, as they elect a successor in a secret conclave. 

 

Lombardi said the new leader of the Roman Catholic Church could be elected as soon as Palm Sunday (March 24) and be ready to take over by Easter (March 31).

 

Who do you think will be the new Pope? Do you think Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle has a chance to become the first Filipino Pope? 

 

If you can have a say in the election process, what attributes do you want the new pontiff to have? How can he stop disillusioned and disappointed Catholics from leaving the flock?  How do you think can the new Pope revitalize the Catholic Church?

(My Asian Journal Column article)

Readers’ Feedback: Prison Term for Offending Religious Feelings

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

(From Asian Journal)

Carlos Celdran was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of "offending religious feelings," under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. 

 

This stemmed from a complaint filed against him by the Catholic Church  when he staged a protest inside the Manila Cathedral while an ecumenical service (not a mass, as reported by some) was being held.  

 

Dressed like Jose Rizal, he carried a sign that read “Damaso” and shouted that the Church should stop meddling in Philippine politics. This happened during the heat of the debate on the Reproductive Health Bill.

 

According to the Revised Penal Code: “Art. 133. Offending religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

 

Celdran said he would  appeal his case, arguing that the court’s decision was in violation of his freedom of speech, which is protected by the 1987 Philippine Constitution. 

 

His supporters likewise said they will file for a petition to free Celdran because he only exercised his right, invoking Section 4 of the Bill Rights: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

 

They will also start a petition for Congress to repeal Article 133, which they say is in violation of the separation of Church and State, invoking Section 5 of the Bill of Rights: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

 

President Noynoy Aquino expressed sympathy for Celdran and said he hopes the Philippine Catholic priests will emulate the Pope and forgive Celdran, who has already apologized for what he did.

 

Should a person be imprisoned for “offending religious feelings?"

 

Here are some of comments from our readers:

 

"Our constitution is the most powerful law in our country. No Revised Penal Code can nullify its powers." - Critical Thinking Filipinos

 

"Tama lang ginawa sa kanya, labag na sa batas at pambabastos pa sa simbahan! Freedom of Speech -- doon sya sa labas ng simbahan magsisigaw! Pa-epal sya, kita naman sa actions niya sa camera. He deserves it." - Jun Cj Nofies

 

"If you changed the names involved, it would sound like you're talking about Middle Eastern countries. This shouldn't happen in any free and un-oppressed country." -- Dr. Edmond Yabut

 

"Why did he have to offend the Catholic Church in the first place, when our religion in the Philippines is really Catholicism? In the Middle East, there is so much respect for Islam, it is just right to have respect for Catholic faith in the Philippines though there are already some other new religions but still, the Catholic religion dominates the Philippines." - Anna Simpatica Rodriguez Villanueva

 

"If there is truly the notion of freedom of speech, as well as separation of church and state embodied in the Constitution, then the law in question is probably incompatible. Irresponsible though this person may be, any legal sanction against him should be solely on the basis of trespassing or disturbing the peace, if he refused to leave when asked to." - Karl W. Braun

 

"Freedom of speech should not be an act of degradation of one person, a group or an institution... freedom itself has boundaries." - Clinton Rey Mirabel

 

"Article 133 clearly violates Sec. 5 and should be declared as unconstitutional. What if a group of people don't believe in any religion? They would be left unprotected and exposed to offensive ridicule since they don't have any "place devoted to religious worship," or do any kind of "celebration of any religious ceremony!" That violates the Establishment Clause of Sec. 5 as the Phil. gov't would be favoring those with religions over the ones with none." - “Reply”

 

"If the Catholic Church can stomach and even defend the presence of sexual predators within its ranks, it should certainly be able to forgive and tolerate the occasional activist among its flock." - Tiny Defensor

 

"I think that CBCP already forgave [Celdran] but he must face the consequence[s] because he not simply offended religious feelings of people but also God, who is truly present in the tabernacle in the Manila Cathedral." - Inaqz Garz

"Mali eh, sana nilagay nya sa lugar ang protesta nya. Hindi yung ang [lumalabas] ay parang gumgawa lang sya ng eksena para mapag-usapan. Nothing is wrong with self-expression, as long as it is done with taste and a little bit of sensitivity. Nagplanking na lang sana sya sa EDSA." - Ray John

 

"OMG people,  what happend to forgiving and having mercy?  Isn’t that written in the Bible?"- Jonathan Jason Fabiala

 

"Sa Islam nga binibitay pa eh. Ganon lang yun. Kung puro kalayaan mo na lang ang gusto mong ipangalandakan sa mundo, maaari sanang makiramdam ka rin na hindi lang ikaw ang tao sa mundo. Matuto kang makisama sa [mga] taong nasa paligid mo at sa karamihan." - Paolo Delos Angeles

 

"Did Article 133 prevent religious strife in Mindanao? No, because in practice, the Phil. gov't. favors one over the other. That never happens in the US as they practice Sec. 5 to the letter; no need for an Article 133. The Philippines may have Sec. 5 and even an Article 133 to the pot, but in practice favors one over the other that's why there is rebellion in the Mindanao."- R.

 

"Article 133 is sound. It protects the right of people to practice their religion in peace. Section 5 of the constitution does not give favor to any particular religious establishment, it just says that anyone is free to practice whatever religion and the law protects everyone's right to do so. Nullifying Article 133 would allow the non-religious or even opposing religions to disrespect each other even at their own houses of worship. Many, including myself, admire what he did. But he will lose any respect he has earned by not facing the consequences of his actions." - John Galang

Prison Term for “Offending Religious Feelings” ?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

Could and should a person be imprisoned for “offending religious feelings?” In the Philippines, it is possible. That is exactly what the judge ruled in a case filed by Monsignor Nestor Cerbo of the Manila Cathedral (Catholic Church vs Carlos Celdran) over Celdran's violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. 

 

On September 30, 2010, Carlos Celdran staged a protest against the Catholic Church for blocking the passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. He went to the Manila Cathedral dressed as Filipino national hero, Jose Rizal. Inside the cathedral and during an ecumenical service (not MASS but a meeting inside the church), Celdran shouted that the church should stop meddling in government affairs while holding a sign which read: “Damaso.”

 

The sign referred to “Padre Damaso,” the contravida priest in Dr. Jose Rizal’s novel, “Noli Me Tangere.”This anticlerical novel was written by the national hero to expose the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church friars and the Spanish elite during the Spanish era in 19th century colonial Philippines. 

 

In his ruling, Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4 Judge Juan Bermejo Jr. stated: 

“Wherefore, premises considered, accused Carlos Celdran is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Offending Religious Feelings under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of two months and 21 days as minimum to one year, one month and 11 days…” 

 

Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code stipulates:

“Art. 133. Offending religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

 

As soon as this ruling came out, a fiery debate ensued among kababayans in the Philippines.

