Something To Say-World

CITIBANK-NY City:Try To Close Your Bank Account and Get Arrested! In USA????

2011-11-11T21:20:00.001+01:00

NEW RECESSION? UNAVOIDABLE? “It’s Going to Get a Lot Worse”: SAYS ECRIs Lakshman Achuthan

2011-10-01T20:51:00.005+02:00

Elizabeth Warren on Debt Crisis, Fair Taxation! Senatorial Candidate-MA--Consummate Protector Of The Common Man and Woman! Please Donate! Click This Title-Link!

2011-09-27T22:31:00.002+02:00

"A Declaration of War on the Poor": Cornel West and Tavis Smiley on the Debt Ceiling Agreement

2011-09-17T19:58:00.002+02:00

Featuring Cornel West and Tavis Smiley with Hostess Amy Goodman, DemocracyNow.Org

_______________
Source: Democracynow.org

WAR COSTS’ ------------- FIGHT BACK!

2011-09-13T05:03:00.001+02:00

Congressman Anothony Weiner: Hold On To Your Gloating-Critical and Vociferous Horses, Folks! I have something to say-world

2011-06-17T20:51:00.001+02:00

So Weiner got caught exposing his weenie. And he lied about it. So what? Understandable human reaction, not excusable-but understandable. Politicians lie all the time. They would not be true politicians if they did not shade the truth or outright lie. I am not supporting nor condoning the Congressman’s lewd behaviors and post-actions after being exposed, by no means. But rather I am attempting to bring things into their proper perspective based on reality.

I have observed this man over the years and can say with some degree of certainty that he is one of the most progressive and productive politicians on Capitol Hill. Always "in your face" with the republicans, and was not that popular among democrats either.

Hence, Weiner is nothing more than a sacrificial lamb for the hypo-critical demos; a.k.a. hypocritical democrats. Why do you dare say such a thing, you ask? Well because it is now June 2011 and the demos are preparing for the 2012 elections. So Weiner must resign early; post haste. No time for rehabilitation and forgiveness.

If Weiner’s unfortunate dilemma had occurred-let’s say-in late 2009 or early 2010, approximately a year ago, the hypos-demos would not be singing the same tune: You must go! Resign now! So you see, amigos, TIMING IS EVERYTHING. Pure and simple political calculations on the hypos-demos standpoint as if the US American voting public-overall-give a damn. I don’t; as long as he is executing his duties for the betterment of the USA and his constituents. Plus, his lewd actions were between and among consenting adults anyway. So what’s the problem? Oh yea, his poor wife-of course- is experiencing pain and suffering. And a more darker side of the scenario her being pregnant; which impacts more negatively on the Congressman’s image. But again, reality check, is between him and her, and NY voters because, apparently, there were no laws broken.

So he resigns for sake of expediency and for the good of the Democratic Party. What a f-ing joke! The demos unlike the republican that stick with their own, threw one of their own-literally-under the train. As Pat Buchanan stated: The demos actually threw water in a drowning man's face. Shamelessly and a clear demonstration of lack of intestinal fortitude. In simpler terms, NO BACKBONE!

A word to the unwise demos: The next election will be about JOBS, STUPID! Not about some congressman's sex scandal. Also focus will be on the execution and continuation of unnecessary, costly and endless wars..............; the list does not end there. Further, the next election will probably become a long overdue referendum on the hypos-demos not having backbone to do what has to be done to get this wonderful country, USA, back on track. And the list goes on and on.......

One question to the voting public,irregardless of your political affiliation: When will "you/we" stop putting our politicians on pedestals, as if they are gods, and finally realize that they are only HUMAN with strengths and weaknesses-same as you and me. Not to mention the fact that some previous administration officials committed far worst infractions of the public's trust than Representative Weiner's sexing scandal. You know such as taking the USA to war in Iraq based on contrived justifications and intentional lies, torturing prisoners and lying about it. yep, the list goes on and on.

This blogger and independent voter strongly feels that Congressman Weiner should be or should have been allowed to rehabilitate himself, repent and rekindle his Congressional career. Besides isn’t his First Amendment Rights being violated? Is this not the country of forgiveness?

Who outed him anyway, and why? What was their motive? But that's another story in itself, for another time.
Bottom line: I am fed up with the blatant hypocrisy that is being perpetrated on the US American public by politicians .

Thank God, I am a proud voting independent. .

December Review: Afghanistan War Is a Failure****President Obama: Bring Our Soldiers Home!

2010-12-19T02:02:00.006+01:00

______________________________________________________________
OBAMA! Bring Our Soldiers Home! They've Been Gone Much Too long!
______________________________________________________________

A protest video-song dedicated to the brave women and men serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan, to their families and veterans as well who are actually the ones bearing the brunt of a flawed-macho foreign policy. Thus, the composition of this song was inspired by the on-going debate among the US presidential candidates and their pundits over whether US troops in Iraq, in particular, should be withdrawn on a specific timetable or remain indefinitely-until the job is done(?). However, the issue is not about who is right or wrong in this highly emotional and never-ending discussion, but rather who is paying the highest price and ultimate sacrifice in a war that was unnecessary and "never should have been.
"

LYRICS! SING ALONG!

BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME! They've Been Gone Much Too Long!

Six long years have passed, fighting a war
our leaders said wouldn't last
A war based on propaganda, shades of truths and lies
Our soldiers are dying across the seas in foreign lands
From the sandy deserts of Iraq, to the rugged mountains of Afghanistan

Bring our soldiers home (Refrain)
They've been gone much, much too long
Bring our soldiers home
Back to their motherland, family and friends
Back from a war that has no end
A war that should never have been

Brave soldiers dying while politicians go on lying
They say: “It's all for a worthy cause"
But when truth unfolds, the whole world knows,
it's all about black gold
The hypocrites heads are deep, deep in sand
But they sure in the hell are not in Iraq nor Afghanistan

Bring our soldiers home
They've been gone much, much too long
Bring our soldiers home
Back to their motherland, family and friends
Back from a war that has no end
A war that should never, never have been

Why must leaders always seek enemies?
Instead of searching for peace and harmony?
And when will they learn that some wars you just can't
win? For you see!
No army has ever conquered determined minds of men,
with strong will that lies deep within
But a new day is coming!

I can see over the horizon, new leaders arising
No more will war be first choice, the whole wide world
shall rejoice
And all the seas will be calm
Because a brand new day, yea, will have come

Bring our soldiers home
They've been gone much, much too long
Bring our soldiers home
Back to their motherland, family and friends
Back from a war that has no end
A war that should never, never have been
Ad Lib)
I can hear the children crying now
They're calling for their mommies and daddies to
come back home
They're crying for them to bring a teddy bear
Mommy, daddy when are you coming home?
Will you be home for Christmas?
Will you bring me a teddy bear mommy?
Oh I miss you so much, I love you dearly too
REPEAT REFRAIN 2X-------FADE

I STOPPED LIVING! (The Day You Stopped Loving Me)-Sample-Trailer!

2010-12-12T19:38:00.016+01:00

______________________New Song Promotion______________________

_____________________________________________________________

LYRICS-(Abbreviated)

I stopped living
The day you stopped loving me
My heart was no longer beating,
Knowing you were leaving me

I stopped Living
When you told me we were through
By that cold look in your eyes, I knew,
Your hurting words were true

Oh, why must love be, so complicated, and unfair?
It seems the one you love the most, always leaves you
in despair..........

BURMA-MYANMAR! 180 SECONDS OVER RANGOON! Eliminate the Junta!

2010-11-09T03:51:00.005+01:00

Get first hand news from inside Burma-Myanmar: Click Title above!
__________
The title of this article is self-explanatory and appropriate even more so under current circumstance. This is a republication of my 10/07/2007 posting due to the callous disregard for the welfare of the cyclone victims that the ruling Junta continues to stubbornly exhibit, which is nothing less than perpetuating added misery to the horrible conditions that its citizens are experiencing. Thus,if there ever were a time and example when liberal imperial intervention is required on part of the UN and the international community as a whole, is definitely now-unequivocally. STSW calls for the immediate elimination of the despicable and tyrannical regime NOW! Stop further misery and unnecessary loss of lives!-----Note: Republished from June 2008 in response to Burma's fraudulent election on Sunday, November 7th, 2010. Instead of using a F-117 Night Hawk Bomber, a DRONE is more appropriate today.
__________

BURMA! 180 Seconds Over Rangoon! Eliminate The JUNTA!

SENIOR CITIZENS BRACE FOR ANOTHER SOCIAL SECURITY FREEZE IN 2010!

2010-10-12T19:38:00.011+02:00

According to an article written by MATT SEDENSKY, Associated Press Writer on Monday October 11th, “the government is expected to announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security recipients will go through a second straight year without an increase in monthly benefits. This year was the first without an increase since automatic adjustments for inflation started in 1975. Click link,above post title to read entire article.

My answer is short, to the point and simple: Why don't the S.O.Bs/government officials get some-if not all-of the money back they gave to Wall Street and the banks? Or as an alternative, assess a real heavy-heavy tax on income and bonuses of those fat cats. As always the little guy and little lady are being screwed over and over again. Vote all the suckers out of office. That’s my opinion. You decide. So what say you? Make comments-let your feelings be known; pass the word.

MOVE YOUR MONEY: Out of bigger banks into smaller community-oriented institutions! Says-MoveYourMoney.Info

2010-01-05T21:54:00.007+01:00

================================================
People all over the country are choosing to move their money out of bigger banks and into smaller, community-oriented financial institutions that generally avoided the reckless investments and schemes that helped cause the financial crisis.

Fueled by the personal initiatives of thousands, it’s a grassroots effort that has the potential to shift power in the financial system away from Wall Street and to Main Street.

Check out the video, read up on what inspired the idea, connect with others through Facebook and Twitter and then use the tools and links provided to find a community bank or credit union in your area.
___________
Courtesy of www.MoveYourMoney.info:Copyright Move Your Money, 2010

CHICAGO'S YOUTH CRIME WAVE! Where Is the Mayor? Why Doesn't He Resign?

2009-10-08T22:41:00.001+02:00

No doubt parents and each community-as a whole-have an obligated stake in getting the Chicago youth crime spree under control and taking back their streets. Quite naturally, individual responsibility of each young person involved in anti-social behavior is responsible for their own actions. But many are only kids, for which they cannot be expected to think logically, reasonably and responsibly as adults are supposed to. Also, let's not forget either that many gang members are adults and are the ones recruiting and encouraging the younger kids to join gangs and so on.

But the principal question is: Where is Mayor Daley.Is he and his administration AWOL (absent without leave) from the issues that persistently pervade some minority neighborhoods? The mayor's welcoming of US Attorney General Holder yesterday to participate in a breakfast to discuss strategies to try and eradicate youth crime, is a clear indication that the mayor is simply void of any solutions-not to say he really gives a damn. Plainly stated, the mayor is in over his head,as has been the case for two decades.

Thus, in this blogger's opinion, the primary problem in Chicago with its consistent poor record on education and teenage crime is that the people of Chicago continue to elect a mayor (19-20 years in office) and city counsel that are corrupt and simply too inept to effectively deal with prolonged social problems; especially those problems that exist on the south side-predominately black neighborhoods-of Chicago. No one has seriously called for the mayor to resign. Why haven't those in the news media, both local and national, called for the mayor's resignation? Additionally, nor has the compromised-rubber stamped city council insisted on his resigning.

Further, until the city council and the citizens of Chicago seriously consider putting into effect "term limits," the same do-nothing corrupt charade will continue. Term limits would-perhaps-facilitate an infusion of new blood and new solutions into Chicago politics, and rid the citizens of having to vote time-and-time again for the same corrupt incumbents that consistently sell them out; both white and black politicos alike. Thus, "term limits" would possibly see less corrupt people coming into office, collectively speaking, instead of the same old appointed POLITICAL MACHINE candidates and incumbents.

No doubt if things are not changed at the very top,Chicago will be wrestling with the same social issues,hearing very similar speeches that promise everything and deliver nothing,from the same vile and jaded people that have held the City hostage for decades. You decide!

McCrystal, General! Should Obama Rein In A Potential Rogue Warrior?

2009-10-05T05:53:00.003+02:00

After General McChrystal's apparent defying speech given in London this past week in which, in my opinion, he publicly challenged Vice-President Biden's proposed plan to use missiles and drones and less troops-with primary focus on Al Qaeda instead of waging war against the Taliban- I am convinced the general was in a defiant mood. However, he has apparently overlooked one significant and principal fact:The Constitution of the USA,which places civilian control over the military. Meaning,simply, that the general works for President Obama, Vice-president Biden, and under the direct management of the secretary of defense, Secretary Gates.

The generals' defiance is somewhat reminiscent of the Truman and McArthur feud during World War II in which General McArthur became so uncontrollable by openly defying a direct order from the President that as a consequence, President Truman summarily and rightly fired the general by relieving him of his command in the Pacific and hasting his return to the motherland, USA.

If McChrystal continues in the same vain, President Obama just may have to do a Truman on him, unequivocally. Providing of course Obama has the backbone to demonstrate not only to McChrystal that he is in charge, but to the US Armed Forces as a whole. And to exhibit to the American people as well as the entire world that he has intestinal fortitude to do the job he is charged with, coupled with showing that he demands loyalty from his military leaders-irregardless of the number of decorations worn on their chest or the number of stars shinning on their shoulders. Such a strong and explicit demonstration is even more so important since Obama does not have a military background; which in the eyes of military leadership would carry more weight regardless of the clear mandate of the Constitution. You Decide.

HEALTH CARE REFORM PLAN-2009-CALLS FOR MARCH ON WASHINGTON!

2009-08-19T05:32:00.002+02:00

It is now time for a massive march on Washington to save the single-payer health option. There is an obvious concerted plan of derailment taking place whereas opponents are seizing the moment in a masterful and effective manner. Obama needs to call up the troops in the field-once again-as was the case during the historic campaign that was second-to-none and unprecedented.

Just as the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. drew some two-hundred fifty thousand people (or more) to state their case during the unforgettable 1963 March On Washington, Obama should do the same. The President could probably amass several times the number of marchers that MLK did; if he were to only issue the call. So why doesn't he? All he has to do is use the internet and ask for help from the masses. And they will respond to give their support to an issue that affects all US citizens, both literally and universally.You decide!

APOLLO II ASTRONAUTS: ICONIC HEROES OR RACISTS? OR BOTH?

2009-08-18T04:52:00.002+02:00

As I watched President Obama give a welcoming speech for and to the Apollo 11 astronauts, Neil Armstong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, at the White House on this 40th anniversary and celebration of the historic 1969 landing on the moon, I reflected on the February 1984 article that I read as a young Air Force airmen chronlicing the racism that was experienced by one of the first black astronauts, Dwight Edward Jr and others, that permeated the Air Force Space pilot training and NASA astronaut training programs, respectively and collectively. In the Ebony February 1984, Dwight described his fall into racism: “It’s like being out into a storm without knowing that it’s coming.” He described himself as naive, and summed up his space training as a nightmare.

As the three astronauts stood in a single file along side President Obama as he gave his speech I was wondering just what was going through the four men's minds.Were the astronauts thinking to themselves" Back in the sixties while undergong training I/we did everything we could individually and collectively to prevent a "black" man from becoming an astronaut and especially from being the first man or one of the first men to walk on the moon." Now Isn't it ironoic that some fourty years later, we are visitng the White House to be ceremoniously honored by a "black" president. And President Obama on the other hand was probably thinking to himself: "I am the first "black" president of the USA and here I am having to honor these four racist astronauts that did everything they could to make life a "hell" on earth for the first black astronaut trainees."

I wonder if either of those "so called heroes" have ever thought about apologizing to their fellow black astronauts-those that are living- or to the families of those that are deceased. And even to the US black community as a whole? I cringed with a chilling bit of anger as I watched the three men standing besides President Obama making reminiscent speeches and receiving accolades. What "hypocrites," I thought to myself!

Probably even more shocking to the three astronaut elders was when President Obama recently announced his long-awaited nomination for NASA administrator,the former astronaut and retired Marine Corps general,Charles F. Bolden Jr., to be the first African-American to head the space agency. General Bolden was recently confirmed by the Senate on Wednesday, July 15, 2009.
____________
Read more at:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/05/26/obama-picks-a-former-astronaut-to-be-the-first-black-nasa-chief/

TRIBUTE: MICHAEL JOSEPH JACKSON'S OBITUARY! Buy at Memorial Keepsakes.org-Click!

2009-07-09T17:13:00.031+02:00

FRAUD/SCAM ALERT! Multi-System Electronics Company, Ltd,

2009-04-15T05:33:00.010+02:00

To ALL STSW READERS :Please be advised that Multi-System Electronics Company, Ltd, has been carefully investigated by a reputable investigation agency in the UK and has been found to be non-existence as a legitimate business entity. The Site, http://multisystem.en.china.cn, is hosted by China.cn which is a Chinese Government Web site for which the primary objective is to supposedly bring sellers buyers and prospective customers together to effectuate business transactions. Please beware, especially potential customers, that Multi-System Electronics Company, Ltd is nothing but a fraud and scam. Click the above address that is a direct link to the fraudulent Site for immediate viewing of prices that are too good to be true. Be a smart,careful and alert shopper. I comment, you decide!
____________________________________
CALL THE SCUMBAG(S) TO GIVE A PIECE OF YOUR MIND-A Mr Darrell Tan(?): Phone : ‎+44 7035921020; Fax : ‎+44 8704718961
____________________________________

LETTER TO ME FROM THE INVESTIGATION AGENCY(Dtd April 13th,2009)
Dear Carlos,

We have made enquiries with regards to Multi-System Electronics Company, Ltd, Diamond Court, Douglas Close, Preston Farm Business Park
Stockton On Tees, Cleveland TS18 3SB, United Kingdom.

Diamond Court is a small section of the larger Preston Farm Business Park. In Diamond Court itself there are only 5 business units and I have made enquiries with all of them.

I could not find any business by that name at this location. None of the business owners I have spoken to have heard of this business and none have ever heard of Darrel Tan.

There is no trace of the business as a Limited Company with our UK Companies House.

The phone number 44 7035921020 is actually a UK cell phone number.

My thoughts are that things are probably not what they seem with this "company" and, based on the intelligence we have gathered, I would be reluctant to do business with them .

I hope this helps.

Kind Regards

Ian

DID THE US NAVY BLOW A RESCUE OPPORTUNITY, While Watching Overhead With An Ummanned Drone?++ UPDATE: Captain Freed by Navy Seals! Bravisimo!

2009-04-11T18:11:00.028+02:00

Photos: Google Images

I can't help but wonder if the US Navy lost or-maybe-even squandered an opportunity to rescue Maersk Alabama Captain Richard Phillips that made a heroic attempt to escape from his captors during the first time-as initially reported. The Captain jumped into the water with one of his captives diving in after him, and eventually overpowering the Captain and wrestling him back on to the lifeboat. The Navy was observing the Captain and his captives during that precious and crucial time period of some several minutes both from above with an unmanned drone, and-I venture to speculate-by personnel from on deck of the destroyer as well.

Being that the US Navy's USS Bainbridge was sitting several yards from the lifeboat, it would seem that the destroyer's captain would have taken advantage of those several minutes when Captain Phillips was no longer on board the lifeboat. The USS Bainbridge is the high-tech destroyer that arrived on the scene Thursday with a precision team of Navy Seals on board that are trained in hostage rescue techniques. Seemingly, the Navy could have launched a missile or a cannon to either destroy the lifeboat or at least fill it with holes; thus assuring of a slowly and steady sinking with the other pirates on board the lifeboat. I acknowledge the fact that the amount of distance between the lifeboat and the Captain has not been provided in the news reports that I have seen. However, this lack of action on the part of the destroyer's captain still begs the prudent and probing question: Did the US Navy have enough time to destroy or disarm the lifeboat? And did the Navy make a fatal mistake of not taking the lifeboat out during those several minutes that Captain Phillips was afloat in the water?
You decide!
____________
BREAKING NEWS-UPDATE: While this commentary was being finalized for publication, breaking news is that the captain was rescued by the Navy Seals, shooting tree of the pirates after the captain jumped overboard "again." Superb work on part of the Seals. Their successful rescue effort and the manner in which it was accomplished, supports the above commentary observations, which asks the critical-probing question: Why wasn't this done the first time the captain jumped overboard? Was someone sleeping, when they should have been awake and alert? Again, I comment, you decide!

ANDERSON COOPER-AC-360! Is CNN Promoting AC Much More Than Other Anchors?

2009-04-05T19:51:00.010+02:00

I keep wondering: Why does CNN appear to promote Anderson Cooper (AC), anchor of AC- 360, much more than it does the other news anchors, such as Wolf Blitzer,Lou Dobbs, Campbell Brown,Don Lemon,Rick Sanchez-Mr Passionate,Erica Hil,T.J. Holmes and Arron Brown-just to name a few?

I respect the notable fact that AC has covered wars and disasters. So what? So have other anchors at CNN. Plus, I still have not seen anything spectacular or unusually appealing about AC's presence before the cameras that makes me want to view his AC 360 show anymore than I want to view Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room or any of the other notable shows. As a matter of fact, I find AC to be quite boring and simply void of passion,seemingly.

And when AC showed up on CBS' 6o Minutes one Sunday as host for one of the Magazine's segments,I flipped! I started to change channels and even thought of turning off the TV altogether. I pondered to myself: Now, this is just too much---seeing AC on CBS too! Why in the hell does CBS/60 Minutes need AC, anyway? What did his presence add? Answer, in my opinion: Nothing!

Plainly stated, there is overkill at every turn. CNN needs to turn it down a bit, and give us-the viewers-a break from its excessive-repetitive promotion of AC and allow the other anchors to share more of the glory of marketing and promoting. I suppose CNN is repaying AC for putting his life in harm's way.

So I get back to the primary question: Why does CNN appear to promote AC much-much-more than other anchors? I bet the other anchors are asking the same question as well; only silently. Please,can someone out there help me-with responding comments-to shine clearer light on this cognitive dilemma. Tell me what is it that I am not clearly seeing. You decide!
________

OBAMA! Bring Our Soldiers Home! They've Been Gone Much Too long: Features, The Now, President Obama!

2009-03-19T19:07:00.007+01:00

OBAMA! Bring Our Soldiers Home! They've Been Gone Much Too long: Features, The Now, President Obama!
________________________________________________________________
This is the 6th Anniversary of the Iraq War (Republication from December 8, 2008)
________________________________________________________________

A protest video-song dedicated to the brave women and men serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan, to their families (veterans as well) who are actually the ones bearing the brunt of a flawed-macho foreign policy. Thus, the composition of this song was inspired by the on-going debate among the US presidential candidates and their pundits over whether US troops in Iraq, in particular, should be withdrawn on a specific timetable or remain indefinitely-until the job is done(?). However, the issue is not about who is right or wrong in this highly emotional and never-ending discussion, but rather who is paying the highest price and ultimate sacrifice in a war that was unnecessary and "never should have been."

________________
GET INVOLVED! Visit:Stop The War Coalition-http://www.stopwar.org.uk/

PAUL HARVEY DIES AT AGE 90!

2009-03-01T06:44:00.009+01:00

Something To Say World's heartfelt condolence goes out to the Harvey family to let them know that their loss is also a great national loss. And a personal loss for me as well. I have listened to Paul Harvey News for over forty years, especially whenever I was in the USA.I missed tuning in to his daily broadcasts while serving abroad in the US Air Force.

Paul's unique voice,impeccable diction, coupled with a perfect signature of delivery that exhibited energy and enthusiasm,were second to none. Paul was a pioneer in radio broadcasting and will be difficult to replace, although he has done a splendid job in grooming his son Paul Harvey Jr.

Paul, you will be missed immensely. But I am certain you are resting peacefully knowing that you have left behind a legacy to be proud of, one that will be impossible to duplicate. Because you did it your way! I am certain you will continue projecting that captivating smile while looking down on all of us, with a proud look of consolation because your broadcast news will have been left in highly capable hands with Paul Jr. Good Bye and may your soul forever rest in peace.

_________________
Read more about Paul Harvey Sr at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Harvey
Also visit Paul Harvey's web site at:http://www.abcrn.com/harvey/ (Click Link)

FIGHT FORECLOSURE?-Tips For Homeowners! Please Share!

2009-02-25T19:47:00.016+01:00

______________________________________________________________
STSW'S MOTTO:Committed To Relentless Pursuit Of Hidden Truth and Justice!

=======================================================

A WHITE PROFESSOR'S HONEST PLEA TO HIS WHITE BROTHERS: When Are We Going to Get Over It? By Andrew Manis-Macon Telegraph Newspaper

2009-02-11T01:04:00.007+01:00

For much of the last forty years, ever since America "fixed" its race problem in the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, we white people have been impatient with African Americans who continued to blame race for their difficulties. Often we have heard whites ask, "When are African Americans finally going to get over it? Now I want to ask: "When are we White Americans going to get over our ridiculous obsession with skin color?

Recent reports that "Election Spurs Hundreds' of Race Threats, Crimes" should frighten and infuriate every one of us. Having grown up in "Bombingham," Alabama in the 1960s, I remember overhearing an avalanche of comments about what many white classmates and their parents wanted to do to John and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Eventually, as you may recall, in all three cases, someone decided to do more than "talk the talk." Since our recent presidential election, to our eternal shame we are once again hearing the same reprehensible talk I remember from my boyhood.

We white people have controlled political life in the disunited colonies and United States for some 400 years on this continent. Conservative whites have been in power 28 of the last 40 years. Even during the eight Clinton years, conservatives in Congress blocked most of his agenda and pulled him to the right. Yet never in that period did I read any headlines suggesting that anyone was calling for the assassinations of presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or either of the Bushes. Criticize them, yes. Call for their impeachment, perhaps. But there were no bounties on their heads. And even when someone did try to kill Ronald Reagan, the perpetrator was non-political mental case who wanted merely to impress Jody Foster.
But elect a liberal who happens to be Black and we're back in the sixties again. At this point in our history, we should be proud that we've proven what conservatives are always saying -- that in America anything is possible, EVEN electing a black man as president. But instead we now hear that school children from Maine to California are talking about wanting to "assassinate Obama."

Fighting the urge to throw up, I can only ask, "How long?" How long before we white people realize we can't make our nation, much less the whole world, look like us? How long until we white people can - once and for all - get over this hell-conceived preoccupation with skin color? How long until we white people get over the demonic conviction that white skin makes us superior? How long before we white people get over our bitter resentments about being demoted to the status of equality with non-whites?
How long before we get over our expectations that we should be at the head of the line merely because of our white skin? How long until we white people end our silence and call out our peers when they share the latest racist jokes in the privacy of our white-only conversations?

I believe in free speech, but how long until we white people start making racist loudmouths as socially uncomfortable as we do flag burners? How long until we white people will stop insisting that blacks exercise personal responsibility, build strong families, educate themselves enough to edit the Harvard Law Review, and work hard enough to become President of the United States, only to threaten to assassinate them when they do?
How long before we starting "living out the true meaning" of our creeds, both civil and religious, that all men and women are created equal and that "red and yellow, black and white" all are precious in God's sight?

Until this past November 4, I didn't believe this country would ever elect an African American to the presidency. I still don't believe I'll live long enough to see us white people get over our racism problem. But here's my three-point plan: First, everyday that Barack Obama lives in the White House that Black Slaves Built, I'm going to pray that God (and the Secret Service) will protect him and his family from us white people.

Second, I'm going to report to the FBI any white person I overhear saying, in seriousness or in jest, anything of a threatening nature about President Obama. Third, I'm going to pray to live long enough to see America surprise the world once again, when white people can "in spirit and in truth" sing of our damnable color prejudice, "We HAVE overcome."
**************************************
It takes a Village to protect our President!!!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Note: Andrew M. Manis is associate professor of history at Macon State College in Georgia and wrote this for an editorial in the Macon Telegraph.

JERALDO RIVERA: BRAVO! FOR DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF GOVERNOR BLAGOJEVICH

2009-01-27T05:21:00.006+01:00

Jeraldo Rivera is the "only" person in the media this blogger has seen that has the guts and legal wisdom to defend Illinois Governor Blagojevich's right to a fair trial before the Illinois Senate. A body that is obviously dead set on convicting him. I am not a Blagojevich fan, nor is Jeraldo. But how can the Illinois Senate purport to have done their job without leaving an odious smell on the proceeding. The Senate will not allow the Governor to call certain witnesses because the US attorney has barred them from doing so. Thus, if the Governor cannot call the very witnesses that could possibly vindicate him, then as the Governor has stated: "The hearing is just a sham. "And as Jeraldo strongly commented on the O'Reilly Factor/Fox News Channel-this date-paraphrasing: "Its' an injustice; even if the Governor is a scumbag." I agree! You decide!

BLAGOJEVICH HAS LAST LAUGH! BURRIS IS SEATED IN SENATE. People Of Illinois Are The Real Winners

2009-01-15T20:57:00.008+01:00

(AP Photo)

Blago, the embattled governor of Illinois, called the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's bluff in a dignified and skillful manner. By simply continuing to do his job, despite his being impeached by the Illinois House and facing a conviction in the Illinois Senate, he demonstrated just how to be cool when faced with seemingly overwhelming pressures and odds that places him squarely in the line of fire from many directions-both politically and legally. This blogger doubts whether the IL Senate will convict the governor once the evidence is weighed against the requirements for conviction and removal from office. But we all will know the outcome by the end of next month, February 2008

And so the knee Jerk US Senators,Reid and Durbin, relented after making fools of themselves; literally. Roland Burris was given the oath of office, is now the Junior-Senator from Illinois, and has taken his seat this date. Hurrah! Truly the people of Illinois are the real winners because of the irrefutable fact that an honest-hard working man is now seated to represent the them in a dignified and non-corrupt and noteworthy manner. Good Luck Senator Roland Burris!

I analyze and comment. But you-the reader-decides!
_____________
P.S. This blogger knows first-hand about the integrity and ethics of Senator Burris. I was fortunate to have worked along side him during his 2002 run for Illinois governor.

BURRIS AFFECT! DEMOCRATS: ARE THEY SELF-IMPLODING? WHERE IS COMMON-SENSE?

2009-01-02T21:55:00.010+01:00

I have often criticized talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh for being too critical of the Senate democratic leadership for their alleged ineptitude and poor leadership abilities. But I must admit the manner in which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has performed during Illinois governor Blagojevich’s fiasco, lends credence to Limbaugh’s charges.

First, Senator Reid jumped too soon into the fray after the US attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, arrested the governor by “drawing a line in the sand,”as the saying goes. He stated, emphatically, he or the Senate would not seat any appointee that the governor sent forward. Thus, boxing himself and the Senate into the untenable and ludicrous position that he now finds himself in; which was avoidable if he had merely been more patient and played the “wait and see game.” (Google Images Photo)

Reid never imagined the governor would out maneuver him both politically and strategically by appointing someone that was not on the original list of contenders for President-elect Obama’s vacated Senate seat. The governor, instead, appointed the Honorable Roland Burris. Burris is a veteran politician who has an impeccable public service record in Illinois, coupled with integrity and ethics that has not been impeached-thus far. And I doubt if anyone will be able to impugn his reputation in anyway; no matter how deep they may dig or how nick-picky they might be.

Nonetheless, despite Burris’ stellar credentials, the misguided Senator Reid insists on remaining with his initial knee-jerk decision: not to seat a Blagojevich appointment. Reid was probably playing to the cameras; seeking to restore or enhance the low image that the Senate now has in the public’s eyes.

It is obvious that common-sense and political savvy are not in being at all. Senator Reid knows darn well that he needs as many democrats as he can get to ensure a comfortable majority-with a little help from some republicans-when it comes down to counting votes on critical bills and programs. This is especially important in light of the fact that the Minnesota Senate seat is still up in the air between the comedian Al Franken (D) and the incumbent Senator Norm Coleman (R).

Bottom line: As long as Roland Burris is not proven to be associated with the Blagojevich corruption issue, then Reid would be smart to relent, advocate to seat Burris, and get this embarrassing matter off the radar screen before Tuesday, January 20th, Inauguration Day 2009.

In plain words, Reid must separate the appointee’s outstanding integrity, ethics and record from that of a tainted and alleged corrupt governor. Keeping in mind that Blagojevich is still legally the governor of Illinois-until impeached or convicted.

Last but not least, neither the Senate nor the new President Obama need such a senseless distraction with all the alligators (two wars, economy, public cynicism,.....) biting at their behinds as they go forward into a new year and a new presidency. You decide!
______________

P.S. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White's refusal to certify Roland Burris' appointment is an outrage and a cowardly act on his part-without question. Since the governor is still the duly elected head official of the executive branch of state government and executing his legal authority as chief executive in making such an appointment, White could have easily justified a certification on that irrefutable basis. But no, he chose to go with the flow of the moment, without considering what was right and best for the citizens of Illinois in the long run. I don't think it is a stretch to surmise that more-likely-than-not, Mr White was probably protecting his own political position for future elections. What a shame!
____________________

OBAMA! Bring Our Soldiers Home! They've Been Gone Much Too long: Features President-elect Obama

2008-12-02T23:18:00.002+01:00

A protest video-song dedicated to the brave women and men serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan, to their families and veterans as well who are actually the ones bearing the brunt of a flawed-macho foreign policy. Thus, the composition of this song was inspired by the on-going debate among the US presidential candidates and their pundits over whether US troops in Iraq, in particular, should be withdrawn on a specific timetable or remain indefinitely-until the job is done(?). However, the issue is not about who is right or wrong in this highly emotional and never-ending discussion, but rather who is paying the highest price and ultimate sacrifice in a war that was unnecessary and "never should have been."

TALK RADIO AND TV COMMENTATORS! IN THEIR EYES, CAN AND WILL OBAMA EVER DO ANYTHING RIGHT?

2008-11-22T18:55:00.003+01:00

My God! To listen to the Limbaughs, the Savages and the O'Reillys and Humes, it would seem that the world is about to come to an end with the election of OBAMA. Well in case the cynics and the ones that constantly spread venom have not noticed, the sun still rises and sets as it always has,and the moon still shines as bright and beautiful as ever.Plus too, there was not any kind of disaster or calamity that occurred as a result of a "black man's" victorious ascendency to the presidency.

So why don't those talk show hosts and television commentators simply get on board the Obama bandwagon and make some positive contributions instead of finding fault with every single thing that Obama proposes or does. Constructive criticism is find. But the spinning and twisting and out right distortions are unacceptable. They continue to behave as if the election is still on-going. Guys, and Laura Ingraham as well, get over it. For the last time:Obama won! My God! Will you ever stop? You decide!

RUSH LIMBAUGH: THE KING OF TALK RADIO! WHERE DOES HE REALLY STAND ON RACE RELATIONS? MY HEARTFELT APPEAL !

2008-11-10T18:24:00.005+01:00

Is Rush Limbaugh a racist or is he simply a person that believes truly in the messages he is spewing out day-after-day on his Talk Radio Show? It is awfully difficult to discern just where his true feelings pertaining to race actually lie,especially in light of the fact he continues to send mixed messages in reference to his perspectives toward minorities; particularly blacks. The sad part about his shaded messages is that he has a large following of committed listeners that appear to have confidence in his political principles and ideologies when it comes to race relations,and what is best for this country,

This occasional listener hasn't heard one word of encouragement from Rush Limbaugh pertaining to how we as Americans should try to live together in peace and harmony, with mutual respect for our fellow citizens; regardless of race, color or religion.

Just imagine the positive influence Rush could effectuate with such positiveness, instead of intentionally creating unnecessary controversy, such as raising doubt about the motives of blacks and their wrongfully perceived obsession to won't government hand-outs. Or that Mexican illegals are bringing this country down; and so on.

Further, in reference to the new President-elect Obama, Rush Limbaugh has not stated one positive word-that I have heard-to motivate the his listeners to get on board the Obama "Yes We Can" national initiative. He continues to carry on with his attacks on Obama as if the election is still around the corner and the Republicans have a chance to win. Rush! The political campaigns have ended; the election is over. Obama won! McCain Lost. Get over it! Join the Obama movement to try and build a better USA.

Last,I know your job is to keep controversy going to hold the attention of many of your lost soul listeners, but please think about the disservice you are doing to this great nation that you profess to love so much. RUSH! PLEASE THINK OF THE "POSTIVE GOOD" YOU CAN PROJECT WITH YOUR GOD GIVEN TALENT AND WELL EARNED POPULARITY AND RESPECT YOU ENJOY FROM SUCH A MASSIVE RADIO LISTENING AUDIENCE.

I am still wondering Rush, whether you really want to see harmony between and among the races? Please answer that one poignant question for me and your dedicated listeners. As always, you decide!

RUSSIA! HAS THE BIG BEAR AWAKENED?

2008-08-11T20:19:00.002+02:00

'Russia's invasion of Georgia indicates that the "Big Bear" will no longer tolerate interference from the US, the West or NATO, specifically in that order. So what has really caused the Big Bear to rise up and strike with such massive force against Georgia? No doubt a litany of issues that have been of concern to the Russians for some time. In particular, the US' insistence on placing-supposedly-anti-terrorist missile sites in Poland and other countries that are close to Russia. And former Soviet block countries, such as Georgia, that are desperately trying to or have become members of NATO. Such aggressive, bold and defiant acts, as seem through Russia's eyes, send a chilling message to Russia that it is slowly but surely being squeezed, surrounded and most of all disrespected.

In regards to NATO by the way, that entity should have been deactivated once the Soviet Union became defunct and non-existent as a collective force.

However,when one puts him or herself in the place of Russia, the only logical conclusion is that it was only a matter of time before Russia would react; no matter how repulsive and dis-proportionate the invasion may appear to the US and the international community as a whole; for which little Georgia foolishly provided to Russia at its own detriment. Thus, Russia was probably waiting for the right moment in time and opportune place, to send a resounding warning. No doubt the US' strategic in-your-face plan to locate missiles in Russia's own front and back yards is an arrogance and blunder that only the macho Bush administration could make. Surely President Bush and his foreign policy advisors, coupled with wise counsel from historians, should have known that Russia would not sit idly by forever and allow its security-whether real or perceived-be threaten without a response. Just as the US rightfully protected its back door during the Cuban Crisis, it is only logical to surmise Russia would eventually do so as well.

As such, the on-going war with Georgia over the former Russian held territory of South Ossetia is about much more than just that issue. Russia is ending a clear message to the US, the West, NATO and neighboring countries: "Back off! You have pushed us too far. If you don't cease and desist, then there is more to come as you see with Georgia." Could this be the beginning of a new Cold War era?

Anyone that understands the psychology of bears (scared and desperate people as well) knows that the last thing you ever want to do with a bear is to pin his or her back against the wall, or make them feel cornered. You see, that is when the bear becomes even more dangerous and ferocious. This is-unquestionably- the mindset Russia is experiencing today. You decide!

CHENEY, US VICE-PRESIDENT: SAYS RUSSIAN AGGRESSION SHOULD NOT GO UNANSWERED!

2008-08-11T16:17:00.001+02:00

Vice-president Cheney's pronouncement that "aggression should not go unanswered" in response to Russia's incursion into Georgian territory is laughable in light of the fact that he was one of the principal advocates and architects of the US invasion of IRAQ in 2003. The Vice-President should simply keep quiet and out of sight because he is an embarrassment to the USA and is probably the last person in the world the Russians will listen to for advice. And of course the same goes for our president as well since he gave the order to invade in a war that that has been going on far too long. A WAR THAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN. You decide!

JESSE JACKSON: WAS HE SET UP BY FOX NEWS? And Should He Have Been More Vigilant?

2008-07-17T13:52:00.005+02:00

The Reverend Jesse Jackson's crude off-air comments that he made against the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, IL Senator Obama, in what he thought was a private conversation during a taping of a "Fox & Friends" news show,has now grown even uglier. It was reported earlier that Jackson stated: "I would like to cut-off his n--ts (meaning Obama's testicles). Now it appears Jackson used the "N-word in referring to blacks in general. I am not surprised Rev. Jackson applies such language in his private conversations because it is done so among blacks rather freely in many circles; which goes to expose the hypocrisy of a leader preaching against the use of such words, while in private he practices the opposite.

Nonetheless,the forum in which he used the slur is quite baffling. Jackson knows quite well that he was not among friends at Fox News. As a matter of fact, Fox News abhor all that he stands for. And the cable news channel that I watch lets the entire world know their disdainful-negative sentiments towards the reverend with practically every mentioning of his name and actions.

As a consequence, I wonder if Fox News intentionally left the microphone on just to try and catch Jackson while his guard was down to get something to use to discredit him. I am not making excuses for his behavior, but I can't help but wonder if leaving the microphone on and recording an off-air comment was simply a mere coincidence and happenstance, or an intentional calculated act(?). After all Fox News could have chosen the option of ignoring or destroying the tape ,instead of making it public. Besides, is that any way to treat a guest? Would Fox News have made public such terms used by one of their conservative right-wing guests? I seriously doubt it. You decide!

BUSH ISSUES ORDER: GET BIN LADEN BEFORE I LEAVE OFFICE!

2008-06-15T20:55:00.003+02:00

President Bush's call for US forces to “get Bin Laden before leaving office" next January , 2009 rings hollow. No doubt the capture of Bin Laden will be an enormous feat of noteworthy success. But Bin Laden’s capture or demise will be nothing more than a grand publicity ploy consisting of a two to three minutes of news sound bites, preceded with a summary of past events and his biography. The Bin Laden today is primarily a symbolic figure that releases occasional audios and videos containing lengthy declarative dictums or messages. His real power lies in the fact that he has published a manifesto that will -undoubtedly-live in infamy for present and future terrorists to use to further the movement through out the world.. So Bin Laden the man, himself is actually irrelevant since Al-Qaeda is not a centralized entity, but one that comprises many different factions and alliances with other non-Al-Qaeda terrorists groups that apply his philosophy to plan and carry out their carefully orchestrated acts of mayhem
And so it is not a reach to state, but not minimize the significance of Bin Laden’s capture, incarceration or even death, that the President is attempting to salvage whatever is left of his seriously damaged reputation as commander-and-chief, with hope of mitigating any further damage to his legacy as president.
Supposedly, Bin Laden has issued his own orders to his body guards to kill him in the event he comes close to being captured. I would venture to say that is exactly what will happen because Bin Laden prefers and sees himself more valuable as a dead martyr than as a live prisoner or incarcerated hero. You decide!

The New Tito Nieves-A Dancing Boots' Tribute!