 

Many question the constitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, arguing that it directly violates Sections 4 and 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states:

 

“Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

 

As these provisions in the Philippine Constitution were patterned after the US Constitution, it is important to understand the spirit and intent of the law, as expressed by Thomas Jefferson:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

 

This would point to the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the same prohibition found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” This is followed by “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” -- known as the “Free Exercise Clause.” 

 

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted by legal experts to prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or the preference by the US government of one religion over another, notwithstanding the right to exercise religion or no religion at all.

 

People ask:  Isn't it therefore a violation of the Constitution to suppress the right to free speech (Section 4 Bill of Rights)  because of Article 133 which could arguably be in violation of  another provision of the Constitution (Section 5, Bill of Rights)  which mandates that "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion"?

 

Kababayans who oppose the judge’s ruling also argue against the use of the clause “acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” Who defines and who decides what is “notoriously offensive”? 

 

Others also wonder if people from other religion (even atheists) enjoy the same protection under the law. And what about the secular groups or people? Can they also file a case against the Catholic Church, if they feel that their feelings are being offended by the religious institution? 

 

Is there a counterpart of the law for the non-religious? If none, then, isn’t this a clear violation of the clause, “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,” in the Philippine Constitution?

 

Those critical of the Catholic Church contend that priests who sexually abuse minors should be the ones sent to prison, as such transgression is a far graver criminal offense than protesting inside the cathedral. They point out that the act of protest is protected by the “Freedom of Speech” clause of the Bill of Rights. 

 

ON THE OTHER HAND, kababayans who support the complaint of the Catholic Church argue that no right is absolute -- that people should exercise their rights responsibly. They contend that the law just makes sure that exercising one’s right does not cross the line and offend other people -- in this case, the religious feelings of Catholics.

 

They say Celdran could exercise his “freedom of speech,” but he should have chosen a better venue. Staging his protest IN the cathedral (which is a place of worship for Catholics) is a clear violation of Article 133.

 

Celdran said he would appeal against the court’s decision, arguing that this uncommonly-used law is a threat to freedom of speech. 

 

“I am calm but I am going to fight this till the end,” Celdran posted on Twitter. And this legal battle may go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

 

Legal experts say unless the Supreme Court rules that Article 133 is unconstitutional, then Celdran will have to face the consequences of his action pursuant to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

 

After listening to both sides of the argument, what is your opinion? Do you think Carlos Celdran SHOULD go to prison for "offending religious feelings?"

 

 

 

New immigration ruling on provisional waivers for TnTs: Beware of scams!

By Gel Santos Relos

 

AFTER the announcement of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Nepolitano on a new ruling, which will give immediate family members of US citizens unlawfully staying in the United States provisional waivers so they can continue to live in the US while awaiting their green card, we have seen spikes of advertisements in both traditional and online media that promise to expedite green cards for TnTs.

 

These ads capitalize on the impression that the new ruling is a “backdoor amnesty,” and that it covers ALL undocumented spouse, children, or parents of American citizens.

Before you become victims of some unscrupulous vultures, who will jump at any opportunity to capitalize on peoples’ desperation to avoid deportation, please read on.

 

I interviewed Balitang America’s “Pinoy Panawagan” segment legal counsel Atty. Lou Tancinco on this, and she explained the fine details of this new ruling.

 

First of all, Atty. Tancinco clarified that this ruling is NOT amnesty, is NOT applicable to all TnT spouse, children or parents, nor does it enable the qualified TnTs to cut the line and be ahead of other immigration applicants who followed the rules. They need to have an APPROVED PETITION before they can even apply for the provisional waivers. They will not even be able get any work permit or advance parole may be applied for, while the provisional waiver is pending.

 

Looking at the bigger perspective, Atty. Tancinco said that even before this ruling (which is set to take effect on March 4) there have already been “traditional waivers” available to some immediate family members of US citizens and even lawful permanent residents, who may have some issues in the processing of their petition for immigration-based family relations.

 

How then is the new ruling different from the traditional waiver? Who are really covered and what are the limits to the benefits they will presumably enjoy as a result of this new ruling?

 

Atty. Tancinco sent me this scenario via email to explain the difference so our kababayans may understand the fine prints of this new ruling:

 

“JOSEPINE entered the United States through the US-Canada border. She did not have a valid US visa and took her chances of hitching a ride with family friends to cross the border from Vancouver. Upon her arrival in 2005, she engaged in unauthorized employment. She met her US citizen spouse at work and a petition was filed on her behalf.

The petition was approved but Josephine was told to leave the country to get her visa at the US Embassy in Manila. Josephine refused to leave because she was not sure whether she could return to the United States after departing. She has two US citizen minor children and one of them has a disability. Will Josephine benefit from the new provisional waiver? How different is this provisional waiver from the traditional waiver?

To distinguish the traditional waiver from the provisional waiver, the new rules now allows the applicant who is undergoing consular processing to file the waiver within the United States even prior to departure to get the immigrant visa in a US Embassy abroad. This helps foster family unity while the waiver process is pending.

Generally, an applicant for immigrant visa may obtain the visa either through (1) adjustment of status or (2) consular processing at the US Embassy abroad. Those who are in the United States and entered with inspection or were admitted, even if they are currently out of status,  MAY apply for their visas within the United States through the adjustment of status process.

On the other hand, those who are residing in the United States but were NOT admitted (like when they illegally crossed the borders or seamen who jumped ship), or fall under the category of those who are NOT eligible to adjust (like those who enetered the US with a fiance visa but ended up not marrying this fiance who filed the petition),  must obtain their visas at a US Embassy abroad, through consular processing.

Those who have no immigration violations or have not overstayed in the United States will not encounter the usual delay in obtaining the visa abroad if the immigrant visa is available. The problem arises for those who have incurred “unlawful presence” of more than 6-months and are required to do consular processing.

For the latter, who are required to depart to get their visas abroad, the process is usually terrifying because of the uncertainty of their ability to return, as well as the long period of separation from family for many months, if not years. This fear is alleviated by the ability of these individuals to file for a stateside or provisional waiver. This is DIFFERENT from the traditional waiver process.

In the traditional waiver processing application, the individual may either be the spouse, parent, child (adult or minor) of a US citizen, or a lawful permanent resident. A petition for relative is filed and the visa is available except that there are reasons for the denial of the visa. These reasons are referred to as “grounds for inadmissibility.”

Examples of such grounds (1) fraud and misrepresentation; (2) certain criminal offenses; (3) health-related grounds; (4) smugglers; (5) previous removal order and (6) 3-10 year bar. All these reasons for denial may be overcome by filing the I-601.

If this waiver is granted, the immigrant visa will be issued. The traditional waiver is filed within the United States for adjustment of status. For those consular processing, the individual applicant may only file the waiver after the interview with the consular officer when he is required to file the waiver before the immigrant visa is issued. With the provisional waiver, this waiver may now be filed within the United States prior to departing and applying for the visa abroad.

Unlike the traditional waiver, the new provisional waiver only applies to immediate relatives of US citizens. Immediate relatives of lawful permanent residents are NOT covered by this new rule. In addition, it is important to note that the NOT ALL the grounds of inadmissibility will be included in the provisional waiver. Only the “unlawful presence” or the 3-10 year bars will be waived. Also, there is no appeal to the denial of the provisional waiver application unlike the traditional waiver.

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services also made it clear in the published rules that no employment authorization or advance parole may be applied for while the provisional waiver is pending. The standards set for determining extreme hardship to US citizen spouse or parents will be the same for both provisional and traditional waivers.” Read more: How does USCIS define "hardship"?

 

GOING BACK to the case illustrated earlier, Atty. Tancinco said “since Josephine is not eligible to adjust, she may take advantage of the provisional waiver when the rules take effect on March 4, 2013. If the waiver is approved and that no other grounds for inadmissibility exists, her departure to the US Embassy in Manila to get her visa will assure her return within a reasonable time.”

 

Atty. Lou Tancinco reminded us that while the final rules on Provisional/Stateside Waivers released last week might have excited thousands of family members waiting for an opportunity to legalize, we need to be cognizant of this ruling’s limited applicability.

 

Please be guided by this information. Huwag magpapaloko. Kindly share this with family and friends who may benefit from this.

 

(My Asian Journal column article for January 16, 2013)

PHOTO CREDIT: The Blaze

Extreme Hardship Waiver: Good News for Fil-Am Families with TnTs

By Gel Santos Relos

 

THE start of new year has brought forth a new reason for kababayans to look forward to 2013 with a renewed sense of optimism in their seemingly elusive dream of being able to live with their family in America without fear of being prosecuted and deported.

 

On January 2, the Obama administration announced a new immigration rule that would shorten the time for undocumented immigrants to endure being separated from family members, who are already US citizens.

 

Beginning March 4, qualified undocumented immigrants who are immediate relatives of US citizens may already apply for the “extreme hardship”  waiver. To be granted this waiver, they  have to prove that their family in America would experience extreme hardship if they could not return to the United States from their country of origin.

 

This new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ruling will benefit about a million of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, who are spouses, children or parents of US citizens. This waiver will allow them to stay in the United States, while waiting for permanent residency status.

 

When their petition for “extreme hardship” is approved, they will still have to go back to their country of origin -- but only for them to pick up their visa, and then come back to the United States.

 

Under the old rule, those who have overstayed in the US will have to wait for at least 10 years, because of the “ten-year ban” immigration policy, before they could be considered for the privilege of setting foot in the United States again.

 

This new ruling will cut the waiting time and help families of US citizens be reunited faster.

 

How is “extreme hardship” defined? Who qualifies for this waiver?

 

According to the website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), there are identifying broad factors that have been cited in existing precedent decisions as relevant to the evaluation of whether deportation would result in extreme hardship to the alien or to his or her qualified relative. These factors are:

 

1. the age of the alien, both at the time of entry to the United States and at the time of application for suspension of deportation;

2. the age, number, and immigration status of the alien’s children an d their ability to speak the native language and adjust to life in another country;

3. the health condition of the alien or the alien’s child, spouse, or parent and the availability of any required medical treatment in the country to which the alien would be returned;

4.  the alien’s ability to obtain employment in the country to which the alien would be returned;

5.  the length of residence in the United States;

6.  the existence of other family members who will be legally residing in the United States;

7.  the financial impact of the alien’s departure;

8.  the impact of a disruption of educational opportunities;

9.  the psychological impact of the alien’s deportation or removal;

10 .the current political and economic conditions in the country to which the alien would be returned;

11. family and other ties to the country to which the alien would be returned;

12. contributions to and ties to a community in the United States, including the degree of integration into society;

13. immigration history, including authorized residence in the United States; and

14. the availability of other means of adjusting to permanent resident status.

 

USCIS further noted that ultimately, “extreme hardship” must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis after a review of all the circumstances in the case, and none of the listed factors alone, or taken together, automatically establishes a claim of extreme hardship. Nor is the list exhaustive, as there may be other factors relevant to the issue of extreme hardship in a particular case.

 

And with respect to this new ruling, the government may come up with even more specific guidelines.

 

Already, kababayans and other immigrants who followed the rules and waited in line for a long time are questioning and opposing this new policy. They call this “backdoor amnesty” and contend that this is grossly unfair for law-abiding citizens and their families.

 

On the other hand, supporters of this policy explained that “it’s a way to streamline the extreme hardship process, in the best interest of families. The government accepted the extreme hardship cases of about 70 percent of applicants last year. But this would make the process actually work, turning an ordeal that lasts months or years into one that lasts days or weeks.”

 

Many, even among our own kababayans, took the risk of coming to the United States as tourists, and then stayed in the country even beyond the time period stipulated in their I-94. Some of these TnTs have pending petitions but could not wait for a long time away from their families.

 

Others enter the United States from the borders, without any legal documents that give them the privilege to be in the country even as visitors. Some are crew men or seamen who jumped ship.

 

They became out of status -- living in America without any legal “papel.” Many were able to work “under the table,” without work authorization. Others came in as single, and then found love in the process.

 

Whatever the circumstance, these undocumented immigrants have been living in fear or isolation for a long time.

 

They opted for “kapit sa patalim,” -- risking everything just to be with their family in the United States. This is especially true for fathers or mothers with young children. Each year away meant one year of missing out on raising their own kids.

 

This would also explain the decision of many undocumented children, who chose to take the risk of staying here in the United States just to take care of their old and ailing US citizen parents.

 

This would also be true for the lolos and lolas who have overstayed and have become TnTs, because they could not bear not helping take care of their apos while their children work hard for a living in this tough economic times.

 

If you think you or your loved ones qualify, it is best to seek the counsel of your trusted immigration attorney.

 

Happy New Year!

 

(My Asian Journal Column)

 

Bakit Natalo si Pacquiao? : The intersection of religion, politics and metaphysics

By Gel Santos Relos

 

If there is anyone who still has doubts about the powerful influence of our Pambansang Kamao Manny Pacquiao, particularly among Filipinos in every corner of the world, then the fourth bout between the Pacman and Mexican Juan Manuel Marquez must have already knocked that out for good.