2008-06-10T02:22:00.004+02:00

The New Tito Nieves-A Dancing Boots' Tribute!
Video sent by carlosmiddletonsr

TRIBUTE: Dancing BOOTS and PrimRoseOriginals.com salute Tito Nieves for his triumph over diabetes and significant loss of weight. Thus, a transformation from the old to the new as Dancing Boots, featuring Carlos Middleton,Sr., pays tribute in this dynamic and intensified video while dancing to Titos’s beautiful and rhythmic song Fabricando Fantacias! Read the rest of the story at link below.A production of www.primroseoriginals.com

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION & VCHIP!

2008-05-19T12:14:00.011+02:00

Things the powers to be want to hide from the public.
Spread the news. Pass on the link below. Expose the traitors.

BURMA UPDATE! A SECOND CYCLONE IS FORMING!

2008-05-14T13:39:00.004+02:00

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

BANGKOK, Thailand —A second cyclone was forming Wednesday near Burma, renamed Myanmar by the ruling military junta, less than two weeks after it was devastated by a killer storm, the U.N. said.

The United Nations' weather center is tracking a nascent tropical storm that is likely to become a cyclone, said Amanda Pitt, the spokeswoman of the world body's humanitarian relief program, in Bangkok, Thailand.

________

Read full story- click Link below:

BURMA-MYANMAR! 180 SECONDS OVER RANGOON! Eliminate the Junta!

2008-05-14T13:04:00.007+02:00

The title of this article is self-explanatory and appropriate even more so under current circumstance. This is a republication of my 10/07/2007 posting due to the callous disregard for the welfare of the cyclone victims that the ruling Junta continues to stubbornly exhibit, which is nothing less than perpetuating added misery to the horrible conditions that its citizens are experiencing. Thus,if there ever were a time and example when liberal imperial intervention is required on part of the UN and the international community as a whole, is definitely now-unequivocally. STSW calls for the immediate elimination of the despicable and tyrannical regime NOW! Stop further misery and unnecessary loss of lives!
__________
div>
BURMA! 180 Seconds Over Rangoon! Eliminate The JUNTA!

____________
Get first hand news from inside Burma-Myanmar: Click Link!

HILLARY! THE PROBLEM IS NOT YOUR CAMPAIGN MANAGER!

2008-02-13T21:13:00.010+01:00

The firing of your campaign manager is not the answer.The problem is you, your message, and polarizing image and reputation. So appointing a new campaign manager won't make a difference to the majority of voters because they view you and your message as being outdated, coupled with a deep seated and genuine lack of trust. You decide!

_____________
Read the rest of the story at LINK below.

OBAMA! IS HE FALLING INTO THE CLINTONS' GOOD COP, BAD COP STRATEGIC TRAP? Maybe He Already Has!

2008-01-21T23:41:00.000+01:00

No doubt Barack Obama has to defend himself against charges and attacks coming from the Clinton camp, even if some are being made by a former president whose wife happens to be running for the presidency as well. But the primary point that Obama should keep in the forefront of his mind is that he must continue to stay above the fray as much as possible and let others do the underhanded, gutter fighting for him. He must try to look presidential at all times, coupled with carefully measuring when to pick his fights, especially.

Just as Hillary is using her husband Bill as a surrogate, hatchetman, pinchhitter, and the bad cop who brings the negative side of issues into play before the public's eye, Obama should do the same with some of his heavy hitters. Senator John Kerry who recently endorsed him over Hillary would be a good first start. Barack has to understand that when he himself responds in kind, he is only playing the Clintons' game and putting himself on the same level; which is exactly what Bill and Hillary want him to do to break his stride and momentum. Because the more the opponent, Obama, uses his time and energy to respond to their bogus attacks and gotcha-sucker charges, the less time he has to stay on point and get his message out to the voters.

It is quite apparent that when Obama defends against Bill instead of taking on Hillary, he is playing right into the Clintons' well-planned strategic trap. But it isn't too late to recover. If Obama keeps his focus and allow others to address the former president's comments, he will once again be in control of the situation versus the situation being in control of him. You decide!

ISRAEL! CAN BUSH AND RICE CONTROL OLMERT? Or Is He Too Shrewed?

2008-01-18T23:14:00.000+01:00

It is obvious that President Bush's overly optimistic peace initiative between one half of the Palestinians and Israel is falling apart bit-by-bit, and day-by-day. Everyone except the Bush administration knows that Israel doesn't really want a peace settlement. Sure there is a public show, but not real substantive changes in its actions such as halting the building of settlements on Palestinian land or restraining itself from conducting military incursions into Gaza, leaving behind death and destruction; as has been th ecase in recent days.

Bush and Rice, not even the US Congress, have the will nor the courage to do what it takes to get Israel's undivided attention. The only way to bring a rogue state under control is to-simply-start cutting off the $3 billion or more annual funding, decisively and abruptly, until there is a clear sign of change in policies and actions toward the Palestinian people.

Clearly, Prime Minister Olmert-the current leader of Israel- has out foxed the US once again, just as others have many times in the past. You decide.
________________
Read and watch the rest of the story at LINKS below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M46QUlrtud8

OBAMA SHAKES HILLARY’S WORLD, LITERALLY! IF ONLY FOR ONE NIGHT! The invincibility Factor Shattered!

2008-01-04T18:41:00.000+01:00

------------Today’s Commentary-------------

Barack Obama shook Hillary Clinton’s world, perhaps, not like ever before(?). But as it should have been. Her decisive defeat last night has probably sent all kinds of shock waves through the Hillary Camp, with prevailing apprehension about whether she has the right message and where did they-the Clinton Political Machine- go wrong. Forgetting-of course-that it is not the message in this case, but the messenger; plainly and irrefutably. Iowans like so many US Americans are simply fed up with the status quo, and especially Bill and Hillary. No one, not this blogger in particular, wants a return to the “good old days of yesteryear;” and definitely not with Hillary and Bill-in that order.

Sure, I know the Iowa caucusing results doesn’t determine who will be the last one standing for each political party’s national convention. But Iowans do send a reverberating message to the rest of the country that they have taken a close look, almost a year in total, and have a pretty solid feel for which candidate is best for each respective political party and the country as a whole. And maybe-just maybe-for the entire world as well. Substantive change, not rhetoric and the same old partisan in fighting that stifles progress. Will New Hampshire take note and follow Iowa’s lead? Let’s hope so.

If Obama should go all the way to represent the Democratic Party in November’s election , and subsequently is elected president, there will be a major earth quake felt all around the world. No, I wasn’t there in Iowa nor on the sweet soil of the good old US of A last evening, but I felt the tremor all the way over here in Europe. You decide!
____________________
Read full story by clicking on LINK below.

BENADIR BHUTTO'S ASSASSINATION AND MURDER! AL QAEIDA CLAIMS RESPONSIBILITY. But Who Really Has the Most To Gain?

2007-12-28T15:43:00.000+01:00

(Photo: The Daily Mail/UK)

------------- TODAY’S COMMENTARY -------------

If the infamous British police inspector Sherlock Holmes were investigating the assassination and murder of Benadir Bhutto, he would look-first and rightfully- at those that have the most to gain from her demise in spite of Al Qaeida’s boasting public proclamation. And so would I. Simply, by following the hard facts and evidence wheresoever they may lead, coupled with applying a simplified “process of elimination.” But we all know that will not be the case under the current government of Pakistan, and President Musharraf. There will probably never be an independent investigation of any sort or benefit.

First, the killing might have been one of many Bhutto Dynasty haters. Second, the “so-called” ALQaieda radical Islamists could have possibly pulled off the assassination to try and start an all-out civil war. But, unquestionably, we all should be open to the idea that any story claiming responsibility can be planted by any faction or anyone to deflect attention away from the real culprits.

Third, and foremost above all others, it would more-likely-than-not be the very ones that will benefit the greatest from her sudden elimination; not necessarily in an immediate sense, but in the long run. That-of course-would be the current party holding power, Pakistan Muslim League (PML), and the President himself.

Why does Bhutto's sudden termination benefit the PML and President Musharraf the most?:
( a) mainly because a formidable rival and opponent has now been eliminated. (b) the President will no longer have to forge an alliance or coalition with Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP); as Washington, or the Bush administration was trying to broker-forcibly and not just persuasively. (c) due to renewed tensions as a result of Bhutto’s death, the President can now have a pre-textual justification for delaying the projected election scheduled for next month, January 8th. Note: Some say that President Musharraf needed Bhutto’s participation for purpose of bringing some legitimacy to the election. But really, does a “dictatorial regime ” actually need another political party or person to legitimize its existence?

And (d), President Musharraf can also “unilaterally and conveniently” declare another “state of emergency,” for as long as he deem necessary due to the unstable and extremely heated environment. He will-undoubtedly-have the tacit blessings from Washington due to the high level of on-going volatility and possibility of a “nuclear powered state” being pushed into a civil war. And-even worst- falling under the control of Islamist radicals. Thus, free elections and democracy can be put on hold indefinitely, and the ruling party-PML- retains its grip on power indefinitely-unless unforeseen catastrophic events take whole to change the course of history.

But still, once again, I pose this poignant and lingering question that begs for a non-rhetorical answer: Who has the most to gain from Benadir Bhutto’s elimination? Al Qaieda or the powers to be? You decide!
____________
Read the rest of the story at LINK below.

TODAY'S COMMENTARY: Israel, Palestinians OK negotiating plan.Mr Abbas, aren’t you Forgetting the other half of your Palestinian brothers and sisters?

2007-11-27T23:57:00.000+01:00

(Photo: Reuters)

TOPICAL ISSUE-per Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer reporting from Annapolis, Md, Tuesday, November 27, 2007: Israeli and Palestinian leaders agreed today to immediately resume long-stalled talks toward a deal by the end of next year that would create an independent Palestinian state, using a U.S.-hosted Mideast peace conference to launch their first negotiations in seven years. In a joint statement read by President Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas pledged to start discussions on the core issues of the conflict next month and accepted the United States as arbiter of interim steps.

COMMENTARY: I am a very optimistic person, but I must admit that in the case of the Israeli and attending Palestinian un-elected leadership reaching an agreement that will address all the major issues that divide them is impossible without the participation of Hamas, the Western shunned, legitimate and democratically elected leadership of the Palestinian peoples. The hypocritical message is” We support democracy, as long as you elected the leaders we want or the party we back.” It is simply mind boggling as to why the Bush administration would call a meeting of some 50 representatives from Middle Eastern states and exclude Hamas. Sure Hamas will not renounce terrorism or agree to recognize Israel-at this point in time. But if I recall, the US talked with its most formidable enemy during the Cold War period, that being the Soviet Union-some 40 years or so. Mr Bush seems to ignore former Secretary of State James Baker’s wise statement and prudent advice that “one should always talk to one’s enemies. It doesn’t mean one has to give anything away, or appear weak by talking.” And last but not least, in my strongest opinion, if Mr Abbas, the attending unelected Palestinian leader, truly cares about his peoples as a whole, he would have insisted that Hamas be at the conference table; irregardless of their political and ideology differences. After all, aren’t they all Palestinians? You decide.

_________
Read the rest of the story at LINK below.

TODAY'S COMMENTARY:: Iraqis May Offer US Deal To Stay Longer! Daaaaaaaaa!

2007-11-26T19:45:00.000+01:00

TOPICAL ISSUE- as reported from Baghdad by Abudul-Zahra, Associated Press Writer on November 26, 2007: Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday."

COMMENTARY: There being some 160,000 or more US troops, plus other coalition forces occupying Iraq, what else can the Iraqis do but agree under the US concocted pretext that the Iraqi government is seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups. Having guns pointed at their heads from all directions, literally, I would surmise that a so called deal is being coerced, and that the Iraqis really do not have a choice. But in actuality, the deal was sealed a long time ago due to the fact that some 13 military facilities have been or are being built by the US on Iraqi soil, coupled with a $732 million-steadily increasing-US embassy that is under construction now. Do those that are conquered ever have a choice? Daaa! You decide!
__________
Read the entire story by clicking on LINK.

COMING SOON: Daily Comments and Tidbits! Please Stay Tuned By Checking Back!

2007-11-25T22:52:00.000+01:00

MUSHARRAF: HAS THE PAKISTANI PRESIDENT BECOME A GIGANTIC EMBARRASSMENT FOR THE USA? Or Did The US Give Tacit Approval To Impose Martial Law?

2007-11-05T14:10:00.000+01:00

(Photo:The Sunday Times)
As the historic developments unfold in Pakistan with the military “dictator” and president, General Musharraf, declaring a “state-of-emergency or martial law ” by suspending the Constitution and sacking Supreme Court judges, coupled with arresting opposition leaders, one cannot help but laugh at the manner in which the General continues to play the West, in particular the Bush administration. Besides ruling in a non-democratic manner for almost eight years, the General’s total disregard for the rule of law is a blatant exhibition of unquestionable arrogance, and utter desperation to hold on to power at any cost. The term “democracy” is just a meaningless “word” in his mind.

It is obvious the General could care less about the “rule of law,” that is supposed to be the foundation for the country’s system of governance; which includes the judiciary. This goes to show that the West, especially the USA, cannot continue to waiver in its position of turning a blind eye to rulers such as Musharraf when democracy is placed on the back burner under the guise of fighting extremism and terrorism. After all, the so called “Islamic extremists” are Pakistanis too. One might pose the question as just who is actually the extremists in this case; the General or the Islamic factions ?

General Musharraf is obviously playing into the hands of opposition groups, including “Bin Laden” as well. Even though the General may give the impression he is taking “extreme” actions unilaterally, irrespective of whether the US and other western nations agree or not, there is not an iota of doubt in this blogger’s mind that he conferred with the US ambassador in Pakistan or someone in the Bush administration before embarking on such a calculated and well orchestrated effort to preempt the Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling on whether his candidacy for the presidency was legal. Unquestionably, more-likely-than-not the USA gave its tacit approval.

Thus, it is quite hypocritical of the Bush administration to publicly condemn the actions of President Chavez of Venezuela, who by the way-whether rightly or wrongly-is attempting to amend the Constitution “within” the democratic process to allow him to run for another term in office versus a military dictator such as General Musharraf who is in actuality perpetrating a second coup against the Pakistani people and their democratic system of government; claiming there is a swirling Islamic terrorist threat that must be squelched by taking “extreme” measures.

Certainly, there will be public pronouncements from the US administration admonishing President Musharraf’s “extremism,” talk of applying sanctions or suspending certain aid programs, but privately and behind the scenes-out of the public eye-there will be encouragement to contain the so called Islamic extremists as well as a promise of expanded military support. In other words, the hell with democratic ideals when a USA supported dictator’s political future is at stake. As a consequence, the end justifies the means. But there are no gray areas in this case; purely black and white. Either democratic principles are supported and enforced, or they are not. You decide!

__________
Read more on this issue: Click Link.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN 2007!

2007-10-30T17:37:00.000+01:00

CHICAGO: MAYOR DALEY PROPOSES A $293 MILLION INCREASE IN TAXES, FEES AND FINES! Are Some Chicago Voters Getting Exactly What They Deserve?

2007-10-12T14:49:00.000+02:00

________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Photos: Wikipedia.com)
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Yesterday’s on line Chicago Tribune article's title read: “Daley's big tax bite. Only 1 choice, mayor says.” Not surprising!

And when I read the first sentence of the article, I could only shake my head and laugh, sadly: “ Mayor Richard Daley proposed a whopping $293 million increase in taxes, fees and fines Wednesday, including a 15 percent jump in Chicago's property-tax levy, among the biggest in the city's history.”

I further lamented to myself: ” Chicagoans-those that voted for Daley- are getting exactly what they deserve by reelecting the Mayor, time and time again. They should not complain. But for those voters that were insightful and visionary that voted for his opponents are the ones that are not worthy of such an invasion on their pocket books and bank accounts; especially those that are struggling to make ends meet. And believe it or not, apparently, the Mayor acknowledges the same.

Ironically however, it seems that no one- the City Council in particular, has addressed the unnecessary overspending, coupled with the fraud, waste and abuse issues that contribute immensely to budget short falls. But then again, will the aldermen ask those hard pressing questions in light of the fact they themselves, their minions and family members are in many respects receiving substantial monetary benefits from Daley’s wasteful and overspending patterns and practices?

The article states that Daley, ......, expressed regret for the need to seek more from residents. But he insisted that the issue boiled down to a choice between higher taxes and stagnation. Da? Would not a temporary period of City stagnation (showing little activity) be better than putting residents in a more stressful financial situation or deeper in debt in many cases as a result of across -the-board tax increases? Is the Mayor’s expressed regret actually genuine?

Also, I have a few admonishing words to those dire heart Daley supporters: Stop whining! You are reaping precisely what you voted for, time-after-time! Again, I pose the underlying question: “are some Chicago voters getting exactly what they deserve? But at the expense of the wiser voters; specifically those that are of the lower stratum of Chicago residents and tax payers? You decide!
__________
Read complete article by Gary Washburn and Mickey Ciokajlo, Tribune staff reporters, dtd October 11, 2007, at below LINK:

CHICAGO’S ROGUE COPS AND A REFRESHING AND BRAVE ACTING POLICE SUPERINTENDENT. But Where Was the Mayor?

2007-10-10T14:39:00.001+02:00

(Photo: Google Images)

Preface: This Blogger’s comments to the Chicago Tribune in response to the October 10, 2007 article: “Cops disband elite unit, Scandal-plagued division broken up under pressure of criminal probes.
____________

Hi:
An excellent story on Acting Chief of Police Dana Stark's decision to disband the SOS team. But why aren't you addressing the fact that it takes an acting chief, to make a decision that the Mayor should have made, coupled with the fact the Mayor seems to "never" comprehend the seriousness and broad implications of such rogue City officials; whether they serve as police officers or bureaucrats. Just look at how he defended his convicted patronage chief Robert Sorich. Why haven't you all asked the operative question: Is the Mayor suffering from the Hubris Syndrome? Or the intoxication of power? Or maybe he is simply and clearly in over his head(?). Too many people, if the Mayor is telling the truth about what he knows and doesn't know about the incessant corruption and scandalous behavioral patterns of some City employees, are consistently making him look like a fool and doofus (dufus)/moron. Additionally, is the Mayor really "Fit For Purpose" of overseeing the City's business? And last but not least, don't you think you should give Acting Chief Starks a well deserved KUDOS? C. Middleton,Sr/Publisher of: www.somethingtosayworld.blogspot.com and http://somethingtosayworld.wordpress.com (END)
_______________
NOTE: Supt. Starks would definitely have my vote for mayor if he were to run, and I were living in Chicago. He is a hero with this Chicago American-Expat and others living in the United Kingdom. New Campaign suggestion: STARKS FOR MAYOR OF CHICAGO!
_______________
Article written by: David Heinzmann and Emma Graves Fitzsimmons, Tribune staff reporters, and Tribune staff reporter Gary Washburn who contributed to the report.
______________
Read entire story with video by clicking below Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-sos_wedoct10,1,6200690.story?track=rss

BURMA-MYANMAR! 180 SECONDS OVER RANGOON! Eliminate the Junta!

2007-10-06T23:02:00.001+02:00

BURMA! 180 Seconds Over Rangoon! Eliminate The JUNTA!

____________
Get first hand news from inside Burma-Myanmar: Click Link!

HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY-USA-2007!

2007-10-06T12:37:00.002+02:00

ON SECOND THOUGHT, REFLECTIVELY! Maybe Bill Is Right About Hillary's Expereince!

2007-10-05T13:51:00.000+02:00

After reflective thought, perhaps Bill Clinton is right about Hillary being more experienced than Obama. She was probably the one actually running the country from the Oval Office while he was in the closets being sexually serviced by Monica Lewinsky; and God knows who else? So the question for Hillary is plainly: "If you couldn’t manage your husband-literally right under your nose- then how in the heck do you think you can manage the pressing demands and enormous business of our Nation as president?" Again, you decide!

BARACK vs HILLARY or OBAMA vs THE CLINTONS? Is The term “inexperienced” Just Another Politically Correct 2007 Racist Coded Word?

2007-10-05T13:23:00.000+02:00

(Photos: The Times-UK)

FACE-OFF! FACE-OFF! FACE-OFF!

As the 2008 election campaigns heat up, with charges and counter charges and counter-counter charges, one cannot help but feel inundated with physical images and back-and-forth verbalizations between and among the democratic and republican candidates, respectively and collectively. But one thing that stands out in my mind more than all the other issues I have heard, is the charge, especially, from the Clinton (Hillary) camp is that Obama (Barack) is too “inexperienced” to be president of the USA. Too inexperienced? As if there is a definitive list of prerequisites that prepares one for the office of the president of the USA. Only in the movies! Not the real world.

Now Bill Clinton, disgraced ex-president of the USA and Hillary’s beloved(?) husband, has entered the fray in defending his wife’s reputation or record; rightfully and to be expected. According to The Times, UK, Monday October 1, 2007, Bill stated that “Obama is too inexperienced to tackle America’s challenges.” And that “her (Hillary’s) experience is more relevant and more compelling.” Whatever in the hell that means? A lot of pretty-flowery words that only Bill Clinton can conceive and master. But then again, there’s Jessie Jackson, Sr.

Speaking of Jackson, the “inexperience” issue is the same phoney charge made back in 1984 when Jackson- another black man-ran for the presidency; who by the way garnered over 3.5 million votes during the nation-wide primaries from varied racial groups-not just blacks; which is worth mentioning. Additionally, the operative and most poignant question was back in 1984,which is still being used in polls today: “Are Americans, meaning US citizens, ready for a minority/black president?” Instead of asking outright the most obvious question: “Are the [majority of whites] ready to vote for a minority/black president?”