 

After Pacquiao was knocked out by Marquez in the sixth round, we found our iconic boxing hero unconscious and motionless -- his face facing the floor. The Pacman lost, and so was the morale of many Filipinos. Trying to make sense of this painful defeat, kababayans from all over the world bantered endlessly for days, and there we find the testament to how Manny Pacquiao has that power to make religion, politics, and metaphysics collide!

 

Exhibit A: Metaphysics and the cosmic energy

 

Fil-Am Republicans find this absurd and crazy: some people blame the Pacman’s loss to Mitt Romney. And this theory has been talked about even in US mainstream media.

 

Mitt Romney was reported to have sat in the front row at the MGM Grand Garden to watch the bout along with his wife, Ann. Just two hours before Pacquiao walked to the ring to fight Marquez, Romney reportedly went to Pacquiao's dressing room, extended his hand to Pacquiao and said, "Hi Manny. I ran for president and lost."

 

Some Filipinos theorized that Romney must have rubbed off his bad karma to Pacquiao through that handshake. Moreover, the words Romney uttered to Pacquiao was said to have echoed vibrations of defeat, pulling down the Pacman’s winning energy.

 

As staunch Obama supporter and Fil-Am community leader Rodel Rodis wrote, “If Romney visits you before a fight and reminds you he lost the elections, is that pep talk from him going to inspire you to win?”

 

Exhibit B: Politics and sports? 'Tubig at langis'

 

Many kababayans (especially those who do not believe in Manny Pacquiao’s qualification and mettle to hold any position in government) present this recent loss, as evidence that boxing and politics do not mix.

 

They argue that Manny has become the greatest boxer of his time, because he was focused on his being a sportsman. He dedicated all his time and energy in training for his fight.

 

When he entered politics, many Filipinos said our Pambansang Kamao has lost his edge as a boxer. They also said he has also proven his detractors right- that he would be a mediocre, if not bad, elected Congressman of Sarangani. 

 

They contended that the Pacman has notoriously earned the dishonor of being one of the Members of the House of Representatives with the most number of absences. Moreover, he reportedly did not have any bills yet enacted into law that would help the people of Sarangani.

 

These Filipinos say Manny Pacquiao has to choose -- be a boxer or a politician. Even his own mother, Aling Dionisia, said after the fight: “Kung ako magdedesisyon, gusto ko magpahinga na si Manny, relax na lang siya. Politician ang anak ko, doon na lang siya magserbisyo.

 

Exhibit C : No separation between religion and sports

 

It is more fun in the Philippines, we all say. Everything is just interconnected. We cannot even separate religion from politics. What makes us think we can remove religion from sports? Not even Manny’s equally famous mother Nanay Dionisia thinks so.

 

Aling Dionisia (fondly called Mommy D) blames her son’s change of religion for his loss. Pacquiao is no longer a Catolico cerrado, and is now a Born-again Christian. 

 

After Manny’s two successive losses, feisty Mommy D passionately said in an interview with DZMM: “Gusto ko wag niyang iwanan ang sign of the cross kasi yan ang nakayaman sa kanya noon, ang dami ng panalo niya.” 

 

 
Manny used to wear his rosary when he enters the ring, makes the sign of the cross, kisses the crucific before taking it off just before Round 1 in every fight before he became a Born-again Christian. 

 

"Nalungkutan ko lang parang kulang ensayo ng anak ko, pirmi busy reading Bible sa bahay. Kulang ang ensayo niya, bising-busy talaga siya....Kailangan face-to-face ang ibigay sa Diyos na galing ng puso, na totoong-totoo na walang kapalit ang pagdasal natin," the mother lamented.

 

"Gusto kong ibalik niya ang dati niya. Tutal ang Catholic naman, wala naman naghihingi ng araw-araw magsimba, isang oras lang hiningi ng Diyos," added Mommy Dionisia. (Watch Mommy Dionisia unleash her sentiment about Manny's leaving the Catholic faith:)

 

AT ANO ANG SABI NI MANNY?

How Manny’s greatness as a sportsman shines even in his loss

 

After Marquez was declared the winner, Manny Pacquiao was reported to be the first Filipino in the MGM arena to smile. He reached out to Marquez and congratulated him. 

 

The Pacman also offered no excuses for his defeat, other than his self-deprecating statement that he must have been overconfident, that was why he lost.  

 

Indeed, our Pambansang Kamao, Manny Pacquiao, has once again showed us why he is the greatest boxer of his time. He has demonstrated how he can be gracious in defeat, as much as in victory. 

 

While the KO loss of Pacquiao to Marquez may have dampened the morale of many Filipinos, let us look at the big picture and remember all the honor he has earned and offered to the Philippines. As Wikipedia summarized: He is the first eight-division world champion in which he has won ten world titles, as well as the first to win the lineal championship in four different weight classes.

 

He has been named “Fighter of the Decade” for the 2000s (decade) by the Boxing Writers Association of America (BWAA), World Boxing Council (WBC) and World Boxing Organization (WBO). 

 

Manny Pacquiao is also a three-time The Ring and BWAA “Fighter of the Year,” winning the award in 2006, 2008 and 2009, and the Best Fighter ESPY Award  in 2009 and 2011. He has also long been rated as the “best pound-for-pound boxer” in the world  by some sporting news and boxing websites.

 

Amid all speculations and disappointments, Pacquiao issued the following statement: “First and foremost I would like to thank God for keeping Juan Manuel Márquez and me safe during our fight on Saturday night. I want to congratulate Juan Manuel. I have no excuses. It was a good fight and he deserved the victory. I think boxing fans, who watched us, were winners too."

 

“To all my fans, I would like to thank you for your prayers and assure you that I am fine. I am looking forward to a nice rest and then I will be back to fight. On behalf of Jinkee and our family we would like to wish everyone a joyous Christmas and a happy and healthy new year,” Pacquiao further said.

 

 

 

 

 

Do You Agree Christmas Displays Like the BELEN Should be Banned in Public Places?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

ONE of the rituals many Fil-Am families enjoy doing during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend is putting up a Christmas tree and decorations, for that early Christmas feeling.

 

Our friends and family, business establishments, public parks and places back home in the Philippines do that even earlier – some even as early as September (the start of the “Ber” months). The Christmas holidays, after all, is longer and more fun in the Philippines!

 

That is why we try to capture the same spirit here in America, and are happy to participate in Simbang Gabi andPaskong Pilipino gatherings. We also love going to places that feature our favorite Christian displays, like theBelen, which showcases the nativity scene. For Christians, images like this put “Christ” back in the Christmas celebration.

 

But this is also precisely the reason why this  Belen (a life-sized, 14-booth Nativity display of Holy Family -- Baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph -- the three kings, shepherds, and angels) has no room in a Santa Monica park in the Los Angeles area. It created quite a stir in the Christian community, including Filipinos.

 

US District Judge Audrey B. Collins rejected a motion from the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee to allow the religious display this season, while their lawsuit plays out against the city.

 

Christians said this decision effectively ends a 60-year Nativity tradition, “after atheists stole the show with anti-God messages.”

 

They were dismayed that the city decided to ban it rather than do measures to referee this messy religious dispute that began three years ago, when atheists first set up their anti-God message alongside the Christmas diorama.

 

As Balitang America reported, Collins explained the rationale of her decision: “the city was within its constitutional right to eliminate the exemption that had allowed the Nativity at the oceanfront Palisades Park because the change affected all comers — from Christians, to Jews, to atheists — and provided other avenues for public religious speech.”

 

Judge Collins pointed out that the decision was not meant to squash religious speech, but because “they were becoming a drain on city resources, destroying the turf and obstructing ocean views.”

 

Note that in America, public places like public parks are maintained and funded by taxpayers' money. Taxpayers include people of all faith, even those who do not have faith in any God, like the atheists.

 

The Associated Press reported that the issue in Santa Monica between Christians and Atheists began in 2009, when atheist Damon Vix applied for and was granted a booth in Palisades Park, alongside the story of Jesus Christ’s birth.

 

Vix reportedly hung a simple sign that quoted Thomas Jefferson: “Religions are all alike — founded on fables and mythologies.” The other side of that sign read, “Happy Solstice.” He repeated the display in 2010 but then upped the stakes significantly.

 

Furthermore in 2011, Vix recruited 10 others “to inundate the city with applications for tongue-in-cheek displays, such as an homage to the ‘Pastafarian religion’, which included an artistic representation of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

This secular coalition won 18 of 21 spaces. Two others went to the traditional Christmas displays and one to a Hanukkah display.

 

The atheists used half of their spaces to display signs that are offensive to Christians, such as one that showed pictures of Poseidon, Jesus, Santa Claus and the devil, saying: “37 million Americans know myths when they see them. What myths do you see?”

 

Most of the signs were vandalized, and with the uproar that followed,  the city effectively ended a tradition that began in 1953 and which earned Santa Monica one of its nicknames: the “City of the Christmas Story.”

 

Atheist Vix said while he was pleased with Monday’s ruling, he was also saddened by the anger being directed against atheists, since he hung his first anti-God sign in 2009.

 

“So many people don’t understand atheists,” Vix lamented. “If you read the signs we put up, one said, ‘Love is all around you.’ That’s really a better understanding of who most atheists are.”

 

William Becker, the attorney for the Christian group, compared the city of Santa Monica to Pontius Pilate -- the Roman official who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus.

 

“The atheists won and they will always win, unless we get courts to understand how the game is played and this is a game that was played very successfully and they knew it.”

 

The Associated Press reported further that Becker said he expects the case will be dismissed at a hearing on Dec. 3, based on Monday’s proceedings and plans to appeal.

 

We asked our viewers via our daily online poll Isyu Ngayon on Balitang America if they agree with the judges’ decision to ban this “Belen” in Santa Monica. An overwhelming majority -- 95 percent of our respondents disagreed on grounds of religious freedom and the need to respect each other’s religious beliefs and religious practices.

 

On the other hand, five percent argued on upholding the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of  the US Constitution, which rules that there should be a separation between church and state.

 

While it can be debatable how this "Establishment Clause" contradicts the “Freedom of Religion” also guaranteed by the Constitution, this clause is interpreted to rule that government should be neutral with regard to religion -- that government should remain neutral, neither favoring nor disfavoring any religion or even those who do not believe in nor practice any religion.

 

What do you think? Do you agree with the judge’s decision to ban the Belen display in a public park?

 

(My Asian Journal Column Article November 24, 2012)

Fil-Ams Moving Beyond Election Blues and Divisiveness

By Gel Santos Relos

 

Many Americans, including Fil-Ams, heavily invested in the recently concluded US Presidential elections. Some contributed cash for their candidates, others volunteered to help in their campaigns, and many were passionately engaged in the presidential debates, to persuade others to vote for the candidate which they thought was the better choice to lead this country. 

 

On November 6, the American people made their choice. President Barack Obama has been re-elected through gaining the required absolute majority of electoral votes and the absolute majority of the popular votes. 

 

Some kababayans in the United States and from the Philippines (who were rooting for an Obama re-election) were wondering why there were Fil-Ams who supported Gov. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party. After all, they would say, the Democratic Party has positioned itself as the party that looks after the needs and interests of the immigrant communities and of the disadvantaged sectors of society.

 

Some speculated that Fil-Ams who voted for Romney did so because of colonial mentality and racial discrimination, alleging that Republican-leaning Fil-Ams have a low regard for persons of color, (especially black people) thanks to more than three hundred years of western colonization and mental conditioning, that “white is beautiful.” 

 

They said that Republican-leaning Fil-Ams could not fathom the idea that a man like Barack Obama can be elected, and even be re-elected, as President of the United States. 

 

While there may be kababayans who consciously or subconsciously think this way, I believe this is a hasty generalization of how Republican Fil-Ams made their choice. The truth is, many Fil-Am Republicans seriously weighed in on issues.

 

This good family Fil-Am friend of mine from the South voted for Romney because as a self-employed doctor, he believes Obamacare does not help his practice at all. He also worries about how it will affect the capacity of small businesses to keep full-time employees. 

 

This doctor is married to a Fil-Am accountant who has been trained to make ends meet and balance their family's finances. She has struggled with the Democrats' philosophy of spending beyond the country's means and subscribes to the Republicans' conservative fiscal principles as the way to save the country from falling off the fiscal cliff.

 

This doctor-accountant Fil-Am couple choose to be Republican because of the issues and not because they are discriminating against President Obama's skin color. In fact, their  daughter is married to an African-American and they respect, love and  get along very well with their son-in-law.

 

Another Fil-Am from the West Coast supports the Republican Party because of the long wait his family has been enduring, to be reunited with other family members that they petitioned for, based on US immigration laws. 

 

They have paid all the required fees and did all the necessary filing, but are still waiting for their priority dates to become current. Many kababayans, like him, believe the US government should be strict in implementing immigration laws, especially during these tough economic times. 

 

They do not agree that scarce jobs and limited resources should be shared with the undocumented, at the expense of those who comply with immigration rules and pay their taxes.