Some even said that Jackson should have ran first for local or state office, such as for a Chicago aldermanic seat or for governor of Illinois. And only after holding such a position for a few years, should he throw his hat into the ring in his aspiration to fill such a high office as the presidency. Unquestionably and without a doubt, the naysayers and closeted racists always find a reason to raise the bar, or move the goal post, especially when a black runs for the Oval Office seat. This in my opinion equates to nothing less than an attempt to amend the Constitution by invoking additional requirements that simply and irrefutably do not exist; nor should they be pertinent.

The Constitution states:”No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Unquote.

I see no mentioning of the word “experience or inexperience” nor an inference or an implicit delineation of its meaning with a list of prerequisites. Thus, the term as used in the presidential campaigns is simply bogus, a pretext to conceal a coded politically correct message for 2008 to remind “white” Americans that Obama is a black man. And that he should not receive their votes; pure and simple. But to be expected, even more so in this phoney- politically correct day and age. You decide!

_____________

GENERAL ABIZAID'S RECENT VIEWPOINT ON A NUCLEAR IRAN! Will his Common-Sense Outlook Prevail or Will That Of The Trigger-Happy And Deceptive Neo-Cons?

2007-09-24T14:42:00.000+02:00

(Photo: AP News/Yahoo News)

General’s Abizaid’s recent common-sense viewpoint about the U.S. and the world living with a nuclear Iran was sweet music to the ears. Reason being is that finally someone with credible moral, ethical and military authority is saying publicly what many reasonable thinking peoples have been touting for sometime. This blogger being one of them, proudly, I must admit.
The significance of the General’s bold comments is that he is not just expressing his own views, but those of general officers that are still on active duty and other retired generals as well.

The General stated, as reported by Robert Burns, AP Military Writer: "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

To me this “profound” statement is the most practical and realistic counter-argument to those neo-conservatives-both inside and out of the Bush administration-that are calling for an inevitable tactical military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities before Bush leaves office in January 2009.Just as in the misguided, poorly thought out and inefficiently planned 2003 invasion of Iraq, the same recklessness and irresponsibleness is being exhibited by some of the same neo-con war-mongers that were instrumental in influencing President Bush to invade Iraq in the first place. Now they are on the move again. I often ponder just who are they actually looking out for and representing; the nation, themselves and/or certain international companies? Certainly, with their failed record, they cannot claim to be espousing principles that are in the best interest of the USA as a nation, and its peoples as a whole.

But now the primary question is: Whether President Bush will once again allow his ears to lean solely in the direction of the neo-cons, such as Vice-President Cheney, as he did during the intense deliberations leading up to the decision to launch an ill-fated invasion? Thus, rebuffing the wise counsel of a proven warrior and statesman such as retired General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, respectively, who advised him-purportedly- against the invasion.

There are times I wonder if Mr Bush, during his private moments of reflection, wishes he had listened to Colin Powell? He probably will never admit publicly that he regrets not taking the former secretary of state’s advice more-to-heart, and with more in depth forethought that clearly was warranted. Irrefutably, if he had, he wouldn’t find himself -and most of all the USA- in the Iraq fiasco that has become an embarrassing reality and an albatross as to the ultimate outcome of his presidential legacy. Again, who will the President listen to on how Iran should be dealt with in respects to its objective of pursuing a nuclear capability? You decide!
____________
Read entire story: Click Link.

Electronic Village: Barack Obama is a Better Choice than Hilary Clinton for Black America

2007-09-20T18:03:00.000+02:00

Electronic Village: Barack Obama is a Better Choice than Hilary Clinton for Black America

O.J. SIMPSON! DID THE STINGER GET STUNG? APPARENTLY! Allegedly, set up by Roccio, his informer!

2007-09-19T12:51:00.000+02:00

(Photo: AP News/Yahoo News)

I know there are more important things that I could write about, but I just can’t help jumping into the fray on the O.J. Simpson SAGA. I am hooked because of the unbelievable stupidity and irony that I see human beings committing practically every single day that’s reported in the news.

And so, as new revelations come forward about the O.J. Las Vegas incident (see my previous post below) the more it appears he was actually set up by the very person, Thomas Roccio, that informed him of a deal going down to sell some O.J.’s memorabilia in a Las Vegas hotel that O.J. claims was stolen from him. Simpson said Riccio called him several weeks ago to inform him that people "have a lot of your stuff and they don't want anyone to know they are selling it," Simpson said-per Kathleen Hennessey, Associated Press Writer via Yahoo News.

It is now revealed that Roccio was wired, and audio taping the entire incident with intent to sell to the media because “business hasn’t been good in the last month or so” and “he needs money to feed his kids;” per the incomparable and usually thorough Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, The Factor. Tom Roccio did indeed call TMZ.COM before calling the police first. Da! TMZ.COM is an entertainment news magazine that claims to “cover Hollywood as it really is...and celebrities as they really are,” and was the first to air the tape. Roccio, no doubt, was paid handsomely for the audio(?). So his kids want be starving, at least for a while.

So it seems O.J., the stinger got stung. However, it is reported that his accusers have both storied and shaky pasts, respectively. So he just might “walk” again-from jail time-despite all the embellished charges the Las Vegas police and district attorney have filed? If that were to happen, should O.J. be called “Teflon O.J. instead of the Juice; just as John Gotti -the Teflon Don-was named in New York because of the various times he was acquitted or walked away from federal courts of law? You decide!

__________________
Read entire story: Click Link!

O.J. (SIMPSON) DIDN’T DO IT! Simply not smart enough! Or is he?

2007-09-17T18:13:00.000+02:00

(Photo: Goolge Images)

O.J. didn’t do it! That is kill his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman, committing two brutal murders .

Recent events pertaining to the “bungled-supposedly-sting operation” that took place in Las Vegas last week to get back his-purportedly-stolen memorabilia, coupled with the unprecedented after mass of confusion, leads me to believe that O.J. isn’t that smart. Intelligent, yes, but not too smart.

Anyone that would screw up such a simple and uncomplicated robbery could not have master-minded a double murder, what some have termed “the perfect crime.” Sure it was alleged that the evidence was contaminated and the jury was polarized and so on. But those are issues that have been debated endlessly, culminating with immeasurable disdain and , yes, even hate for O.J. And we all know what that hate is based on, pure and simple. Don’t we?

O.J. got away-if he is actually guilty-with killing two white people. In the great United States of America that is not supposed to happen. Understanding that such a beastly crime should not be acceptable irregardless of the race and color of the victims and the perpetrator. But when the perpetrator is a black man and the victims are white, a totally different mind set takes control among those enforcing, prosecuting, adjudicating our laws, and the white majority public in general. Just refer to history.

Once again, if O.J. was so incompetent in executing a non-complex robbery job, then how could he have perpetrated a double murder with expert-precision and end up not being convicted? Has he outsmarted himself this time? Has his own cockiness and stupidity finally given the authorities and O.J. haters what they have been looking for since he was acquitted of the two murders? Is the Las Vegas debacle going to seal O.J.s fate of spending considerable time behind bars? Will justice finally prevail? Or will it just be the wheels of vengeful-justice in motion? Still, I maintain-with slight reservation-that he didn’t do it? Or did he? And then again, perhaps, his aging is affecting his cognitive abilities. You decide!

GENERAL PETREAUS’ IRAQ PROGRESS REPORT TO CONGRESS: Appeared To Be More Of An Attempt To Influence Policy Than Providing an Objective Assessment!

2007-09-11T18:28:00.000+02:00

(Photo: AP/Yahoo)

I watched General Petraeus’ Iraq Progress Report to Congress via CNN and CSPAN yesterday, and I must say, although he provided pretty mush a detailed assessment on the progress being made in various areas, and the lack there of as well, I still found his approach and method of providing the report to be somewhat disappointing.

It was apparent to me that the General’s report was skewed towards attempting to influence the Congress and the Nation into the same mind set as the Bush administration is proffering: Stay the course; don’t cut ands run; we need more time-though not sure how much; and to leave now will cause a catastrophic outcome. He spoke as if the US American public and the world doesn’t comprehend that the latter hasn’t been the case already; understanding he was referring to proportionality as far as more violence and sectarian cleansing, and so on.

In my “bias” opinion, bias in the sense that I was vehemently opposed to the invasion in the first place, the General could have left out the speculations about the calamity that will ensue in the event of an immediate pull out of US forces from Iraq. As everyone predicts, whether pro or con, after a full withdrawal of US forces, more-likely-than-not “all-out-hell” will break loose. But as some have wisely stated, it is now up to the Iraqis to clean up the mess the US has created but with continued support from the US; that which does not involve ground forces. Staying there any longer, merely exacerbates and further fuels the problem, even more. Thus, leave it to the politicians to sort out whether to or not to withdraw US forces; with the General's "how to" input.

Furthermore, General Petraeus is keenly aware that it will take a good two years-at minimum-to remove all the operational and support equipment that is now cluttering up the Iraqi landscape. Thus, in actuality, if a full withdrawal were to begin today, it would not be before 2009 or 2010 before such a massive undertaking would be realized in its entirety. Also, very few politicians and bureaucrats are talking about the fact there will still be troops left manning the military bases that have been built on Iraqi soil; some 51 major and minor facilities, as last reported.

As former Senator Lee Hamilton, Co-Chair of the Iraq Study Group, stated: “the duty of the military is not to set national policy, but to follow it. And the Congress cannot allow a military leader to do so. “ It seems both the General and the President ignored that longstanding military protocol and tradition, and Constitutional principle.

As such, I stand by my posting from yesterday, in that Bush had a hidden agenda to influence the General's progress report when he conducted a surprise visit last week. Whether realized or not on the General's part, the commander-and chief's visit had an impact on the General's objectivity in the manner in which he gave his presentation. My only hope is that the Congress, both democrats and republicans, will not allow the General’s obvious misguided attempt as an effective proxy diplomat and White House tool-versus his simply carrying out his role as a military commanding officer-to sway their opinions. I say cut-off the purse string for all unnecessary operational funding, now! You decide!
___________

GENERAL PETRAEUS’ REPORT TO CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT BUSH: Did The President's Surprised Visit To Iraq Have A Hidden Purpose?

2007-09-09T18:21:00.000+02:00

(Photo: Sunday Times-UK)

Perhaps, I am just too cynical and mistrusting of politicians and the Bush administration, specifically. But there is nothing like seeing the “commander-and-chief” on international news arriving in the war zone , as was the scene last week. Quite naturally, there was a telling moment in one's mind viewing projected images of the president actually placing himself in harm’s way, whether perceived or real, to get-supposedly-a first-hand look at the situation, pat the troops on the back, while getting a lot of news coverage with a perfect backdrop for photo opportunities at the same time. And, no doubt, ultimately, with optimistic hope of influencing in his favor the outcome of General Petraeus’, US commander in Iraq, report to Congress(?).

Unquestionably, a visit by the President to the front lines is the right thing to do during times of war and continuous loss of US American lives, coupled with being a good morale booster for the troops as well. But the timing is “especially’ troubling when General Petraeus is to provide a report to Congress this week on progress of the surge in troops that was first launched earlier this year (two announced troop surges, January and May , respectively).

Again, could it be that Mr Bush’s primary motive and hidden agenda was to simply try in a subtle manner to influence or mitigate the General’s report? A face-to-face, eyeball-to-eyeball communication is of utmost importance when one wants to convey a message as to what one would like to be presented which will be favorable to one’s policies and objectives. Thus, wishing that the general will desist from revealing his true gut feelings, while not lying, but not being totally up front and candid either. In essence, a clear message was probably subtly given to the general: “I need your help if we are to [stay the course] and not [cut and run], as many in the Congress want.” That is more-or-less what the trip’s message was actually meant to send, in my experienced opinion.

You see, only rarely do leaders, whether military or civilian, have to give direct-explicit orders; merely hint by implying, firmly- and at times adding humor- what he or she would like to see as an outcome. So who knows what was discussed in private, out of the eyes of the vigilant and hungry media? Bottom line: was Mr Bush’s trip, perhaps, bordering on an obstruction of a Congressional hearing; I thought to my suspicious mind?

My understanding is that General Petraeus is honorable, ethical, patriotic and independent-minded. And as a professional military officer and leader, he will not place his loyalty to the President above what is best for the country, the troops, and the Constitution. In simple terms, all indications are: "he is to be trusted." Let’s all pray that he “stays the course” and follows the dictates of his moral and ethical character, as his established reputation so portrays him to be. You decide!

DAVE WARWAK: MIDDLE SCHOOL ARTS TEACHER MAY BE FIRED FOR TEACHING VEGANISM? One More Example Of Extreme Political Correctness In Teaching!

2007-09-06T12:46:00.000+02:00

(Story and Photo: CBS2 News, Chicago/Yahoo News)

Dave Warwak, a teacher at Fox River Grove Middle School, claims he was ordered to leave class for teaching his students about veganism (a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose). And he believes he may be fired.

Some here in England are laughing and comparing this case to a similar one that occurred in their public education system in which "Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils; a Government backed study revealed. The study found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial, etc.

Dave Warwak's situation is just one more prime example of extreme political correctness in teaching at the expense of providing students with a comprehensive perspective on life. Voice your outrage by calling the school principal at: 847-516-5105 or 5100.
____________
Read entire story: Click Link

PAUL HARVEY:Happy 89TH Birthday!

2007-09-04T13:16:00.001+02:00

Photo: (google photos)

SomethingtosayWorld.com and Primroseoriginals.com wish Paul Harvey, my favorite and the most trusted radio broadcaster of our time, a Happy "89th" Birthday. And congratulations on a spectacular 74 wonderful years on the radio. Paul, may you see many, many more birthdays!

MANDELA HONORED: Great Britain Unveils Statue Of Nelson Mandela!

2007-08-30T15:28:00.000+02:00

(Photo of Nelson Mandela: Google Images)

It was truly a historic moment in time. An event I shall never forget. To actually see and listen to Nelson Mandela speak before my very own eyes. Definitely a momentous occasion to witness the unveiling of a statue in honor of the most loved and revered human being of our time. No need for further words on my part. The video speaks volumes on its own. You decide!

GONZALES RESIGNS: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' Biggest Mistake was.....!

2007-08-27T23:56:00.000+02:00

(Photo: Google Images)

It is a sad day for the United States of America when the top law enforcement officer has to resign under a cloud of all kinds of charges, suspicions, innuendos, and basically a loss of trust and confidence. No one in the media, as far as I have seen, is focusing on exactly what has caused Mr Gonzales’ down fall. Perhaps, the Congress got to the heart of things during some of their hearings. But otherwise, the emphasis has been on his errors in judgement for-purportedly- lying about his role in the firing of eight federal prosecutors, coupled with alleged partisanship in the execution of his office.

But his resignation is primarily the result of one fatal mistake in judgment above all others. And that was his decision to place loyalty to the President over that of the Constitution for which he swore to uphold. Thus, no public servant should ever subordinate his or her loyalty for the laws of the land to any man, president, political party or ideology. But that is exactly what Alberto did, sadly. And to his own detriment. But the Constitution remains in tact, strong as ever because of its own inherent systematic check-and balance process. You decide!

BUSH & BLAIR: MAY YOUR SOULS BE INTERRED IN PERDITION-a state of eternal damnation into which sinful people who have not repented pass after death

2007-07-12T11:20:00.000+02:00

NOTE:This PROTEST POEM-ESSAY was composed August 2006.

(Photos: Googles Images and Wikipedia;
Satan-Todd McFarland of Image Comics)

Mr Bush and Mr Blair:

How can you two parade yourselves before the public on national and international television, with happy-smiling faces and an appearance of self-righteous air about you, when you both have sent men and women into harms way, unnecessarily?

Yes, to fight and die in a war in Iraq for which you both know was based on deception and fabricated lies? How can you meet with the mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, and children of those fallen heroes who have died based on your ill-conceived notions to democratize the Middle East? And tell them their sons and daughters, husbands and wives and mothers and fathers died for a worthy cause?And how can you face them and purport to feel their pain? Don't you feel at least some shame?

How can you both proclaim to be men of faith, that you believe in God? When innocent Iraqi men, women and children have been maimed and even died as a result of your deadly high tech smart bombs? How can you arrogantly and carelessly categorize their deaths as collateral damage? Don’t you realize, death is death, and dying is dying? For no matter under what circumstances or noble causes that are promoted and couched in the name of liberation, the same tragic endless result occurs: suffering and lifelessness-without taking into account the innocent or the value of whatever professed good intentions are proffered ?

Only you and your respective God know the heavy burden you may carry, or what your conscience truly feels and bears. One thing is certain, the day of judgment will come for both of you. Each of you will have to go before your God, separate and alone-on your very own. Neither of you will be there at the other’s side, respectively, to lend support as you do during your joined-at-the-hip sickening “we know best” news conferences. Unquestionably, your personal God will be your judge and jury. But Satan will ultimately be your executioner.

I can think of no two men on this mortal earth, more deserving than you two, who should receive a one way ticket to Satan’s Hell: “Hurled headlong into a bottomless perdition, there to dwell;” (John Milton). Once again, you two will be in each other’s company, together in a place where sinners suffer eternal punishment of pain and turmoil. And maybe, just maybe, you both will think of those that died -needlessly- in vain under your reign of terror and destruction. Begging and pleading on your knees for forgiveness and redemption before Satan’s presence will be useless. Or demonstrating an epiphany of regret will be-absolutely-too late. For there is no such thing as forgiveness or redemption in Satan”s abode, where you will infinitely reside.

As a consequence of your immoral sins, the final punishment for your mortal souls will be to burn in the bottomless pits of Satan’s eternal burning hell. They will forever be interred in perdition, in a state of eternal damnation into which sinful people who have not repented, pass after death. May God "not" have mercy on your souls!

BUSH: IS THE PRESIDENT STILL OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY? His Sponsoring Of Blair As Envoy and Commuting Libby's Prison Sentence Seem To Indicate So!

2007-07-04T00:20:00.000+02:00

Photos: (Google Images)

For quite sometime now, everyone knows that President Bush is out of touch with reality due to his stubborn and entrenched position on continuing to be optimistic and illusive about the actual "civil war" condition taking place in Iraq. Only a short while ago did he and his administration own up the clear fact that this was indeed the situation, when the general public knew long ago. Meaning
simply, that he doesn't know how to measure the pulse of the society in general or to comprehend reality in particular.

The President's recent commutation of Scooter Libby’s, former chief of staff to the vice-president, sentence is just one more example of his being out of touch with the majority of American citizens. Sure he has his supporters, who thought that Libby’s thirty month sentence was too harsh and unfair, but the average “Joe and Sally US American” feel that Libby got just what he deserved. Lying to the FBI or a grand jury and special prosecutor is not a matter to be taken lightly. Seemingly, the President fails to understand that the people are sick and tired of "politics" as usual, or double standards for those that serve in Washington.

To add insult to injury, the President tried a second failed attempt to get an immigration bill passed before the Congress despite strong opposition coming from even members of his own “he can do no wrong” voting block and Republican politicians alike. But still he and Senate leaders tried to ram the masked "amnesty" bill down the throats of voters, until there was outrage and a rebellious anger coming from the general public.

And further, to throw salt on the wound, as the saying goes, he was able to get his partner-in-arms and war, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, a US sponsored appointment by the “Quartet (US, UN, EU and Russia) as the special envoy to the Middle East. This sponsorship and appointment is considered as being the height of arrogance, in light of the fact Mr Blair was one of the primary and most vociferous proponents for launching the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq. And just before leaving office this past June 27th, Mr Blair remained steadfast in his position that he "has no regrets about launching the Iraq War." That is a hell of a proclamation to be carrying forward on one's forehead as an envoy to such a war torn region as the Middle East.

Clearly the President, Mr Bush, is out of touch with not only those that voted against him in both elections, but with his own base as well as most members of his party. If he is bent on sealing his legacy in a favorable manner to try and erase the ill-fated Iraq fiasco that now plagues his administration, which is also probably haunting the deepest crevices of his mortal soul,he had better get in lockstep with the American electorate and stop making such irresponsible decisions and taking reckless actions that even a lame-duck president should be on guard against committing.

Based on the President’s recent and past history in relationship to the above cited examples, which clearly speak for themselves, I have come to a much clearer conclusion that the President is way over his head being in the Oval Office. Of course, I surmised that obvious factor even during the 2000 campaign when he was running for the White House. Which, unequivocally, indicates that just because one is the governor of a state or the son of a former president, that one is not necessarily properly equipped to be president of the USA; the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. But that’s another topic for discussion at another time. Unquestionably, the President is “way out of touch” with the citizenry of his own nation, and realty as a whole. You decide!

SUICIDE ATTEMPT SUCCESSFULLY THWARTED BY POLICE! One More Example Of Outstanding Work By Richmond and Twickenham Police Departments!

2007-06-20T03:41:00.000+02:00

OBAMA, SENATOR AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Can “He “ Really Afford to Trust The Secret Service? This blogger is highly skeptical?