 

There is another long-time Republican Fil-Am who believes that the Republican party stands for her own religious values and moral principles. She was raised Catholic in the Philippines and disagrees with the Democrats'  pro-choice position on abortion and the use of artificial contraceptives. 

 

She also says she respects gay people. What she opposes, though, is the sexual act between people of the same sex. She affirms that she does not discriminate against them, in fact she has a son who is gay.

 

And these are but a few examples. There are many more Fil-Ams with their own  process of discernemnt in making their choice. This is something they take seriously and conscientiously.

 

Conversely, it is also unfair to characterize Fil-Ams who voted for President Barack Obama as mendicants, lazy, non-religious and dependent on government. In fact, many of them are highly educated, gainfully employed and hardworking. 

 

Most of them are also Catholic Christians, who believe the Democratic Party embodies social justice and Jesus Christ's teaching on “love for others." 

 

This is why many criticized Romney’s statement, that President Obama won because he gave “gifts” to targeted voter groups:ethnic minorities, women, youth, etc. 

 

They say this unfairly mischaracterizes them, as much as Romney's previous statement that “47 percent of Americans -- those who are dependent on government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it -- will vote for Obama no matter what.”

 

They asserted that they voted for Obama because they believe that his policies and leadership are what the country needs to move forward.

 

Here are some of the comments of our kababayans who voted for Obama, responding to Romney's statement:

 

"Romney was promising lots of 'gifts' too, for the very, very rich. Problem is, he didn't win. He lost, fair and square, and with very little grace. Defeat shows a man's true character". - Tammy Monsod

 

"Romney's loss is attributable to a combination of forces, but mainly because of his untrustworthiness (changing his position on countless important issues), a deemed major character flaw (remember his '47 percent' comment). He double talked his way through the campaign. Shutting up at this time instead of trashing the voters will do him and his, seemingly out of touch, party good." - Oj Jorge

 

"We got no gifts, other than we already have our innate gifts of talents, time and limited retired incomes that we maximized, synergized and let out in full bloom to vote and re-elect President Obama. Why? No self-respecting woman would vote for a presidential candidate who does not know what he stands for, who panders to any base, who flip-flops, and who demeans women..." - Prosy Delacruz

 

"It might be true, Pres Obama supported same-sex marriage and promised immigration reform before the elections and Hispanics thought he owes them his victory! But although [these] might be true, [they are] part of a political strategy of changing [the] face of America brought by open immigration that Republicans must realize. Obama won and he is our President...we need to support him for the sake of this country." - MariFren Ranile

 

The aforementioned misconceptions  and statements from both sides of the political fence against one another may be indicative of the divide among our kababayans here in America, enflamed by heated passion for the recent political season. But the election is over. Our divided past need not affect our future, as members of the Fil-Am community.

 

The recent conciliatory tone of the leaders in Washington -- both Republicans and Democrats -- should, hopefully, motivate us to go past our differences, and focus more on what we share in common.

 

Regardless of whom we voted for, we are all Americans and we are all in this together. The success of the Obama presidency in the next four years will be the success of America. We can only hope for real results from Washington to solve the nation’s problems -- hijacked for so long, because of the political gridlock.

 

Cheers to a new beginning! HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

 

PHOTO CREDIT: The Christian Science Monitor

(My Asian Journal Column Article, November 21, 22, 23, 2012)

Exit Polls: Obama Won, And It’s Not Just About Race and the '47%'

 By Gel Santos Relos

 

Contrary to what some kababayans opine, President Barack Obama won the election NOT just because of race, nor just by the force of the 47 percent of the American people, who according to Gov. Mitt Romney, “are with him (Obama), who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it." Some kababayans even refer to them as "palamunin ng America".

 

No less than Romney and his supporters have been making their case -- that this election was a referendum on Obama and his policies. 

 

On election day, the verdict was known. President Obama has been re-elected for another four years, winning the majority of both the electoral and popular votes.

 

President Barack Obama won despite conventional wisdom and history that no American President since Franklin D. Roosevelt has been re-elected when the unemployment rate is above seven percent. 

 

Looking at the CNN exit polls, President Obama won because he passed the American voters’ test of leadership, while Mitt Romney failed to present a more compelling case that he is the better choice.

 

When American voters were asked “how Obama was handling his job as President,”  majority of the American voters (54 percent) gave President Obama their seal of approval. Only 45 percent disapproved.

 

Obama was given four more years by the American people who were asked by both the Republicans and the Democrats during the campaign: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  

 

Debunking what Republicans and their Fil-Am supporters have been saying during the campaign --  that “Americans are in a much worse state now under Obama’s lack of leadership and failed policies”, CNN's exit polls show that nearly one in every four Americans actually said that US economic conditions are “getting better,” about three in every ten voters said “staying about the same.” Only about three in every ten American voters said the economy is “getting worse.” 

 

With these numbers, keeping the status quo might have been deemed to be a less risky, if not a better option, for a majority of American voters than changing course and gambling in an uncertain Romney presidency.

 

Voters by income

Also contradicting pre-election notion of some Romney supporters, including many Fil-Ams, that those who would vote for Obama are welfare and food stamps recipients is the finding that 44 percent of those making $100,000 or more voted for Obama. Fifty-four percent of these higher income earners chose Romney. 

The CNN exit poll said that 72 percent of the American voters earn less than $100,000 a year. Majority of them (54 percent) supported Obama, while 44 percent voted for Romney. Among those earning less than $50,000 a year, nearly six out of ten supported Obama, and about four out of ten chose Romney.

 

Voters by education

Disputing generalizations made by some Fil-Am Romney supporters on our Balitang America website, those who supported Obama were found to be NOT ignorant nor uneducated. 

On the contrary, there were more Obama supporters who pursued higher studies after high school than Romney supporters. More Democrat voters also reported having post-graduate education (55 percent) than Republicans (42 percent). 

 

Voters by religion

Another contradiction to the belief of many Fil-Am Republicans about Catholics not supporting Obama. CNN exit polls show that Obama won the Catholic vote by a slim margin: 50 percent voted for Obama, versus Romney’s 48 percent. 

This reflects the divide among Catholic Americans. Those who value social justice reportedly favor Obama, while Catholics who hold on to conservative social values (opposing gay marriage, contraception, abortion, etc.) support Romney.  

Consistent with pre-election studies, a big majority of Evangelical Christians supported Romney: 57 percent versus 42 percent for Obama. Those who belong to other other organized religions (7 percent of American voters) and those who do not practice any religion at all (12 percent) voted heavily for Obama.