2007-05-19T19:55:00.000+02:00

(Photo: Sunday Times)

So I may seem paranoid and a believer in the conspiracy theory. Perhaps, I am guilty of both. But just maybe I have reason to be when I reflect back on the history of the US secret service agency that is charged with guarding and protecting politicians and candidates running for the office of the presidency of the USA. The secret service has been known for having a shaky reputation when it comes to hiring racial minority applicants, and promoting those that were able to meet hidden quotas-so to speak. So what is my point? What has that to do with Obama? Everything! Due to perceived threatening language against Obama on some well known hate groups’ Web sites, he was assigned secret service protection.

Senator Obama is a black man running for the highest office in the land, with a good chance to win and be the first minority and black to fill that prestigious office. Although we are in the 21st century, there are still people that feel a black man is not qualified to be president of the United States. Not qualified in the sense that he is not of the right race and color; irregardless of how intelligent, educated and capable the candidate may be. Just the mere thought that Obama has a chance to win, is already causing racists to raise their evil heads and suggest that “someone should do a Lincoln on him.” Referring of course to President Lincoln’s assassination by John Wilkes-Booth on April 14, 1865.

My premise is based on the following insightful observation of historical facts. If the secret service has the predisposition to believe a black man isn’t properly equipped or should not be a secret service agent, then some of that very same agency’s members are more-likely- than -not to feel even more stronger about a black man becoming president of the USA. If facts bear out to be true, then why should that agency be so determined to provide the best security protection possible, if there is a culture of racist tendencies embedded within its own ranks. I know this sounds more like an enticing movie script scenario, than something that might or could occur in real-life. But you must admit, it’s possible and not beyond some peoples demented tendency to effectuate such an outcome to try and save the country; as they would justify in their own jaded minds.

Without doubt, Michelle Obama has reason to be concerned about the safety of her husband. Just as retired General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s wife was when there was a movement among some Americans to encourage him to run for the presidency. One of the primary reasons, allegedly, he abstained from seeking the country’s highest political office was due to his wife’s fears. Thus, Obama is now in the race and is much more targeted and-perhaps- even more vulnerable than any of his white competitors. As a result, Obama should hire someone he definitely can trust to watch his back at all times, 24/7/365, and to keep a watchful and suspicious eye on the secret service as well.

I leave you some food for thought with the Wikipedia account of the final moments before the Lincoln assassination was carried out in April of 1865: “ Lincoln's bodyguard, John F. Parker, had left his post to get a better view of the play. Booth (John Wilkes Booth, the assassin) entered without any one noticing and shot the president in the back of the head. Lincoln slumped over in his rocking chair, unconscious.” Hence, the bodyguard, conveniently, left his post????? Although not implicated, in my mind’s eye, the bodyguard-whether he had a predetermined conspiratorial motive or not, ceased to be a “bodyguard” the very moment the President was out of his view. Let your imagination be your guide in reaching a conclusion as to the merit of my premise. Then objectively decide!
___________________

Read more on the Lincoln assassination: CLICK LINK.

PRINCE WILLIAM WAS TOO YOUNG FOR KATE and KATE WAS TOO OLD FOR WILLIAM: It’s Simply A Matter of Physiology and Maturity!

2007-04-21T16:39:00.000+02:00

(Photos: the independent Newspaper)

The break up of Prince Charles of England and Kate Middleton, no known genetical relation to this author, was primarily written in the stars, with fate taking its rightful course. William being just 23 years of age and Kate at 24 years, was a definite incompatible age match. It is well documented that women are at least 7 to 10 years more mature than men their age by the time both sexes reach adulthood. Thus, Kate in essence is at least 31 to 34 years in maturity to William’s slower-paced 23 years. At 24 years old, Kate should be looking at men that are five years or more her senior.

“Boys will be boys,” some have said about William’s partying in pubs and nightclubs with buddies and female admirers; not to mention his groping the breast of Brazilian student Ana Ferreira in Bournemouth, in which a photo of his testosteronal display was recently flashed all over the newspapers. No doubt, William still has a lot of partying to do. He needs time to find out who he really is, and most of all what type of lady he wants to live with for a lifetime. "He" is too young and immature to take such a giant step at this time. Not to say that some men are not capable of making such life changing decisions at the age of 23 is not the case. It’s just that the time is not right for Prince William, understandably and noncritically. So why should he rush into a decision he and Kate will-perhaps-regret for the rest of their lives, individually and collectively, despite relentless public pressure to do so?.

And as Prince Charles, Prince William’s father, has been reported to comment: “the Royal family doesn’t need anymore scandalous marriages.” I suppose, his was enough. You decide!

Caught On Tape: Bartender Beaten - Videos - WMAQ

2007-03-23T15:23:00.000+01:00

Caught On Tape: Bartender Beaten - Videos - WMAQ
_________
This video shows the mentality of many of Chicago policemen that has been well documented and widely publicized over the years. This is just one more example of corrupted minds and souls that is exemplified as well by those in the City's top leadership positions; white collar crimes. You decide!

NORTH KOREA TAKES BUSH TO THE CLEANERS! Commentary By Richard Friedman

2007-02-15T12:39:00.000+01:00

Online Videos by Veoh.com

MUHAMMAD ALI: HAPPY "65TH" BIRTHDAY ON THIS DAY! The Greatest Of All Times!

2007-01-17T18:12:00.000+01:00

(Photos: Ali Center and Wikipedia)

Here's wishing you the best birthday celebration you've ever had. We all hope you live to see many, many more. You are definitely one of our favorite peoples of all times. No one has come alone that can match your boxing skills, your mastery of words, nor your eloquent poetry. You are "truly and still" the greatest of all times.

(Ali-Liston Fight,1964)
(Ali taunts canvas ridden Liston)
____________________

Visit Ali's sites : http://www.ali.com and www.alicenter.org

Also read Ali's life story: CLICK LINK

BUSH’S NEW IRAQ STRATEGY: IS HE SIMPLY SENDING MORE TARGETS FOR THE ENEMY? Or Will The Increase Actually Turn the Tide?

2007-01-12T21:49:00.000+01:00

(Photos: The Guardian/Cartoon byPeter Till)

The President’s speech last Wednesday night was pretty much as replay of the same old tune, except he finally admitted, seemingly, that the “buck stops at his desk.” Of course, everyone else knew that all along. But hearing such an admission and acceptance of full responsibility was
a welcoming change to see honesty show its subdued head, finally, and for him to publicly acknowledge that a new approach and overhaul of strategy is definitely needed.

It’s fruitless at this point and time to criticize the “right or wrong”of the invasion of Iraq that was clearly based on ill-conceived notions that Iraq was a perfect candidate for starting the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East. What is done is done. Let’s just hope that future presidents and the Congress and US citizenry as a whole, though I doubt it, will learn from the Iraq debacle.

One of the best illustrations I have seen lately, was a cartoon (seen here) by Peter Till, that was in the comment section of the British Times used to accompany and complement Jonathan Freedland’s (left photo) article: “Like a deluded compulsive gambler, Bush is fueling a new Cold War.”

Both the article and the cartoon speak for themselves, respectively, in that they are quite illustrative, opinionatively and pictorially, of the type of mind set that apparently guides President Bush and his administration. And the high probability that an infusion of 21,500 more troops into Iraq could be similar to throwing more gasoline into the fire or more troops into harms way-as illustrated. Thus, providing an ominous look into the future.

My worst fear is there will be more body bags filled with US troops returning to their homeland for their grieving families to bury; the real heroes and victims of the Iraq tragedy. And, of course, the Iraqi people also-without question. For the sake of the troops and the innocents, let’s hope all the prognosticators and skeptics are wrong; which includes me as well. You decide!
______________

Read entire Jonathan Freland's referenced article: CLICK LINK.

SADDAM HUSSEIN: FOR OBVIOUS REASONS HIS EXECUTION RINGS HOLLOW /MEANINGLESS-AT THIS POINT IN TIME! A Tyrant And A Thug! But He Was The West's ........

2006-12-30T20:55:00.000+01:00

(Photo: Google Images)

Surely if any human being deserved to be tried, punished and executed, Saddam Hussein was one leader whose name should have been at the top of the list of those that justice was waiting to be served. But as I watched the video of the noose being placed around his neck, with an abrupt cutoff of the historic final scene, I got “no” pleasure or satisfaction out of seeing his fate finally becoming a reality. Indeed, there was an inner-weird sense that “something just wasn’t right(?).” I didn’t even try to match words to my emotions or non-emotions, I starred-stoically-at the images as the news media constantly played and replayed the horrific event with vigorous overkill commentaries. And as if they were exuding delight in his demise and witnessing such a spectacle.

Listening to an interview of a British dignitary on BBC’s Radio 720 AM pertaining to the execution, the interviewee stated he had mixed feelings about Saddam being put to death because of three principal reasons: the means, method and manner in which it came about. His comments, so eloquently stated, clearly captured and summarized the aforementioned weird- emotions that I was experiencing earlier in the day.

Again, something just wasn’t right (?), due to the means, method and manner for which the execution was carried out, in that the trial, prosecution and execution were actually accomplished under the auspices of occupational forces; judges and defense lawyers were constantly under threat and intimidation-with some actually being systematically eliminated and killed; serious questions relating to fairness of the judicial system and trial were raised by credible international human rights organizations; the Iraqis now in power are merely applying retaliatory measures; and the thought that there will always be an aura of suspicion about whether the Iraqis were simply carrying out the dictates and will of the U.S. by sending Saddam to the gallows. And the clincher is whether or not George W. Bush, Jr. has reaped his revenge for the suspected and alleged attempt by Saddam on the life of his father, George H. W. Bush, Sr., during the former president’s visit to Kuwait in 1993; resulting in the US responding by launching a cruise missile strike against Iraq's intelligence headquarters. The proverb “reap what you sow” means you eventually have to face up to the consequences of your actions. I suppose Saddam is a testament to that old proverb, in more ways than one.

Bottom line, unequivocally, is that although Saddam might have been a tyrant and a thug, one thing for sure, he was the U.S.’s tyrant and thug for many years. But Saddam, because of the overt degree of defiance and uncontrollable ambitions of becoming the “mother of all leaders” in the Middle East, he became intolerable and dispensable to the U.S. Simply stated, history is repeating itself under two different presidents, father and son, respectively, with same last names. For you see, just as Noriega of Panama became intolerable and dispensable under the presidency of Bush Sr., Saddam too was no longer needed and could no longer be endured by Bush Jr. and his administration; irregardless of Saddam’s impetuous noncompliance with United Nation’s resolutions. Eventually, a way or another pretext other than “weapons of mass destruction” would have been found to justify invading and replacing Saddam-all under the guise of implementing the ill-conceived grandiose plan of spreading democracy throughout the middle East. You decide!
_________________
Read more on the Saddam’s execution and the U.S.A.’s historical connection: CLICK LINK!

Also, check out US 1989 invasion of Panama and the eventual trial and imprisonment of General Noriega-COPY AND PASTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Just_Cause.

ROVE, KARL: WILL HE REMAIN OR WILL HE STAY? News Tip for The day!

2006-12-11T21:48:00.000+01:00

(Photo: Goggle Images)

It was predicted by a very reliable source on the McLaughlin Group show, December 9th, that Karl Rove, the Political Advisor to President Bush, will resign during the first quarter of next year, 2007.

I suppose after an outright massive repudiation by the U.S. voters last month during the mid-term elections, Karl and his avid supporters have finally come to realize he’s not the genius they all made him out to be. As the saying goes: “You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all of the time.”

Obviously, Karl’s’ time ran out, in that a majority of the people, including some Republicans, would no longer stand for being deceived and lied to as they were during the 2004 presidential election with his scare-tactic political strategies. You decide!
_______________
Read more on karl Rove: CLICK LINK.

PINOCHET, AUGUSTO: FORMER DICTATOR OF CHILE DIES AT AGE NINETY ONE. Has Justice Been served?

2006-12-10T19:57:00.000+01:00

(photos: Google Images)

It was reported by CNN News today that the former Chilean dictator Pinochet died earlier this morning.

Moms Mabley, the infamous U.S. American comedian, once said the only thing people should say about a dead person is something “good. And then she would pause for a moment, and say in a deep sinister voice: He’s dead, good!
That is the same way I feel about Pinochet, the Butcher of Chile. And I am certain the victims of his tyranny (1973 to 1990) that are still living, and the relatives of those that were slaughtered by he and his butchers feel the same way. The only exception being, of course, that it is too bad he will never stand trial on this mortal earth for all the terror and murder he and his regime perpetrated during his rein. Will he meet is his justice in another world? Only for those that believe there is a heaven and hell.

In my opinion, he should have met his fate here in the mortal world by hanging from the gallows, painfully and slow. His demise is being broadcast over most of the radio and TV news networks, as well as the print media. My only ressponse is: So what? Pinochet is dead. GOOD! RIDDENS! You decide.
_________
Read more about General Pinochet’s rein-CLICK LINK.

IRAQ: IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ATTEMPTING TO REDEFINE THE DEFINITION OF CIVIL WAR? The time has arrived to leave Iraq, now!.

2006-11-30T13:38:00.000+01:00

(Photos: Google images)

In my August 23rd article, “IRAQ: CIVIL WAR OR NOT? You bet there is, as long as two opposing factions are fighting!,” I provided a definition for the terms civil war and faction. I stated that according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New College Edition, the term civil war is defined as “A war between [factions] or regions of one country.” And the term faction is defined as: “ 1. A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually a contentious, minority within a larger group. 2.Internal conflict; dissension; conflict within an organization or nation.” All three definitions apply to the on-going situation in Iraq. But for the sake of argument, we will stay focused on the literal definition of the term civil war and the second definition given for the word faction, respectively. And I standby my stated observation and position.

What is so unbelievable, is the fact that the Bush administration is still putting it’s blindfolded spin on what is actually taking place before all our eyes. It seems that the only persons in the entire world that don’t believe Iraq is in a state of civil war, are members of the Administration and some active duty military leaders. Just today, the Washington Post published an article stating that a U.S. military spokesman said he expects violence to escalate over the next few weeks in response to Thursday's bombings in Sadr City
.
The article stated:"The U.S. military spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, told reporters Tuesday that he expects to see "elevated levels of violence" as a result of the car bombings that killed more than 200 people in Sadr City, a Shiite district in northeast Baghdad. The coordinated attacks set off a wave of retaliatory killings in Sunni neighborhoods. While [acknowledging] the sectarian conflict, Caldwell [stopped short] of characterizing it as a civil war. We don't see somebody competing for control of the country here at all," he said at a press briefing. "What we see is a country that's still functioning and still has duly elected representatives in charge who are able to give instructions and orders to their security forces." It is mind boggling to have the spokesman acknowledging there is a sectarian conflict, meaning more than one faction are fighting in opposition to the other, and on the other hand to publicly deny there is a civil war occurring.

The operative word or catch phrase is “We don’t see somebody [competing for control] here at all.” No where can I find in the meanings of civil war, neither explicitly nor implicitly, in any of my searches for a more comprehensive understanding, in which the given definition mentions or restricts usage to that of a faction or factions attempting to take control of a country. The Administration is deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the longstanding and generally accepted literal interpretation of the word civil war, to satisfy its own political face-saving objective of “staying the course.” Or “we can’t cut and run.”mantra. Clearly a “war between [factions-more than one]” is taking place. And has been for some time now; even before I wrote the aforementioned article on August 23rd.

Anyone that continues to push the irrational position of “staying the course or remain in Iraq” is not only insane, but completely irresponsible and in denial. Before long, the fighting sectarian factions that are waging war among themselves, just might stop and think: “why are we fighting each other, fellow Iraqis-brothers? Let’s go get the invaders and occupiers that are now maintaining a low profile within their sanctuary fortresses. And afterwards, we can resume from where we left off.” And then what, Mr President?

Clearly, The U.S. should not wait until the situation reaches “critical mass,” if it hasn’t already, before redeploying our servicemen and women out of harms way. To continue to procrastinate or simply delay, just might be too late to prevent slaughter of U.S. troops. Bottom line: The time has arrived to leave Iraq now, Mr President! You decide.
_________________

UPDATE: Associated press writer Lolita C. Baldor reported today that the bipartisan commission on Iraq will urge a pullback of some U.S. troops in Iraq, but will not recommend a specific timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, an official familiar with the panel's deliberations said Thursday. Read rest of story-CLICK LINK.

Also read USATODAY's blog article pertaining to the civil war issue debate: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/post_72.html#more

CHENEY SHOULD RESIGN ALONG WITH RUMSFELD: The Vice-President is just as responsible for failed Iraq policy as Rumsfeld; if not more!

2006-11-08T23:28:00.000+01:00

(Photo: Google Images)

First, I can't help but gloat a little with pride because in my previous post: “REPUBLICANS: IT'S NOT JUST IRAQ, STUPID! THERE ARE A HOST OF OTHER ISSUES THAT MATTER.” I was right in citing a number of concerns the voting public had on their mind during this mid-term election. And one of the biggest issues was corruption, just as I had projected. To many people, the culture of corruption, coupled with blatant arrogance, was just too much to stomach for another term with the Republicans. So I shall remain optimistic, and give the Democrats the benefit of doubt to see what they do in overseeing either one or both Houses of Congress. But being an independent, I remain cynical and suspicious of both parties, almost equally.
________

Now back to my primary basis for writing this post. I strongly believe, as I have for at least two years or more, that Vice-President Cheney should resign. Principally because he was one of the staunch neo-conservatives that got the US into the ill-conceived Iraq war in the first place. His influence over the President, unquestionably, played a significant role in the ultimate decision to invade Iraq. Thus, Cheney must go too! Many have speculated that he is the “evil behind the curtain running the show anyway.” Is he? Personally, I don't believe Rumsfeld is or was the central problem when it came to executing the war. He was given an almost impossibe task to accomplish. Even with a much larger military presence in Iraq from the outset, the situation would more likely have been unmanageable.

But if President Bush is serious about doing what is best for the Nation, then he will replace Cheney as well. For Cheney, to a great extent, can be categorized as a Rumsfeld clone since they have worked together for many years both in the present and in the past. And have similar, if not identical, views on central issues involving foreign policy and military strategy. As such, he and Rumsfeld probably have a lot of similar characteristic when it comes to intellectual interpretation and making cognitive decisions.

For example, their collusive behind-the-scenes undermining tactics and maneuvering during this Administration has resulted in making the secretary of state’s position practically nothing more than just a body filling a seat; due to the so-called Rumsfeld and Cheney Cabal. Just talk to former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Had the President listened to the wise counsel of retired General and Secretary Powell, instead of Cheney and cohorts, he wouldn’t have gotten himself and the Country into such an untenable situation as the Iraq fiasco.

Hence, the President should provide Cheney a one-way ticket out of Washington D.C., simultaneously with his sacrificial lamb, Donald Rumsfeld, so they can leave together and remain in lockstep as they are known to have served and governed. Plus, if Vice-president Cheney was an honorable man, he would offer his resignation now, whether the President wanted to accept it or not. A new direction can only be achieved in its entirety if members of the "old guard" are no longer on board. If Mr Bush is truly serious in his pronouncement of wanting to get fresh perspectives on his Iraq war strategy, then he should force Mr Cheney to step down without hesitation. That would not only be the most practical and right thing to do, but would assure US citizens he really means what he says when stating he wants to take a new and cooperative directional course. You decide!
_____________________

Read more on the Cheney and Rumfeld Cabal at: http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=7703

REPUBLICANS: IT'S NOT JUST IRAQ WAR, STUPID! THERE ARE A HOST OF OTHER ISSUES THAT MATTER. Will Tomorrow Be the Day of Reckoning? A Day of Change?

2006-11-06T15:38:00.000+01:00

(Photos: Google Images)

Republican Party Flag

Tomorrow's mid-term election results could be a pivotal point in U.S. foreign policy by rejection of the Bush administration’s flawed and reckless strategy of spreading democracy by means of applying aggressive military force. And whether Democrats gain control of one or both Houses of Congress or not, I am hoping some semblance of saneness will once again reemerge in how our great Country conducts itself in international affairs. Perhaps, the old African adage that was made famous by President Roosevelt: “walk softly and carry a big stick” will become the new mantra and dominate approach towards dealing in world affairs.

If the Republicans retain control of the Senate, maybe they will get the clear message upon analyzing election results; which will undoubtedly show they narrowly won or almost lost in several key races. Possibly, they will realize that voters, including their own loyal supporters are concerned not only about the Iraq war, but a litany of other restless nights and stomach ache issues as well: collective arrogance; lack of control and balance in government; wasteful pork-barrel spending as if public coffers are their own private bank accounts; increases in public debt; growth in government bureaucracy, which is an abandonment of the Conservative ideology of holding down the size of government, with controlled spending; rubber stamp governance; stubborn failure to admit when wrong and that a new direction is required in Iraq; that their old stale party-line of “staying the course”is no longer acceptable; blatant corruption; allowing lobbyists to influence legislation with duplicity and complicity on part of Republican public officials; and for bringing “dishonor” to the American people by allowing the President to place this great Nation in a situation where its moral authority and honest broker leverage are much weaker, if not completely exhausted, than they were five years ago.

And last but not least, which deserves a separate paragraph, the unforgivable sin of reaping further dishonor upon the United States of America, as reported by the Associate Press on a poll conducted by Ottawa-based EKOS Research, which revealed that: “A majority of people in three countries with close ties to the U.S. — Britain, Canada and Mexico— consider President George W. Bush a threat to world peace, ranking the U.S. president right up there with the leaders of two countries he has labeled part of the "axis of evil" — North Korea's Kim Jong Il and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.” I cannot recall in my readings of US American history in which a US president has been so debased in stature, status and morality as has our current President; not even former President Carter.

So will tomorrow's mid-term election be a referendum on the Iraq war, the Bush-Cheney administration or the conservative Republicans as a whole, or all the above? Or will it just be an exercise in the status quo of “politics as usual,” where as voters will feel obligated to vote strictly along party-lines based on misplaced loyalty and blind allegiance? For sake of sanity and badly needed change, let’s hope not. You decide!

P.S. Go Vote! Do your civic duty, responsibly.
__________________________________
Read more of the Associated Press article at:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/03/america/NA_GEN_World_Views_of_Bush.php

KERRY, JOHN: COMES OUT FIRING: HE WAS RIGHT TO APOLOGIZE AND EVEN MORE RIGHT IN WHAT HE SAID. Was His Botched Joke an October Gift For Republicans?

2006-11-02T12:21:00.000+01:00

(Photos: Google Images)

I watched Senator John Kerry's (D-Mass) heated and pointed news conference day-before-yesterday in response to the Republican’s allegation that he had insulted military servicemen and women with his off-the-wall, botched joke comments while appearing before a college audience in California this past Monday: The senator stated: “If you don't study hard and do your homework, you might “get-stuck-in Iraq.” His comment should have been, objectively, categorized as wise motivational advice for young college students. But his timing was off both in delivery and in a frantic cut-throat political climate. An atmosphere where the opposition party (both Democrats and Republicans) are just like unrelenting vultures circling over head
and foxes watching the chicken coup, patiently waiting for their prey to make a mistake (minor or major) so they can seize the moment to twist words, apply new meaning and interpretation for sole purpose of gaining political leverage. The end justifies the means, is their hidden agenda and a-moral mantra.

In my objective-independent voter opinion, Kerry was right to issue and apology to those who may have misunderstood his true intentions. And he was “also right” in his attempted humorous-advisory comment.

It is a well established fact, with documented historical proof, that those who are less educated and less fortunate and disenfranchised within the US society, or any society for that matter, have less choices in life. As such, they are the ones most likely to enlist in their country’s armed forces for economic reasons, or to simply better themselves. Look at all the enticements being thrown their way by recruiters and in advertisements from all branches of the armed forces. What communities and groups are their primary targets? Those attention getters have no meaning to those young men and women that come from affluent families. Whether we are talking about an all volunteer force or during times of conscription, this is a reality; decade after decade, generation after generation.

Even when there is a compulsory draft, those that are wealthy, well connected and better educated, can find a way out of entering military service. I am excluding, of course, those well-off, rich folk that may apply for entrance into the “prestigious” military academies. However, during times of war, even many of them will try to use their political and military connections and persuasions to avoid being assigned to the front lines of battle.

Prime examples, are President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. Allegedly, Bush was not sent to Viet Nam because of family connections. And reportedly, Cheney was able to get several deferments from being drafted because he was in college. It isn’t one hundred percent fact whether family connections played a role in either of those decisions or not, respectively. But the bottom line is that Bush nor Cheney stepped up to the plate when their country sounded a trumpeting clarion call for them to render themselves for unconditional service. And as the saying goes: In every rumor, there lies a thread of truth.” The entire Nation and the Republicans are quite aware of both Senator Kerry's exemplary military and Senate records, knowing clearly that he did not "cut-and-run" when duty called.

Probably any other time, Kerry’s remarks would have more likely been overlooked since everyone is aware he is not a good story teller, nor a humorist or comedian? But this critical time was different, in that crucial mid-term elections are just several days away. Was the senators’s gaffe an October gift to the Republicans? I doubt it. But we will all know by next Wednesday morning as to whether US American voters are so vulnerable to allow one senator’s blundering remarks to influence them in taking their eyes and minds off the real issues confronting their country. I doubt they will be so myopic and closed minded. A miraculous gift the Republicans are hoping for in the end. You decide!.
_______________

Read more on Senator and military veteran John Kerry-CLICK LINK.

BUSH-CHENEY: SHOULD THEY BOTH BE IMPEACHED? It’s doubtful if Congress (Democrats or Republicans) or the public have the stomach for such a process!

2006-10-31T14:59:00.001+01:00

(Photos: Goolge Images)

With echoing calls for an investigation into the pre-Iraq war activities on part of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration, and possible preparation of an impeachment document by Conservatives in the House of Commons, I am reminded of thoughts that came to mind over two years ago upon learning that it was “highly probable” the Bush and Cheney administration simply used the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) issue as a pretext to invade Iraq.

I said then, and I say now-as an independent, non-aligned political party member: If Congress can find cause to initiate impeachment procedures against former President Bill Clinton for his under the desk and inside the closet sexual indiscretions, surely that body- the House of Representatives-should have the collective intestinal fortitude based on fundamental -legitimate-Constitutional grounds and reasoning to launch an investigation into the current Administration’s alleged transgressions in reaching the ill, misguided and catastrophic decision to invade Iraq.

Especially, in light of established facts the Administration, particularly Cheney and his right-wing partners and cohorts (Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearl and others), allegedly, intentionally disrearded intelligence reports that stated just the opposite as what their prejudgmental and poorly reasoned conclusions were telling them.
In addition, purportedly, the US military, though meekly, expressed reservations about WMDs being in Saddam Hussein’s possession as well.

Quite naturally, my blood temperature level reached a boiling point with disgust, sadness, teary eyes and anger upon entertaining the very thought that our men and women were sent into harms way, for a war that was unnecessary and could have been avoided. Even today, my perceptions and perspectives and emotional feelings remain unabated. I often find myself thinking both silently and at times vocally speaking out loud, while suppressing internal screams that originate from the deepest crevices of my mortal soul: “The unmitigated gall!” “What in the hell were the Congress thinking about; in particular Democrats?” “Where in God’s name are their morals, ethics and humanness?”

Clearly, the imploding Republicans, who currently and arrogantly control both Houses of Congress, will not begin an investigation because they hold allegiance more to their respective political party than they do to the country, or the Constitution. Even if Democrats take one or both Houses next week, they will probably bring up all kinds of current and past issues and threaten to look deeply into alleged malfeasance on part of the other party. But in the long run, it will just be show tactics to make the public feel good, and believe they, the Democrats, are the better, or more ethical and moral party. And it is questionable and highly unlikely that a majority of the public would support an impeachment proceeding anyway, due to blind loyalty towards their political party. Americans! Isn’t it time for you to seriously consider electing a third party candidate? Of course, that is a subject for a future BLOG posting.

No doubt, history will show that no one of significance in leadership positions (not Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz or Pearle, etc.), actually paid a price or were held legally responsible for getting the USA into a mess that it now finds itself paying so dearly for on various fronts: lost of innocent civilian Iraqi lives; US military dead, wounded and maimed for life-numbers increasing day-by-day; grieving families torn apart on all sides; massive destruction of Iraqi infrastructures; loss of its moral authority and no longer trusted as the honest-broker. And, last but not least, billions of US dollars being wasted on a war that could have done “wonders” for the very same people whose tax dollars are paying for an ill-conceived, ill-planned, unnecessary and inhumane war.

Thus, in my book, if there ever were a public servant or servants deserving of impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors, I submit that Bush and Cheney are prime candidates, individually and collectively. But that day of reckoning will never happen. And we all know why. Don’t we? You decide!
_________________

Read more on the House of Commons Impeachment process:
http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:HXZHsgiAIaAJ:www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/
notes/snpc-02666.pdf+tony+blair,+house+of+commons,+impeachment%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Also, learn more about the US House of Representatives impeachment procedure as well-Click Link.

O’REILLY-THE FACTOR: IS HE TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS?

2006-10-24T22:26:00.000+02:00

(Photo: Google Images)

I Simply could not refrain from commenting and missing this opportunity to state the obvious that I am sure other viewers have noticed on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor in which there is a concentrated effort to influence voters come this November in favor of the Republicans and/or the Conservatives.

Clearly, it is their prerogative to report on whatever subject chosen, invite whomsoever they desire as guests. But what I detest mostly, is the hypocritical nature in which Bill O’Reilly constantly uses the phrase “I’m looking out for you” with his viewing audience and fans, while at the same time couching his true intentions by trying to indirectly influence the ways his audience think about issues that he is so hyperactive about. No doubt his targeted minions are those conservatives and undecided viewers that, perhaps, do not consistently stay abreast of news issues and policies; which means they are the most vulnerable and impressionable of all.

O’Reilly’s interview of President Bush last week, just three weeks before the election, and his interview last night with Newt Gingrich (the hypocritical, disgraced and wicked former speaker of the House) showed him touting for the millionth time what he and his kind perceive is at stake if the democrats are victorious in taking either one or both of the Congressional houses. Purposefully sending the scary message that there will be a calamity, all hell will break loose in Washington D.C., or the entire country will fall apart if democrats win.

As if we haven’t heard all that type rhetoric and misleading garbage before; from both republicans and democrats or democrats and republicans-back and forth- depending on which party is in control determines which party as the opposition will become more pathetic, ridiculous and sickening. And I would be remiss if I left out the fact we hear some of the same chorus line statements and pronouncements coming from each party’s blind following supporters, and high paid special interest pundits.

After watching both aforementioned interviews and observing O’Reilly’s hidden intentions and motives, foremost being to salvage the Bush presidency from th escurge of the Iraq war and to minimize negative election impact, I became quite sad, nauseated, frustrated and angry. Especially when watching and hearing how O’Reilly framed his questions in a manner to solicit responses to support his flawed theories and sometimes clouded and skewed facts. For example, he made the declarative statement while interviewing the Newt, that “if the Iraq war were going well in Bush’s favor and the President’s poll ratings were around sixty percent or so, republicans would have no problems and walk away with this November’s election. Huh! As if Iraq is the only issue that has turned the public against the Administration, and, yes, even staunch and delusional republicans who are seemingly turning away in droves from their own party. No, it’s not the economy, stupid. Nor is it just about gross and consistent mistakes in Iraq.

O’Reilly, let me remind you of some of the primary reasons there is a real serious and unwavering backlash against the republican overseers of the peoples’ business: Arrogance, scandal after scandal, corruption, overspending, pork barrel projects that have no real value, gridlock, greed and stupidity. That’s not to say democrats will do any better or worse if they were in power. Those cited indiscretions are just things we must recognize, challenge, and try to change. While at the same time, hoping for the better, that the next Congress will do better than the last did. Realizing that no political system is flawless. And especially this two party structure that benefits mostly incumbents that are in power, their families and friends, and special interests with political connections. Simply a corrupt and vile revolving door. But O’Reilly’s efforts to rescue the republicans this mid-term election 2006, has about as much chance of succeeding as Bugs Bunny has becoming the next president of Disney World or the USA. Positive spins and twisted facts want save the day, this time.

Unquestionably, the O’Reillys of the news and entertainment media, be it from the right or from the left, clearly don’t get it. People are fed up!. They want change. If poll predictions are correct, they will effectuate that change at the voting booth in November; while holding their noses-of course. And two years from November, voters will go through the same exercise all over again. Thus, taking part in a perpetuating never ending vicious repetitive cycle by supporting a system that is second to none, while simultaneously fostering and harboring a perpetual revolving door process at their on tragic and obscured expense. That’s the American way, though. God Bless The Good Old USA! You decide!

EVANGELICANS "MOCKED" BY BUSH WHITE HOUSE(?): Should This Be A Surprise? Evangelicals should know that is the MO of politicians and bureaucrats

2006-10-17T19:29:00.000+02:00

(photo: Google Images)

I recently read in The Guardian, a British newspaper, that David kuo, a former White House aide, in his newly released book, Tempting Faith: an Inside Story of Political Seduction, portrays the Bush White House’s commitment to evangelical causes as little more than a cynical facade designed to win votes. Mr Kuo writes that “National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as ridiculous, out of control, and just plain goofy;” just to quote a couple examples of several listed in the article.

Quite naturally, the White House through its spokesman, Tony Snow, denied and rejected Mr Kuo’s claims; which is the common modus operandi of practically all politicians, government bureaucrats and heads of state. Deny all charges, whether true or false, and it is highly possible that others will began to believe the disclaimers. And so will those accused as well as their manipulating blind following pundits if they echo the same mantra over-and-over, incessantly.

My primary thought is that evangelical Christians should have known that using others is what politicians and those in power, mostly do. And evangelicals are not to be excluded from their list. If they think or thought they were, then they are more naive that I would have imagined. It’s all a game to those politicos, in that they look at their supporters, voters, and yes even well-meaning religious organizations, simply, as prostitutes. Some will even prostitute their own mothers to garner votes to get elected or stay in office. It’s simply the nature of the political beast. And it AIN’T going to change nor stop.

Voters' suspicion, persistence, vigilance and oversight is the answer to keeping things somewhat manageable by holding the corrupt and disingenuous ones feet to the fire. After all, it is the public that pays the politicians’ salaries for doing the peoples’ business, which is primarily part-time work. The majority of a politician’s time is spent on doing fun raisers, attending cocktail parties, and traveling for pleasure-couched under the guise of doing official work-while trying to feel and look important. Plainly stated, they work for you and me. We are their bosses. And we should not let them forget that fact for one moment.

Apparently, the evangelicals were so involved in pushing their selfish agendas that they became blind followers, naive believers in the Administration, thus perfect candidates to be prostituted and mocked. Evangelical Christians! You served the White House’s purpose: To win elections, two terms. Bush isn’t running for office anymore as president. They probably thought they wouldn’t need you anymore-in the immediate future, since Bush has been elected two times with your votes. But they-perhaps-forgot about long term: The mid-term elections coming up in November; about three weeks from now.

My advice is, as the bible says: Do unto others as they do unto you(?). Stay at home and send the Republicans your best wishes-hoping they lose miserably across the board, both houses of Congress. An eye-for an-eye! But please keep in mind, you have only yourselves to blame. This “holier than thou,” “we know better than you” attitude was a factor that created an atmosphere for a train wreck that was waiting to happen as far as a long lasting relationship between evangelicals and Republicans. Even the politically savvy Karl Rove, doesn’t want religious dictum and ethos shelved down his throat. I know I don’t, or wouldn’t. Maybe it's true, Karl Rove and his White House cohorts considered your mind sets and approaches as fanaticism? You decide!
______________________
Read rest of story about David Kuo's claims-CLICK LINK.

DANNATT,SIR GENERAL RICHARD- BRITAIN’S TOP ARMY COMMANDER REVEALS TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ WAR: Should US Military Leaders Follow His Lead?

2006-10-14T01:35:00.000+02:00

(Photo: Yahoo News)

Finally, a senior military officer stands up and shows the moral fortitude that has been lacking for too long from the architects and wagers of war among the Western coalition forces. Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt has caused an uproar in Britain and the prime Minister, Tony Blair, and his cabinet are scrambling at 10 Downing Street to minimize the political damage domestically, while attempting not to cause undue embarrassment for the Bush administration in Washington, D.C.

General Sir Richard Dannatt has merely said what many in the military and public sectors as well as high level government officials in both the US and Britain administrations, respectively, have known for a considerable amount time. And what senior Administration officials in the U.S. have expressed in private, while stating just the opposite in public.

Sir General Richard Dannatt, who is Britain's top army commander, said “the presence of British troops in Iraq was exacerbating security problems on the ground and they should be withdrawn soon.” In an interview with the Daily Mail newspaper, General Dannatt criticized post-war planning for the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and said “the British presence in Iraq also hurt British security interests abroad,” which British Prime Minister Tony Blair has repeatedly denied. Which is the same unified and echoed mantra that comes from Washington as well.

The General continued by stating that “coalition troop (British and US) presence is inflaming the insurgency and the dire situation isn’t going to get any better as long as the forces remain.” He was asked ”Why not? “Because the Iraqis don’t take lightly to occupation by a foreign power or powers. Even the simplest of minds can understand that reasoning and explanation.” At last the raw truth has surfaced despite blatant efforts to suppress actual facts with rhetoric and spin and obvious deceit from both sides of the Atlantic ocean.

The general is correctly speaking out on behalf of his troops on the ground in Iraq in particular, the British military as a whole, and in the best interest of his country. As an honest, dedicated and career service man, he has a duty to do so. To do otherwise, would be disingenuous and cowardice when troops he is responsible for are in harms way. It is quite refreshing to have someone of his statue and position to tell it like it really is, without all the political spin .

Too many military high ranking officials are more concerned about guarding their careers than doing what is best and right for the troops, and primarily what is best for their country overall. No doubt had US military top brass strongly challenged the Bush administration from the inception,when invasion of Iraq was being contemplated and planned, the US probably would not be in the messy quagmire it now finds itself faced with today. Even if it meant resigning, would have been the honorable thing to do when something goes against one’s moral and ethical conscious, or when it is strongly felt there is not a legitimate basis for such an action as war.

Sure, the military is bound under the Constitution (US and Britain) to take orders from their civilian superiors, but not when something they are being asked to participate in or do is illegal, unethical, immoral or places the security of their nation at risk. The invasion of Iraq has definitely made both countries (US and Britain) less secure. And even today after General Sir Richard Dannatt's revealing interview, echoic spin continues coming out of both Washington and Downing Street; seemingly-with complete disregard for truth and reality.

Isn’t it high time US senior military leaders step up to the plate and speak the truth and stand shoulder to shoulder with Sir General Richard Dannatt? All they have to do is follow his lead and get in lockstep with him. He has opened the door. Now is a perfect time to speak out and let truth take its rightful place, and perhaps save lives. You decide!

_________________
To read more on this story, CLICK LINK.

IRAQ-U.S. CAMP FALCON ATTACKED-MY PREMONITION: I knew before it happened!

2006-10-12T15:56:00.000+02:00

(Photos: Google Images and Reuters News)

According to Reuters News: “ Militiamen firing mortars detonated a U.S. ammunition dump in Baghdad on Tuesday night, sparking a barrage of explosions that continued to shake the capital on Wednesday morning, a U.S. military spokesman said. A mortar round fired from the Abu Dsheer area of southern Baghdad caused the fire in an ammunition holding area in Camp Falcon, a forward operating base for U.S. troops, that ignited tank, artillery and small-arms ammunition, the spokesman said.”

I knew the incident would take place before it happened(?). And to learn yesterday morning that an attack actually did occur in Iraq against a U.S. military facility, gave me a weird notion, beyond simply feeling empathy for the soldiers inside the base who may have been injured or killed.

For the past couple weeks or so, I have had a strong intuitive message, both mental and visual, that a U.S. military base would come under attack in Iraq. Call it premonition, extra-sensory perception, mental telepathy, clairvoyance, remote viewing, insanity, or whatever. But the realism is that on sporadic occasions the haunting thought came to my mind. I even visualized the attackers using vehicles equipped with customized ladders, either installed on vehicles or type that can be thrown over the parameter fences while standing on the ground.

My mind also reflected back on a couple movies, Helen of Troy and the Trojan Horse, I saw
some years ago that told an unforgettable mythical story about the long war between the Greeks and the Trojans: “The Greeks built an immense wooden horse and Odysseus, Menelaus, and other warriors hid inside it. After leaving the horse at the gates of Troy, the Greek army sailed away. The Trojans thought the Greeks had given up and had left the horse as a gift. Cassandra, a Trojan priestess with psychic powers, knew the horse was trouble. She tried to warn her father, King Priam, but he wouldn't listen. A priest named Laocoon also warned the Trojans to beware of Greeks bearing gifts. He too was ignored. The horse was brought inside the walls of Troy. That night, while the Trojans were sleeping, the Greek ships quietly returned. The soldiers in the horse slipped out and opened the city gates, and the Greek army quietly entered Troy. They started fires all over the city. The Trojans awoke to find their city burning. When they tried to flee, they were massacred by Greek soldiers. "That was the fall of Troy.

And so, I imagined similar activity taking place in Iraq against U.S. troops. Scary huh? My understanding is that most people experience such mental visions, just some more so than others. But mine have been with me since my teen years. Though not as strong and frequent as they used to be, nonetheless those crazy experiences of looking into the future continue to spring up out of nowhere on occasions.. And I always recall where I was or what I was doing when the thought or vision first entered and invaded my mind, thus interrupting my thought processes.

Is this sanity, insanity or merely a common human earthly experience into the world of the unknown and unexplainable? You decide!
________________________
Sources: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-10-11T151731Z_01_RAS036706_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-EXPLOSIONS.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-8

Also read more about the six senses and ESP-CLICK LINK:

NORTH KOREA CONDUCTS A NUCLEAR TEST: IS THIS THE OCTOBER SURPRISE? Will this historic event work to the advantage of the Republicans, or against?

2006-10-11T11:25:00.000+02:00

(Photos: Wikipedia and Google Images)

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) conducted a nuclear test. Sowhat? In my opinion.

After listening to the news media and watching the chorus of disapproval coming from various players on the international stage express their outrage in the public forum, one would think Armageddon or an apocalyptic catastrophe has taken place. I couldn’t help but think to myself: The fear mongers are on the move again, My God! It’s the end of the world, finally! Not hardly. And what is so ironic is those that are most vociferous are the very countries that already possess nuclear weapons in their arsenals, or at least have the capability to produce nuclear fusion.

Disaster did not occur and eradicate humankind from the face of the earth when the eight nations now belonging to the exclusive Nuclear Club detonated their devices the first time: U.S. (1945), Britain (1952), the defunct Soviet Union/Russia (1949), France (1960) ,China(1964), India(1974) , Israel (1979-non-declared), and Pakistan (1998).