 

Issue number one

The economy is still the number one issue for this election, according to almost 6 out of 10 voters. But while Romney lead by a slight margin on the question “who would better handle the economy” (49 percent versus Obama 48 percent), majority of the American voters still blame George W. Bush for the current economic mess (53 percent), while 38 percent blame Obama. 

This may imply that while many Americans look up to Romney’s credentials as a leader who knows business, they reject the Republican solution of going back to the same policies that got America into this deep economic ditch.

While majority of American voters (52 percent) say the country is going on the wrong track, an even bigger majority (55 percent) believe that the US economic system generally favors the wealthy. Only 39 percent say it is fair for most Americans.

 

Choosing their leader

In addressing this inequity, it seems majority of Americans voted for the candidate who is more in touch with people like them: Obama 53 percent, Romney 43 percent. An overwhelming 81 percent of voters who value this attribute also said they believe Obama cares more about people, while only 18 percent trusted Romney on this issue. 

These aforementioned characteristics of the President gained more weight than the qualities of a leader which majority of voters thought are Romney’s edge over Obama: “shares my values,” “strong leader,” vision for the future.” 

 

A changing America

The exit polls also revealed how much the American electorate has changed. Post-mortem analyses (not only by pundits but by Romney supporters as well) acknowledge that the Republicans had been blindsided by the changing demographics of the American voters. 

While Gov. Mitt Romney might have carried the vote of the white, male and older voters, it was no longer enough to win him the Presidency. 

President Barack Obama won 39 percent of white voters, and in the battleground state of Ohio Obama got 45 percent of the white male votes, thanks to his auto bailout. 

This was fortified by the strength of women and younger voters, and the the coalition of the ethnic vote that now makes up 28 percent of the American electorate. Obama got the overwhelming support of 93 percent of the African Americans, 71 percent of Latinos and  73 percent of Asian Americans.

 

Voters by ideology and political party 

Despite the fierce nature of the debates between partisan Americans leading up to the election, the race to the White House was decided by voters with moderate ideological views (41 percent), more than by either right-wing Conservatives (35 percent) or left-wing Liberals (25 percent). While more American voters said they were neutral about the Tea Party movement, an overwhelming number of those who support it are Republicans (87 percent), while more Democrats oppose it (89 percent). 

There were more Democrats who were motivated to go out and vote, comprising 38 percent of the electorate. Thirty-two percent were Republicans while 29 percent identified themselves as Independent.

No less than one of Obama’s hardest critic (former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich) wrote in an op-ed article on Politico that the Republicans were wrong about turnout, message, and the makeup of the electorate and “must learn the facts of the 2012 election.” 

 

Obama’s mandate

Moving forward, Obama’s victory is proof of the mandate the American people have given him to lead the country, towards his vision of recovery and progress in the next four years. This, despite the status quo in Congress (with Republicans still the majority in the House of Representatives and Democrats still the majority in the Senate), the same balance of power that has caused the gridlock in Washington.

Taxing the rich to solve the growing deficit, the passage of Obama’s jobs act to invest in America’s future, enactment into law of a comprehensive immigration reforms bill, policies addressing the issue of climate change --- these are shown by the polls to be supported by a big majority of the American voters. These will be in Pres. Obama's agenda, which his administration will be pushing for in the next four years. 

Would the Republicans in Congress and those outside Washington (including Fil-Am Republicans) be on board? Would they heed the advice of Newt Gingrich who argued that Republican leadership in Congress can’t reject a good faith plan from President Obama to cut the deficit and avoid the looming fiscal cliff?  As Gingrich pointed out, “You can’t turn down a president who’s just won re-election if he’s sincere.” 

View all tables:CNN Exit Poll Results

 

(My Asian Journal Column Article, November 14, 15, 16, 2012)

Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? What Fil-Am Leaders Say

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

Next week, we should already know who will be the President of the United States in the next four years:  Democrat nominee and incumbent seeking re-election, Pres. Barack Obama or his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. 

 

While we may have been inundated by poll after poll on who is leading and who is trailing behind or on how close the race to the White House may really be, the only poll that will truly matter is the November 6 Presidential Elections. 

 

The verdict will be contingent upon who among those eligible to vote will actually go out to exercise this sacred obligation and right of suffrage!

 

If you are still an undecided voter, who has yet to choose the candidate to entrust the leadership of the country, let me share with you some thoughts articulated by some well-respected Filipino-American community leaders. I hope these different perspectives will guide you in your discernment.

 

Nimfa Gamez, spokesperson for Romney supporters in the Filipino Channel’s “The Fil-Am Vote 2012: Obama vs Romney” town hall debate, said:"Success comes with sacrifice. In this election, personal interests come secondary only to economic issues affecting livelihood, gas prices, $16T debt, lost jobs, homes, healthcare and retirement benefits. Government wrongful decisions cause economic failure, creating wider gap between rich and poor." 

 

"Can we count on President Obama in the conflict in Asian waters with China, when he failed to defend our small Benghazi embassy? Inspite of failures by this administration, no one was fired, showing lack of fiscal leadership and accountability." Gamez asked. "Romney exemplifies Fil-American ideals and values, fiscal responsibility, experience and strength of character to steer us towards right direction. Let's vote and hire him as our next President." 

 

With Obama Supporter Loida Nicolas Lewis and Romney Supporter Nimfa Gamez in TFC's The Fil-Am Vote 2012 Town Hall Debate

On the other hand,

Loida Nicolas Lewis, spokesperson for President Obama’s Fil-Am supporters, reminded kababayans in her closing statement that Pres. Obama is the son of mixed-race parents; was raised by a single mom, who, at times, had to rely on food stamps; had a middle-class upbringing and values; and worked his way up to law school with scholarships and student loans. 

 

Lewis said this is the same reality that many of Pinoys in America face every single day. She maintained that Obama continues to be the Filipino Americans' candidate of choice, who will champion the cause of immigrants and the struggles of the middle class. Lewis pointed ut that Obama is the President for ALL, regardless of their race, socio-economic status, religion, gender, or who they choose to love.

 

Respected WRMN news commentator Don Lino Celle has been making a case for Romney among his listeners in the East Coast: “[Six] days and the silly political season is over, and American voters remain unmoved by all the ads and side-show distractions. The war on women, dogs, tax return, 'Bane' Capital, bayonets, … sorry kid, it’s dinner table issues and Americans are voting with their wallets.”

 

Radio Commentator Don Lino Celle

“The Washington Post and ABC News poll said that 72 percent of registered American voters thought the economy would be the major factor when they cast their votes this November,” Celle pointed out. “This poll is quite generous to the 'women’s issues' theme of the Democratic convention (as if the economy as a whole and national security are 'men’s issues'), simply because it says half think such issues will be t-h-e major factor in their votes.”