The Trinity Test-USA-1945

Neither did the world stop turning, in particularly, after the U.S. dropped two A-bombs on Japan ( Hiroshima and Nagasaki) in August 1945. Which by the way, were the first and only times, thus far, such horrific weaponry has been used in the history of humankind. In essence, though sad to state but practical, that the historical two-time event has been an excellent deterrence in itself to others owning nuclear weapons.

Hiroshima-Japan-1945

And so, human civilizations prevailed and continued to exist, and flourish despite the tragic devastaion and human suffering; even that of the peoples of Japan.

Now some in the news media and so called political experts would have U.S. voters believe the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea) specifically timed their spectacular event during the month of October, just several weeks from mid-term elections, to influence the outcome at the ballot box. And because of the irresponsible move by North Korea, the voters will somehow use that brazen act to turn further away from the Republicans; who are now imploding, seemingly, both at the White House and on Capital Hill. Admittedly, this is a feasible outcome. Especially if other unfavorable issues such as Iraq, Congressman Foley’s scandalous resignation, the unfavorable National Intelligence Estimate Report on Iraq, and matters of ethics that are currently plaguing the Republican party were to be placed to the side or taken out of the political equation by the voting public; which is unlikely.

But Republicans, more so than Democrats are still considered more favorable in the eyes of the voters when it comes to security matters. Thus, this one issue, supposedly, is the Republican’s strongest attribute, thus far, but is getting weaker day-by-day. But Kim Jong-il’s nuclear test this week, coupled with possibility of more forthcoming, could work in the Republicans’ favor. At least the damage may not be as grave had the tests not occurred during the month of October, leading up to the elections. Perhaps, a landslide will be averted because of the fears voters have for their security, and wavering distrust of the Democrats. For sure Karl Rove and his operatives want let U.S. citizens forget for one moment just how perilous the world situation is, and only they (the Republicans) can be trusted and relied on to defend the Nation as is needed. Is the North Korean's nuclear test the October surprise? Or is this merely wishful thinking on part of Republican partisan pundits and expert political analysts?

Again I ask, so what if North Korea conducted a nuclear test? I am not dismissing the serious implcations or the severity of the situation in the least. But you see, Lil’Kim: Jong-II loves his Hollywood film collection, champagne wines, succulent lobsters and harem of lovely concubines too much to cause his own destruction, much less that of his entire nation, by dropping a nuke on another country and then having to experience fatal retaliation from the U.S. and its allies.

Yes, the “Dear Leader,” as he is referred to by his subjects, has been categorized as being strange, with a cartoon-like-appearance, and a lunatic as well. But he is also said to be one of the shrewdest leaders in the world, today. As most third world and non-Nuclear Club countries’ heads of state aspire, Kim also wants North korea to be recognized as a member of that club to gain respect and to be in a stronger position to protect-if not ensure-its scurity and countinuation of his rule . After all, being a proud people and poor nation as it is, that is the only option North Korea has-in the minds of Kim’s regime-to become respected within the community of nations.

In conclusion, I state with genuine feelings of belief and strong emphasis: Go to bed Americans and peoples of the world, sleep soundly and undisturbed. Conduct your daily business as usual. Because when you awake tomorrow morning, you will clearly see that life still goes on despite one or more nuclear detonations taking place. The only difference is that the tests will be performed by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea).

So what is the uproar all about, you ask? My answer: Could it be, primarily, about perpetuating and fostering fear in the psyches and hearts of the populace to control and influence their minds and their votes, thus, ensuring those in power stay in power? You decide.
___________________________________________________________________________

Read more on the Nuclear Club and proliferation: CLICK LINK.

SWIFT BOAT SAILORS ASSOCIATION -VIET NAM VETERANS- STOP HIDING BEHIND DISCLAIMER! An Open Heartfelt Letter of Appeal For Sake of Common Decency

2006-10-08T01:37:00.000+02:00

(Photos: Google images)

__________________________________________________________________

Hi James:

Please pass on to the powers-to-be of the Swift Boats Sailors Association that the words in the below "DISCLAIMER" ring hollow in the hearts and minds of the general public and veterans alike, in that the words are bogus and disingenuous. Thus, the Association cannot safely hide behind the "DISCLAIMER" or honestly believe it should not be held culpable for the political activities that its vociferous mean-spirited, and unethical ROGUE members are involved in to discredit their "fellow" veterans. Attacking Senator John Kerry's military record during the last presidential election was despicably low, but their current effort to do the same to Congressman John Murtha is even lower; the lowest of the lowest, unquestionably.

The disclaimer is bogus and disingenuous simply because all the Association has to do is to file a court brief, seeking an order to have those Rogue members to STOP USING the Association's name when engaging in such dirty tricks campaigns and/or attempting to destroy one's reputation for sole purpose of gaining political advantage for the party they are doing the bidding for, whether it be democrats or republicans.

The court would simply order them to cease-and-desist mentioning the Association' s name period, or that they are affiliated in any way, unequivocally, while engaging in cited types of acts. So the million dollar question is : "Why hasn't this been done?"

As an honorably discharged Viet Nam and Cold War Eras' veteran, I am agonized, anguished and tormented by what I have seen emerging from the Swift Boats Sailors Association, as reflected in the reprehensible, shameful and unacceptable actions of some of its members: It is transparently obvious they will do anything to win, a whatever it takes mentality, to associate themselves with the ruling party; even if it means selling their souls and that of the Association's, respectively. Please, accept this message not merely as criticism but as a challenge to not only do the right thing, but to honor the moral, ethical and honor code that all current and former military members have sworn to adhere to and uphold; while setting a second-to-none example for future service men and women as well. JUST DO THE RIGHT THING!

Very Truly Yours,

Charles "Carlos" Middleton, Sr.
Major, USAF, Retired
Founder, Writer, Editor and Publisher of:
http://www.somethingtosayworld.blogspot.com

P.S. I am not affiliated with any political party. I am an independent, and proud to be. Last but not least, I truly believe in "freedom of speech" rights. But maintaining the integrity of the Organization, or in this case that of the Association's, is more important than an individual or individuals trying to capitalize on its reputation. GOD BLESS THE USA!
____________
DISCLAIMER:

THE SWIFT BOAT SAILORS ASSOCIATION, INC. DISCLAIMS ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED ENDORSEMENT OF OR OPPOSITION TO ANY CANDIDATE FOR POLITICAL OFFICE OR OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY OR ISSUE. PERSONAL STATEMENTS MADE BY ANY ASSOCIATION MEMBER, OFFICER, OR DIRECTOR ARE LIKEWISE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED AS AN OFFICIAL EXPRESSION OF THE ASSOCIATION. ANY DISPLAY OF SWIFT BOAT OR ASSOCIATION EMBLEMS OR IMAGES AT GATHERINGS IN ANY FORM AT ANY TIME AS A PART OF ANY POLITICAL CAMPAIGN IS SPECIFICALLY DISAVOWED AS AN ENDORSEMENT BY THE ASSOCIATION.

_______________________________
Read other articles about Swift Boats Association-Viet Nam Veterans-Click on Link:

CAVUTO, NEIL: KUDOS! KUDOS! KUDOS! For Standing Up To Bill O’Reilly’s Overbearing Personality

2006-10-06T12:17:00.000+02:00

PHOTOS: Google Images

Bill O'Reilly ------------ Neil Cavuto ------------ George Soros

Last evening, Fox News’ Neil Cavuto appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show, The Factor, after interviewing George Soros, the billionaire and philanthropist on his own show, Your World, earlier in the day on the same TV network. Bill O’Reilly did everything possible to dictate and induce Cavuto into agreeing with his negative views of Soros, in that Soros is disingenuous, a fraud or is unpatriotic, basically speaking..

To my surprise and to his credit, Cavuto was calm, firm, impartial and non-combative in correcting O’Reilly’s flawed impressions of Soros that are obviously driven, as O’Reilly has admitted, by his strong dislike for Soros and what he stands for and does with his money; such as supporting certain left wing organizations-as labeled by O’Reilly. Cavuto made it clear that Soros, like many others- O’Reilly included, has strong views that he believes in. Meaning, simply, that those organizations Soros avidly supports espouse some of the same philosophical and political positions that he himself (Soros) advocates as well. Cavuto reiterated with objective clarity that Soros also does many good things with his money, which should not be overlooked or overshadowed because of support for organizations O’Reilly has an aversion towards.

It was clear to me, watching O’Reilly’s body language and facial expressions, that he wasn’t pleased with Cavuto’s responses, corrections and steadfastness. But that is the way O’Reilly usually reacts when he is unable to convince others to agree with his positions. To conduct himself any other way, would not be the real Bill O’Reilly; now would it, respectfully?

Lesson learned: Bill O’Reilly does not always live up to his “No Spin Zone” moto and philosophy that he constantly touts and spews out. His obvious hatred for Soros motivated him to compromise his “No Spin Zone” basic principles (be fair and objective, non-labeling, do not attack others on a personal basis that you may disagree with or dislike, etc.) I suppose those guidelines apply to everyone, except Bill O’Reilly? Cavuto did an excellent job in exposing that reality. For this reason Neil Cavuto deserves a three time “kudos” congratulatory pronouncement: KUDOS! KUDOS! KUDOS! AND HOORAY TOO! You decide!

FOLEY, MARK, CONGRESSMAN (R-FL): Did His Family and Friends Fail Him? Should he be demonized and jailed, or pitied, treated and then jailed?

2006-10-04T22:27:00.000+02:00

(Photos: Google Images)

I abhor pedophilia in any form. And if the allegations against Representative Foley are credible in regards to his pursuing House pages to establish sexual relationships, he should be dealt with accordingly under the law. Do I feel sorry for Congressman Foley? Yes I do, in the sense that it is quite obvious the man is deeply disturbed, with serious mental sicknesses. Watching all the frenzy and meanspirited comments coming out of Washington and the news media, I refuse to join those that find it convenient to make themselves look good or enhance their status on the unfortunate misery of others.

But I cannot refrain from pondering over the question of “ what drives a grown person, man or woman, in finding children sexually attractive?” Or at least to act on those impulses. No, I am not a medical doctor, nor a psychologist or psychiatrist. And I am certainly “not” a pedophile. But I do have common-sense along with practicality and realism; so I have been told by supposedly sane and upright people. It is transparently clear the Foley(s) of the world need intervening psychological help, be it at an early age or later on in their adult life, they need assistance in saving themselves and innocent children from their distorted innate and warped propensities. Quite naturally, most people experiencing pedophiliac tendencies are not going to automatically open up and ask for assistance.

Unquestioningly, family members, friends and anyone aware of such unacceptable behavior and perverted acts are just as responsible as the perpetrator if they fail to do their civic duty by exposing the culprit; and the sooner the better. As such, more likely than not, without a doubt, Congressman Foley was let down by those very people who purport to love and care about him. They chose to turn a blind eye. It is those types of indifferent attitudes (it’s none of my business, I don’t want to get involved, we will be ruined if we expose him) that are basically the crux of the problem. They simply aid and abet the offending individuals as well as the industries that profit one way or another off of child pornography and sexual abuse of children. Thus, these non-action citizens do a disservice not only to the perpetrator, but to their respective community and society as a whole.

Again, if a pedophile harms a child, whether it be mentally, physically or taking a life, he or she should be adequately punished under governing laws. But that alone is not sufficient due to documented cases of repeat offenders or recidivism. There must also be vigorous and consistent follow-on care and close monitoring; 24/7/12. The punishment should not be based on hate and revenge that surfaces during strenuous times which tests our civility and morality and spirituality, but with a humanness that is demanded of a civil and democratic society.

Last, if the revelations that are now coming forward are true, in that the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn) or anyone else on the Hill, covered up Congressman Foley’s indiscretions, they too should be prosecuted to the fullest extent laws will allow. Corrective measures must go further than the shameful, bogus and partial ethics committees that primarily serve to protect incumbents and their political party, respectively. Let’s hope the FBI expands its investigation to include those that covered up the cover up, and are continuing to do so as I write this post. You decide!
__________________
BREAKING NEWS UPDATE-Yahoo News: As reported by DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer-2 minutes ago WASHINGTON - A senior congressional aide said Wednesday that he alerted House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office two years ago about worrisome conduct by former Rep. Mark Foley with teenage pages. Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that when he was told about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene." The conversations took place long before the e-mail scandal broke, Fordham said, and at least a year earlier than members of the House GOP leadership have acknowledged. _____________________________________________________________________________

BUSH AND THE MEDIA: PARAMOUNT-CRITICAL QUESTIONS ARE SIMPLY NOT BEING ASKED! Non-challenging interviews, same as before Iraq war.

2006-09-21T22:12:00.000+02:00

(Photos:Google Images)

The news media is not livng up to the traditions of reporters such as CBS' Edward R. Murrow by asking hard-tough questions and not letting politicians off the hook so easily before they get a straight answer. Prime example is the one-on-one interviews with President Bush.

The most paramount-critical questions that would provide a deeper insight into how President Bush thinks and formulates his foreign policy decisions in his role as president of the U.S.A. are not being asked by any of the media people in their one-on-one/face-to-face- interviews that I have seen. The interviews are either weak, moderately strong, non-thought provoking and non-challenging. It seems the media will ask certain questions to give the impression they are being tough, but in fact their hidden agenda appears to be to tacitly allow the interviewee to continue down the same flawed path of giving scripted answers, so there will be more interviews in the future, perhaps: “We can’t do anything to upset the President, or make him dislike us. He might not give us another interview, or he may not invite us to another party.” Those are some of the impressions I am normally left feeling after seeing such interviews.

I recently watched Wolf Blitzer of CNN interview the President in a one-on-one right after his September 19th speech before the United Nations (UN) in New York . Wolf Blitzer covered quite a few important areas, one in particular concerning Iran and its nuclear program. And why the President refuses to meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran since he was currently in the U.S.A. and also in New York as well after giving a speech before the UN some several hours after President Bush made his presentation on the same day.

Wolf Blitzer reminded the President that leaders such as Sadat of Egypt and Nixon of the U.S.A. had seized the moment by stepping up to the plate and taking the lead during times when there were tensions or serious disagreements with other leaders of the world, For example, Blitzer stated, President Nixon reopened the doors to China with his historic visit there in 1972. And Anwar Sadat visited Israel in 1977. Two perfect examples. However, President Bush remained entrenched in his myopic position that he would not communicate directly with any official of the Iranian government, including President Ahmadinejad, until they have suspended their uranium enrichment. “They know my position, already,” the President stated, with his usual arrogant smirk.” Admittedly and respectfully, Wolf Blitzer was firm and to the point, but not consistent and tough enough with follow-up questions.

Plainly stated, Wolf simply failed to ask the President a few paramount-critical and relevant questions, such as: “Mr President, you represent the U.S.A., a super power, but is just one of the many sovereign countries belonging to the UN. Could you, sir, share with the American people and the rest of the world, exactly from where do you or the U.S. get the authority or right to unilaterally dictate and threaten another sovereign country and member of the UN as to what that country must do or not do? Sir, why are you or the U.S. and not the UN telling Iran what is or is or is not acceptable? And if the Iranian government doesn’t comply, what the consequences will possibly be? And one last question, which is clearly related to the previous ones. President Chavez of the Venezuela during his castigating speech against you before the UN on September 20th, in which he stated, and I quote: “ He speaks as if he is the owner of the world.” Does he have a point? Do you think you are the owner or policeman of the world? Is there any truth to that charge, sir?

No one that I can recall has openly challenged the President with those types of tough, to-the-point, hard questions. Not those that normally get one-on-one-interviews. The only news person that comes to mind that will challenge the Bush administration with pure boldness and tenacity is Helen Thomas (columnist for Hearst News Service). Quite naturally Ms Thomas never gets a one-on-one interview, not that I am aware, with the President because she is a relentless interviewer. And also due to the fact she is actually hated by the White House; or more likely, feared. As one DailyKos blogger asked: "Where the hell is Helen Thomas to conduct a REAL interview when we need her....or a David Gregory even.. I fervently pose the same sane question(?).

It’s doubtful-of course- if posing hard-tough questions would sway the President to change his Evangelican driven mind or alter his fixed-stubborn positions and perspectives. But at least the public will know and appreciate the fact he is being put to the real test by the media. And that it is no longer “deja vue” all over again in which the media failed to hold President Bush’s feet to the fire with probing questions leading up to the Iraq war. You decide!
_______________
Read more about Helen Thomas and Edward R. Murrow, respectively, at: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/thomas-1106.htmlln
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_R._Murrow

DailyKos Blogger's comments: http://docgonzo.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/7/05247/63319

LINDA CHAVEZ: SHAME, SHAME ON YOU! For being more concerned about politics and winning elections than saving U.S. military lives.

2006-09-14T12:32:00.000+02:00

(Photos: Googles & Yahoo Images)

PRFACE: This post was inspired by Linda's September 18, 2006 Yahoo News Opinion article, excerpted: .......... "With an election just around the corner, the president has some tough choices. .......Or he can do what is necessary to win the war, which means sending more troops to Iraq. History will not be kind if he chooses the former."
___________________

First, I like Linda, because she is a New Mexican. I spent quite a few years serving in the military in New Mexico, and I still have fond memories and much respect for the citizens of that state. And I enjoy reading Linda's writings as well. Whether she is right or wrong, I respect her for taking positions on controversial and heated issues of the day.

But I am absolutely astounded at the fact that Linda hasn't grown after all these years of being on the Washington scene, into a woman that is not only practical, reasonable and one that can face reality, but someone that places the interest of this Nation and its military men and women above "politics and winning elections." It's always easy for those sitting on the sidelines, who probably have not served one day in the military, to urge those in power to commit more troops into harms way for a War that was totally unnecessary, based on lies and deception, which has been badly mismanaged-as she now correctly and belatedly admits. A condition that continues to worsen day-by-day, with our troops being caught up in an unstoppable civil war; despite the Adminsitration's wanton contravening denials.
Congressman John Murtha is right, just as most Americans are now realizing, in that the War on terror is in Afghanistan and we should turn over defense and protection of Iraq to the Iraqis without delay, not cut-and-run, but organized and carefully calculated-time wise. And move on to putting the USA first, coupled with a significant change in foreign policy. Let the peoples of Iraq determine their own destiny, without having one imposed on them by the West,
or by the USA. or by the USA-specifically.
Linda, don't you and the William "Bill" Krystols get it?
The peoples of the Middle East or tired of the West dictating to them and controlling their lands. Take a close look at history. This is a brand new day, an ever evolving era. The USA has to recognize that fact, just as most European leaders are now doing. It is clear Bin Laden or al Qaeda doesn't hate the USA simply because of its wealth and geographical location, but because of its policies and attempt to dominate the world-especially Islamic countries-and support of despotic royal regimes. Only blind followers would advocate a different perspective.

We as Americans must stop believing that those who disagree with current Administration policies are unpatriotic or stupid. Linda, a true patriot is one that will ask hard questions of government officials, and challenge them to do better at a higher moral and ethical level; than simply disingenuously putting spin on serious matters that affect us all and continuing down an endless-spiraling path of mistake-after-mistake, abysmally.

Furthermore, don't forget that the ongoing insurgency in Iraq is being led, primarily, by Iraqi former military officers and Saddam Hussein loyalists; which should be looked at separately in relationship to whether U.S.forces should stay or leave, than the actual terrorism or civil war that are now reaping havoc on the peoples of Iraq.

One last question, please, Ms Chavez: Are the peoples of Iraq, as a whole, better off today as far as having to experience constant mayhem and chaos, than they were before the invasion of March 2003? The clear answer is not simply no, but "hell" no. Last but not least, Linda, I doubt if this brief lesson will change your mind being the staunch committed conservative that you are. But I will admit, you have definitely soften your positions over the years in some areas; which shows some progress at least. There is hope yet.Thank God!

As the old adage goes: "Despite your faults,I love you still;" metaphorically. And yes, because you are a New Mexican, foremost.

______________
Read Linda Chavez' Yahoo Opinion article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20060913/cm_uc_crlchx/linda_chavez20060913

Learn more about Congressman Murtha's positions on Iraq War: http://www.house.gov/murtha/iraq.shtml

See Tom Hayden's Article on William Krystol: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3349

FOX NEWS CHANNEL’S HAWKS: Not as hawkish and arrogantly supportive of Bush policies as before! An Epiphany? Did reality set in?

2006-09-09T02:19:00.000+02:00

(Photos: Google Images)

I noticed on the Neil Cavuto’ show this morning, Fox News Channel, as he interviewed Congressman

Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts, that he was more of a respectful listener than he has been in the past when I saw some of his interviews. I vividly recall how he used to jump to the defense of the Administration in a combative manner, as if he was a member of the Bush team assigned to the White House staff.

Similarly, I have seen pretty much the same type change in attitude and humility with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, host of the popular show, The Factor. Just the other day, I watched O’Reilly offering the Democrats advice on what campaign strategies and tactics they should employ if they really want to defeat the Republicans in this November’s general elections. Now that is a new one. But he appeared to be genuinely well meaning.

Admittedly, I can’t and don’t watch each and every telecast. But those I have seen on occasions, in particularly Cavuto and O’Reilly, show “some” of the Hawks to be more reserved and cautious about lending their unconditional support to the President and his flawed policies.