 

Celle contended: “Most importantly, the Gallup poll found that 65 percent of American voters believe that the economy is America's most important problem. Some 31 percent cited the economy in general, while 23 percent named unemployment. By the way, both abortion and gay rights registered below 0.5 percent each in the poll. Therefore, these issues might matter in a way, but they are tangential concerns to finding meaningful employment. Never mind who precipitated the mess, I want someone in the White House who understands BUSINESS not a TELE-ORATOR !”

 

US Pinoys for Good Governance President Atty. Rodel Rodis highlighted how President Obama was able to save the US economy from falling off the cliff. "When Bush and the Republicans assumed office in 2001, they reversed the Clinton tax on the rich and pushed for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and eliminated regulations for their Wall Street supporters.”

 

                           Atty. Rodel Rodis (R)                                     with Romney Supporter Rudy Asercion

“This resulted in a deficit of $10 trillion, after starting with a Clinton surplus of $500 billion,” Rodis continued."Bush involved the US in disastrous wars - Iraq and Afghanistan - that cost the US trillions of dollars and the drain on the US economy caused the financial collapse of the US. By the time Bush was through, the US was losing jobs at the rate of 800,000 a month. And for the next 10 months under Obama, the strain on the US economy caused by Bush continued."

 

Rodis reminded Fil-Ams that “with his stimulus and by getting the US out of Iraq and by saving the US auto industry and its 1.5 million jobs, Pres. Obama was able to set the US economy back to health. The US has now posted a 2% growth which is higher than what Europe is going through right no. The European countries that adopted the Romney model of tax cuts and austerity measures - UK, Ireland - are experiencing negative growth. Romney will not lead the US back to prosperity. He will lead us back to the disastrous Bush era. Forward not backward. Vote for Pres. Obama.”

 

Washington-DC based Migrant Heritage Commission Executive Director                        Atty. Arnedo Valera highlighted President Obama’s record in championing the cause of human rights and equality in voting for his re-election. Valera said: “Obama Care will become the cornerstone of his Presidency, as it is a demonstration of his moral and legal resolve to provide health care to all.”

 

On immigration, Valera argued: “Despite the failure to pass the DREAM Act and or the Comprehensive Immigration Reform as promised because of gridlock in Congress, immigrant advocates earned so far their greatest victories because of two executive fiats passed by the President without waiting for Congress.”

 

Atty. Arnedo Valera, Migrant Heritage Commission Executive Director

“First, the Prosecutorial Discretion procedure which is now utilized to stop mass deportations of undocumented immigrants without any criminal records or convictions. Recently, Pres. Obama again, through his executive powers, issued temporary relief from deportation those students who were brought here in the US by their parents as minors -- they may have the chance to continue higher studies, serve in the military.” Atty. Valera stated.

 

“The 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country must come out of the shadows and become productive contributors to our economy. They are now even undocumented through payment of their federal and state taxes . But more so if they are given the opportunities to work legally in an atmosphere of freedom and not exploitation,” Valera added.

 

“On foreign policy, President Obama made it clear that the cornerstone of his policy is strengthening international diplomacy and international cooperation amongst countries and peoples  either through bilateral relationships or multilateral alliances. He ended the war in Iraq and clearly our troops will head home from Afghanistan. He destroyed and annihilated the symbol and leader of terrorism in the world, Osama Bin Laden.  His vision for a world without nuclear weapons, equality and respect of all peoples remain his core values that will guide his administration in the next four years,” Valera further said.

 

US Navy Veteran and Businessman Ed Totanes

US Navy veteran and now businessman  Ed Totanes said: “National security and the economy are the top two in my book. President Obama has tried, but failed to deliver in these two issues. As we become more assimilated into the American culture, so too the scope of our concerns.”

  

“Mitt Romney has been a tested businessman. Interestingly, government service and private business have opposite goals when it comes to money matters. In government, money is front-loaded at the beginning with the mission of spending every bit of it at the end of the year. In private business, the goal is to grow the capital in hopes of being able to provide more for the business at year's end. America needs a business savvy entrepreneur like Mitt Romney, and not an all-talk, no walk politician like the one we've had the last four years," Totanes argued.

 

Prof. Antonio Villegas

Professor Antonio Villegas shared his discernment process, saying " I am an independent, neither Democrat nor Republican. I consider both to be GOOD people." 

 

 "In deciding who is better, I deliberated on the following". Villegas outlined, " On Competence, 'do I believe the candidate can get the job done?'. Both graduated from Harvard Law School and are equally competent. On Credibility, 'do I trust the candidate to do what he says he'll do?'. Obama is consistent while Romney flip-flops. I trust Obama more."

 

He continued, "On Character, 'do I respect the values the candidate represents?'. Both are fervent Christians. Obama is Pro-Choice. Romney is Pro-Life. I respect them both. On Compatibility, 'do I agree with the vision the candidate presents?'. Obama presents a clear vision to move FORWARD in detail with figures. I agree with him. Romney proposes a vague 5-point plan with missing details and figures. It does not add up. 

 

Villegas concluded, "Both are good. I think one is better. I am voting for Obama."

 

Retired Educator Charito Benipayo with Husband Romy

Retired educator Charito Benipayo is concerned about some Fil-Ams' discernment in deciding who to vote for. She said, "Some don't even read, some don't even weigh issues of concern; and more importantly the Catholic implications of the issues our nation is actually facing. Political challenges demand urgent choices.

 

"As a practicing Catholic I realize our family values play a great role in this very election, so I am always guided by my clear conscience and my family values always impact my vote; I wonder how others do?"

 

Benipayo explained her choice: “I'm voting for Romney/Ryan because I believe they will resurrect America, after four years of [the] Obama administration. All areas: economy, health care, immigration, homeland security and many more are our very concerns. Four years have lapsed, and Mr. Obama simply kept playing the past administration. I already have made important studies on taxes, freedom, crime, and homeland defense - with the Republican, Romney offers less taxes; more freedom, tough on crime and more homeland defense. Top and foremost, the Republican principles catered to us Filipinos, especially their moral values.” 

 

Finella Murphy, Attorney and Women's Rights Advocate

“I'm planning to vote for Obama. I am still trying to believe in his message of hope four years later. I am also very passionate about women's issues, and some of the discourse from the right (Republicans) trouble me (ex. the 'legitimate rape' quotes). VP Biden drafted the Violence Against Women Act back in the 90's, which is a very big deal to me, and I am worried about what direction policy will take should Obama and Biden leave office,” said Finella Murphy, who is a women’s rights advocate and a 2010 graduate of the UC Davis College of Law.

 

 

 

 

 

(My Asian Journal Column Article, October 31, November 1, 2, 2012)