What is the bottom line? Why the apparent change? No doubt, “some” of FOX News Channel’s Hawks have seen the errors of their ways, and cannot zealously support as before the blatant mistakes and miscalculations in foreign policy that the Administration has made, and continues to make almost daily in the name of fighting terrorism. Not only in the case with the tragic mishandling of the Iraq fiasco, but the Middle East Policy in general.

This was evident, especially, during the Israelis massive-disproportionate bombing of Lebanon’s infrastructures, coupled with the slaughter of many innocent Lebanese citizens. When the Bush Administration refused to call for an immediate cease fire, practically, the entire world was aghast at the callousness of the Administration’s inhumane non-diplomatic approach. But how could the Administration demand an abrupt cease fire of Israel, when it had given the “green light” to go ahead with its campaign in Lebanon to effectuate a proxy war on behalf of th USA. Perhaps, the Hawks were not privy to that tidbit of important and relevant news item. Were they left out of the insiders' informtion sharing loop?

I suppose “some” of the most vociferous Hawks have finally come to face reality, in that they realized they couldn’t support such wide scale mayhem that was occurring in Lebanon, and at the same time condemn the terrorists in Iraq for their random and indiscriminate killing of Iraqi citizens along with U.S. military personnel. One can now see on their faces, respectively, a demeanor reflecting a bit of humility, melancholy, tolerance, respect and less defiance and in your face arrogance that was so prevalent day in and day out on Fox News. At times their approach was down right intimidating to some guests, with their out right admonishments of “I dare you challenge or question the President.”

Even if the Hawks have had an experience of epiphany, they will never say “you all were right all along and we were wrong” to those whom they openly and viciously criticized, humiliated and even accused of being unpatriotic at times. Obviously they have come to the clear conclusion that the Administration has simply not lived up to all the hype that they spewed out, whether it be the WMDs or the present War in Iraq. And that the Hawks avid, and unconditional-blind support, is no longer warranted nor deserved. You decide!

STEVE IRWIN- THE CROCODILE HUNTER: Does his tragic death vindicate critics?

2006-09-06T14:25:00.000+02:00

(Photos: Google Images and The Times/UK)

I remember a couple years ago when Steve Irwin was shown on television holding his son in his arms while taunting a crocodile during a show in front of an audience and cameras, January of 2004 in Brisbane, Australia.

This image of an apparent thoughtless and careless fatherly act was compared to that of Michael Jackson dangling his infant son over a hotel balcony for fans to see while visiting Berlin, Germany in November of 2002. Michael received worldwide condemnation.

Just as Jackson was severely admonished forwhat appeared to many as a senseless act of putting his son’s life in harm's way, Steve also felt the wrath of public outrage. And he too, like Jackson, responded vociferously and defensively. His paraphrased Michael Jackson’s echo was: “I' m a caring father and I would never do anything to place my son’s life in jeopardy. I know these animals like the back of my hands,” and so on. Yea right! Forgetting that anyone can misjudge, miscalculate or simply, make a mistake. And that animals are unpredictable-just like humans.

The circus world is a prime example of things going awry when dealing with captive wildlife animals that still-basically-are primitive by natural instinct.

And so, while on a filming assignment-down under-in Australia, Steve met his fate from an unlikely nemesis, as The Times-UK reported-Tuesday September 5, 2006. Hearing of his death saddened me because I truly enjoyed his television series , with his jovial, carefree, I ‘m not afraid attitude, and crazy antics. But he-seemingly- tested his bravery to the limits one time too many.

Reportedly, Steve came up against a smooth stingray fish, Dasyatis brevicaudata, one which is placid, rarely attacks except when frighten or threatened, and only stings in defense, normally. The stingray pierced Steve’s heart with its poisonous barb tip while swimming in shallow Australian waters, purportedly, reported The Times. No one gave an accurate account as to precisely what happened. And to protect his daring reputation from his critics, especially, I doubt if his handlers or producer will provide an exact scenario for the heartfelt public and media. But if the stingray normally doesn’t sting unless when threaten, it would not be a stretch of the imagination nor reckless speculation to surmise that more-likely-than-not, Steve probably challenged the fish in his playful manner, and to his own detriment.

Recalling how he would challenge animals on his shows, doesn’t leave much doubt. His critics are probably saying: “I knew it would happen eventually.” Or I told you so! He pushed his luck too far.” But I suppose none of his critics are happy that their words have come true. Too bad, for his family, in particularly, and worldwide fans as a whole. Steve was a consummate environmentalist, a caring and loving husband and father and a dedicated protector of animals. Foremost, he was a great entertainer as well.

But still his critics had valid reasons to criticize, warn, admonish and to give pause. As the saying goes: "Only time will tell." You decide!

DOLLARS: WE DON’T LIKE DOLLARS! As I was told by a merchant in Brussels, Belgium!

2006-08-28T14:42:00.000+02:00

Photos: Google Images
& Haojie Qin

WE DON’T LIKE DOLLARS!

(NOTE: Person of topic is "not" pictured)

Earlier this month, I spent a three day weekend in Brussels. And I passed some time visiting the Grand Place shopping area. While browsing through one store that sold leather jackets, I noticed there wasn’t a price on attached tags. So I said to the merchant in an interrogative voice: “There is no price tag? Do you all accept Euros, dollars or what?” He promptly replied in a very friendly and anxious manner: “We accept Euros, sir!” And with a brief pause and firm voice-a noticeable change in physical demeanor and facial expression, he said: “We don’t like dollars.” I responded: "Oh, I see!" I continued to look around.

As I was walking out, without making a purchase, the merchant commented: “I will give you a very good deal on a leather jacket.” I retorted, with a smirked smile: “I only have dollars!” No comment from the merchant. Admittedly, I experienced a sudden “I got ya! or touche!” kind of feeling. I suppose it’s innate nature to want to have the upper hand or last word in any type of intellectual exchange with another human being.

But the moral of the story is, simply, I wasn’t surprised in the least that the Arab merchant would express such disdain for the dollar in today’s global-political and militaristic atmosphere: Israel’s indiscriminate and disproportionate bombing of Lebanon with perceived U.S. encouragement and tacit approval; U.S.’ invasion and occupation of Iraq; and, of course, the never ending Palestinian and Israeli issue that continues to incense and enrage the Arab world, throughout. Further, realizing as well that the gentleman, being of Middle Eastern Arabic descent, probably still has strong ties to his roots, whether it be religious, political, sense of brotherhood or merely outrage over what is believed to be unfair treatment and slaughter of his brothers and sisters. So I naturally understood.

Ironically though, it appears people shy away from accepting the dollar in some cases, if not out- right rejection of that currency-like never before. Is it because the Euro is slowly but surely becoming more of an acceptable dominate currency, coupled with the Japanese yen, etc.? Can this backlash be due to U.S. foreign policies, aggressions and lopsided support for Israel? What is actually fueling this widespread animosity and rage towards the U.S.? It is all the above, probably, and even more?

I can remember quite vividly the times when merchants all over the world, at least those parts of the globe I was fortunate to spend time in, such as southeast Asia, Europe, and Latin America, were zealous to get their hands on the “good old American greenback," that" almighty dollar"in every denomination.

Times sure have changed. The U.S.’ image and actual influence as a powerful honest-broker nation appears to have dwindled, along with the once appeal of its currency; If not empirically, at least in a transparent manner anyway.

Getting back to the merchant. I don’t know if he deduced I was U.S. American because of my mannerisms, dress, mid-western accent or based on my inclusion of the word “dollar” in my question. But one thing for certain, he was vent on sending me a clear message that he and his fellow merchants wanted nothing to do with anything that symbolizes the U.S.A. This was also obvious based on the clear fact that when I said I only had dollars, the merchant never tried to solicit or encourage me any further. And actually, I didn’t have any dollars on my person anyway. Touche! So much for the good old U.S American dollars.

STATE OF THE DOLLAR? Where is Uncle Sam?

I bet he's turning over in his grave(?).

HIZBULLAH: SHOULD RELEASE KIDNAPED SOLDIERS, IMMEDIATELY! It would not only be a humane act, but a smart international public relations move also!

2006-08-26T16:58:00.000+02:00

Photos: Google Images

Hizbullah’s continued holding of the two Kidnaped Israeli soldiers has lost both it’s perceived and intrinsic values. It can no longer be considered, as it was initially, a valuable bargaining tool since Israel has shown it will not be “black mailed“ this time into releasing any- much less all-of the purported 10,000 Lebanese prisoners that Hizbullah and the Lebanese government accuse Israel of unlawfully incarcerating.

Israel showed a willingness to go to war, although based pre-textually on the kidnaping incident, to achieve a greater objective: to eliminate the existence of Hizbullah, period. However, Israel failed to accomplish that goal. Thus, in the eyes of many, pros and cons, Hizbullah came out the victor. Hizbullah was able to sustain a thirty-four day defensive against an Israeli mass offensive that was unprecedented in the history of that region since Israel came into existence in 1947. No other foe, neither Egypt or Syria- individually nor collectively, put up such a formidable fight for no more than two weeks or so-at the most. The entire international community came to the conclusion that Hizbullah shattered the invincibility image of the powerful Israeli armed forces. No doubt, Hizbullah has won, not only in a military since, but psychologically as well-regionally and internationally.

However, Hizbullah has yet to gain any sympathy or significant grounds in the area of diplomacy. Or is such a politic possible being that Hizbullah is not a sovereign nation, but a state within a state? It is clear Hizbullah is here to stay, at least in the immediate future and probably long after because it will not disarm easily. And will probably become fully integrated into the main Lebanese democratic governmental system, cultural and social institutions, with its fighting forces assimilated into the military system or retained as a militia under the control, supposedly, of the Lebanese government. But we all know that once power is attained, it is extremely difficult to relinquish(?).

In the immediate presence to show its humane side, it eould be wise for Hizbullah to release the two captive soldiers and return them to their families, respectively, and to their country due to obvious diminishing returns of holding them indefinitely. Hence, playing the diplomacy card- for which it holds the aces at this juncture, could serve to be of benefit in the future.

No doubt, such a voluntary and willful humane act will not salvage Hizbullah’s classified status as a terrorist organization in th eyes of the West, especially, but it will give them immediate advantage and put Israel on the defensive as far as-possibly- offering to reciprocate through a negotiated release of some-if not all-of the Lebanese prisoners due to increased national and international pressures. You decide!
_____________________________
UPDATE: As reported by the JTA Daily Briefing, Iran wants Italy as go-between on soldiers. Iran wants Italy to help negotiate the release of two Israeli soldiers kidnapped in Lebanon.
Italy has been told the soldiers are alive but not in great condition, said Sergio De Gregorio, head of the Italian Senate’s Defense Committee. Ali Larijani, Iran’s national security chief, told De Gregorio that he would ask Hezbollah to conduct negotiations through Italy. The reservists, Eldad Regev, 26, and Ehud Goldwasser, 31, were kidnaped July 12 in a cross-border raid that sparked a war between Israel and Hezbollah.

SOURCE: http://www.jta.org/page_view_breaking_story.asp?intid=4350&ref=daily_briefing

IRAQ: CIVIL WAR OR NOT? You bet there is, as long as two opposing factions are fighting!

2006-08-23T23:16:00.000+02:00

(Photos: Google Images)

On NBC News , 16 August 2006, it was reported the Bush Administration is publicly d enying there is an on-going civil war taking place in Iraq.

But in private, there is an acknowledgment among high ranking Administration officials that just the opposite is happening, and there is great concern that a civil war is indeed occurring between the Sunni and Shiite factions. No doubt, a civil war has been present for several weeks, if not months based on the internal carnage that has been shown on and in the news media for sometime now. I want go into the number killed in the month of July alone.

However, as usual the Administration has been putting a face saving spin on the situation because to publicly admit that is the case, would be a clear an unequivocal-irreversible concession of a failure in policy and execution of the War. And that the invasion of Iraq was a grave mistake in the first place. Quite naturally, the Administration doesn’t want to provide its opponents with any more ammunition than they already have, especially coming from its own ranks.

But Administration officials forget one central point about their fellow Americans, and that is: the public is not stupid nor dumb; overly tolerant at times with blind loyalty, yes. But not stupid or dumb. Any highschool teenager, or smart grammar school eighth grader for that matter, can simply go to an English dictionary and research the definition for the term civil war; which I did.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New College Edition defines the term civil war as: “A war between [factions] or regions of one country.” And the term faction is defined as: “ 1. A group of persons forming a cohesive, usually a contentious, minority within a larger group. 2.Internal conflict; dissension; conflict within an organization or nation.” As such, the general public doesn’t need an admission or proclamation from the Administration when they read about the carnage that’s occurring every day between the very two warring factions, the Sunni and Shiite, that the Administration privately concedes are indeed embroiled in a conflict, vent on killing each other day after day. Thus, metaphorically, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s a duck.

In plain English, there is an on-going-limited-civil war in Iraq and our troops and/or coalition forces are being caught up in the middle of an ever increasing sectarian conflict.

Let’s just hope there is not a repeat of the images we all saw during the last hours of U.S. forces departure from Viet Nam in April of 1975, as people were climbing on top of the U.S. Embassy’s roof in Saigon to board helicopters trying to escape the Viet Cong.

Bottom line, is that clearly there is a civil war going on in Iraq, maybe not full scale yet, but still it’s a civil war-according to the dictionary. And the American people know this to be true, just as they are aware when their government officials are trying to bamboozle them, or simply lie to them. You decide!
___________________________
UPDATE: SHIA MILITANTS FIGHT IRAQI SOLDIERS-It was reported by UK-Metro Newspaper that six people died when fighting broke out betwen soldiers and Shia militants in Iraq's holy city of Karbala on the 15th of August. The fighting spread to other parts of the city with gunmen in civilian clothes firing AK-47 rifles and rocket-propelled grenades at army patrols. Not a civil war in Iraq?

LIEBERMAN’S PRIMARY LOSS: Is this the beginning of a national trend ? Let’s hope so!

2006-08-09T15:48:00.000+02:00

(Photos: Google & Reuters)

Three-term Senator Joseph Lieberman’s rejection yesterday by Connecticut voters could and should be the beginning of a trend that will resonate all across the U.S.A. Senator Lieberman has for too long been, in my opinion, a “fence straddler,” taking the popular position for whichever way the wind blows at any given time. His arrogant and continued misguided support for the Iraq War- especially after learning the War was based on lies- was unforgivable, coupled with his in-your-face message to his supporters and democrats as a whole because of his revolting relationship with President Bush.

In simple terms, Senator Lieberman is clearly guilty of violating the basic principles for which the U.S.A. stands for under the Constitution: Doing what is right in the face of opposition and adversity. Some of his own party members have accused him of abandoning those principles that the Democratic Party stands for as well. Without question, Connecticut voters let him know just how they felt about his betrayal and what they will and will not accept. Bravo!

As a consequence, will voters all across the U.S.A. take notice and stop sending most-if not all-of the “lifers” back to their respective comfortable public service seats when they are not looking out for what is best for the United States of America and their constituents; in that order. In other words, as Mr Ned Lamont- the victor in yesterday's primary election-stated, “Let’s put the U.S.A. first.”

That is the way it should be. Had this basic principle been applied by all sides, republicans and democrats alike, leading up to the Iraq War, the U.S. wouldn’t be in the mess it is now faced with today. Our troops and Iraqis are dying and being maimed almost daily, a civil war is either on-going or is eminent; and billions of badly needed U.S.American dollars are going to waste. I should specify, “borrowed” dollars with mounting interest payments that could wisely be spent right at home in every state, city, and community throughout the country. Too bad politicians don’t manage public funds as well as they manage their own.

It is reported Senator Lieberman plans on running as an independent in the general election. Which goes to show, once again and most profoundly, he only cares about holding on to power and doesn’t want to own up to his mistakes. Nor does he want to face the telling fact that the majority of Connecticut voters just want him to fade away. But I suppose it’s hard to let go of the power, perks and limelight once you are used to them. And, perhaps, that’s all that really matters to many politician in the end.

So for Senator Lieberman, the “chickens have finally come home to roost.” And the “fat lady has finally sang her song.” Good riddance for Connecticut voters and for the good old U.S.A. overall. The whining fence-straddler will probably loose this coming November in the general election. But in politics, just like in any sporting event: "It ain't over til it's over." Thus, no-one can predict the outcome. But, no doubt, many are keeping their fingers crossed. You decide!

CUBA-POST CASTRO BROTHERS’ RULE: Should Afro-Cubans be celebrating?

2006-08-03T17:07:00.000+02:00

(Photos: METRO-AFP/AP)

Reading Sarah Getty's article in Wednesday's, August 2, 2006 edition of the Metro-UK: "Sick Castro gives power to brother," and also watching evening news on television and seeing images of Cuban exiles in Miami, Florida celebrating in the streets about Fidel Castro’s’ temporary handing over of power to his younger brother Raul, I noticed there were only a couple of Afro-Cubans of dark complexion. The rest appeared to be whites of Hispanic descent and mulattos (offsprings of blacks and whites) and mestizos (persons of mixed blood). And I wondered, if the Afro-Cubans were actually exiles themselves, or merely offsprings of previous generations of older Afro-Cubans in exile?

My mind reflected back on the gruesome pictures I saw many years ago of blacks in Cuban during the U.S. supported Batista regime that showed Afro-Cubans being brutalized with attack dogs and high pressure water hoses before the Castro regime came into power in January 1959. Of course, those were some of the same types of brutal and oppressive tactics and strategies used in the U.S. southern states against African Americans, or Negroes as was the proper term at that time.

And so, I pondered over whether those young Afro-Cubans really understood just what they were celebrating and being so jubilant about in light of the severe discrimination their ancestors had been subjected to by some of the same elite Hispanic-Cubans they now find themselves standing beside on the streets of Miami, prematurely, celebrating Castro’s demise or exit from power. Possibly, they have forgotten that their mothers and fathers and other blacks had to enter through back doors of the white-Hispanic owned homes and establishements; were banned from entering most public places; couldn’t get descent employment; and they certainly didn’t have access to health care or education.
But all that changed under Fidel Castro and his brother Raul. This is not to say there is no racism or discrimination in Cuba today; quite the contrary. One can change laws, but it’s difficult to change hearts and minds, and enbedded prejudices and biases.

However, it is not at all a reach to state that social conditons have vastly improved for the Afro-Cubans and the masses as a whole, or the humble people, since the Castros came to power; despite the 46 years of embargo that have denied the Cuban people the opportunity to develope a robust and flourishing economy. unquestionably, they all are much better off today, when compared to social conditions under the Bastista regime.

For example, an early assessment of the revolutionary changes made in combating discrimination and racism, is chronicled in an article by Albert Weisbord, What's Going On In Cuba (From the magazine "La Parola del Popolo" April - September 1960): “Racism has been given a mortal blow in Cuba. Negros everywhere occupy an important position. They make up about 50% of the army. They are 10% - 20% of the officialdom; Cuba's national hero is the Negro, General Maceo; the composer of their new national hymn of the 26th of July is a Negro, Cartaya; the head of the Cuban army is a Negro, Juan Almeida, etc. Intermarriage is common and any segregation or discrimination is severely attacked.”

Thus, when and if the Castro brothers and their regime should lose power, what type government and society will the white-Hispanic Miami Cuban exiled elites put into place? Will it be the same old "de je vu" they or their ancestors once enjoyed during the Batista era? And- perhaps-long to recapture those good-old-days-of-yo?

As J.A. Sierra rightly and insightfully asked in his essay, History of Cuba: “Will institutional U.S.-style racism return to Cuba once Castro is gone?” That is the million dollar question that Afro-Cubans should be asking their white-Hispanic elite brothers and sisters that hold the power base in Miami, and no doubt, will play a significant role in the future of Cuba if and when circumstances make way for them to be repatriated to their homeland.

J.A. Sierra provides deeper insight into just how racial relations will probably be among Afro-Cubans and whites of Hispanic descent, in one of his quotes: In the 1990s, wrote Pérez Sarduy, "the political and racial division between Cubans on the island (mainly black and brown) and Cubans in Miami (overwhelmingly white) was made apparent in the receptions each group gave South African leader Mandela: in Cuba he was welcomed as a hero, but not so in Miami. In June 1990, shortly before a planned visit to Florida as part of his U.S. tour, four Cuban American mayors of Miami signed a letter declaring Nelson Mandela persona non grata. Any sign of support for Cuba was to be denounced. (Mandela had often expressed appreciation for Cuba's solidarity in ending apartheid.) The African American community declared a boycott of Miami, which was ineffective, and demanded an apology from the Cuban Americans, which was never offered. The conflict also signaled divisions among Cuban Americans, as Afro-Cubans distanced themselves from Cubans of Hispanic descent."

Hence and unquestionably, it is paramount that Afro-Cubans constantly remind their fellow Cubans of social historian Fernando Ortíz’ words of 1942: "On guard, black man! On guard, white man!" "All Cubans together, on guard! And stand forever close together, for our liberties and our lives are in danger." Without the black, Cuba would not be Cuba.

But, if the tenuous relationship that currently exists among white-Hispanic and black Cuban exiles in Miami today is an example of what is to come upon their return to Cuba proper, post-Castros, then I believe the young Afro-Cuban exiles would put more in depth thought into just how quick they were/are to jump on the bandwagon to wish for the Castro’s rapid exit from power and eventual demise. You decide!
______________________________________________________________________________
References: http://www.weisbord.org/WhatsGoingOn.htm; http://www.blackwebportal.com/nuforums/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=13&Topic=992;
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/race/RaceIntro.htm
_