MR. DICK CHENEY..

Former Vice--President Dick Cheney slammed the Obama administration, once again, of fishing in the wrong waters. If a precedent was set for every new government to investigate the activities of a previous administration, there would not be time enough to look into other serious matters affecting the nation, particularly where national security issues were concerned.

He was commenting on the decision by the Obama government to investigate CIA operatives who, according to the Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder, have broken laws while interrogating terror suspects during the Bush administration. His intention of opening a probe into such matters was based on a 2003 Inspector General's report, which has been previously examined and dealt with in the past. There was nothing new in that report, except for President Obama to renege on a decision to declare the case closed only a few weeks ago.

"It's an outrageous political act that will do great damage, long-term, to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say", Mr. Cheney said on FOX News Sunday, yesterday morning.

He maintained that, constitutionally, the President was the chief law enforcement officer, and although Mr. Holder was the Attorney General, he could not overrule his (Obama's) decision unless he allowed him (Holder) to do so.

"I have serious doubts about his policies," Cheney continued while being interviewed by FOX News' Chris Wallace in Wyoming. "Serious doubts, especially, about the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation", Mr. Cheney further said.

The interview dealt with several issues, covering the newly formed unit that was set up to interrogate terrorists; thus shifting control of such interrogations away from the CIA and thrusting it (control) into the hands of the FBI under the supervision of the National Security Council. Who would be responsible for the HIG, as the unit would be called, with the initials standing for "High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group".

Well, every administration has the right to pursue its own policies, whatever they might be; and there should not be any qualms about President Obama doing just that. Nevertheless, precious time should not be wasted on bygone issues.

This blog, however, had dealt with the same matter before, asking, "WHO IS IN CHARGE?", as if what was highly volatile an issue as making the CIA the scapegoat of what happened in another administration should be taken lightly.

Was the decision purely a political one, and if so, should not the President seize the opportunity to straighten things out, as Mr. Cheney was suggesting, before it (matter) went too far?

CYBERSECURITY.

The Internet being under the control of anybody is not a prized idea; but that is what is being suggested by a new bill in the Senate to empower the President to "essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a 'cyber-emergency'. In other words, President Obama can declare a cybersecurity emergency relating to "nongovernmental" computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger that the enemies of the United States may pose.

It is believed that the original bill by Senator Jay Rockefeller has been revamped, but the new version still contains language which will whittle away civil liberties of both individuals and private companies and networks operating on the Internet. He has previously said that the legislation "was critical to protecting everything from water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records". He has also added, "I know the threats we face,.....Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest".

Of course, it is necessary for the government to take precautions to protect the interest of the nation against any kind of threat, foreign and/or domestic, whether it is physical, and in the case of cyberspace, virtual. However, as he President Obama had said before in a May science policy review, which would take cybersecurity in the right direction "by promoting incentives to get the private industry to improve its own security measures"; the government must not reverse that policy.

Although, private industry has the expertise, when it comes to cybersecurity, and not the government; but it (private Industry)must not be allowed to dominate the Internet; and that measures are needed to curb its powers from doing so. Yet, with its know-how, it (private industry) must take the lead in this matter and start working from this instance with the government to stop any such attacks that are being espoused by the proponents of the Senate bill. They (Senators) mean well; but surely, they are not advocating any law that will cripple any person's freedom in the use of the Internet.

Individuals must be concerned with any type of intrusion of the Internet, although its (Internet's) security is essential for people to go "online" without fear of their names and email addresses being listed for any reason, good or bad. They are also aware that the government has the responsibility of safeguarding the use of the Internet, and to stop the enemy from using it against the nation in any way, shape or form; but it (government) must work closely with The Internet Security Alliance, The Business Software Alliance, and many other such entities that are available, to find the solutions for any emergencies, instead of the concept or proposition of putting a "kill switch" in the hands of any one person.

THE H.I.G.

The White House idea of wrestling the investigation procedures from the CIA, and giving it to a newly formed group, "The High Value Detainee Interrogation Group" (H.I.G), smacks National Security right in the face. The group will be composed of interrogators from several agencies, including CIA operatives, and it will be answering to the FBI, which will in turn be subjected to the WH based National Security Council.

The FBI, as we all know, gathers information for criminal proceedings in domestic courts, and does not have the relationship with foreign intelligence that will allow its personnel to fish out adequate information from various sources to sufficiently question terrorist suspects; and therefore, when it comes to Intelligence gathering, the FBI will fall short, because that is not what it is designed for.

Bringing other agencies in to do the job they are not fully trained for will only complicate matters. Some scraps of CIA know-how, they say, will be thrown in to make it sufficient for the interrogation of High-Value detainees that have serious information needed to deter mishaps; perhaps, another 9/11 attack.

It will be the case of "too many cooks spoiling the broth"; and it must be left for the new CIA Director Leon Penetta to be at the helm of any such group that will be responsible for conducting the interrogation of terrorists. He already has access to President Obama, and also to the National Security Council through the WH. Therefore, the scenario of going round in circles to get vital information to protect the nation does not seem reassuring at all. It cannot be seen as making changes to improve methods to keep America safe.

It can only be viewed as making changes in techniques of interrogation to prevent any kind of abuse or torture, as the case may be, of terrorists who are determined to use any means at their disposal to destroy the United States. It seems like a political maneuver to appease the left of the Democratic Party. They, the leftist organizations, think of their party first before the nation; hence, their recent attacks of the CIA.

For the safety of all Americans and the security of the nation, the CIA must be permitted to do its work, as has been intended by previous governments, with no interference from the left of the Democratic Party.

HEALTH CARE....

The Health Care reform by the Obama administration should be done without controversy of any kind, so long as it would be fair to everybody; seniors, in particular, must have their golden years unperturbed in any way; and the government must insist on a safety-net requirement for those who would become uninsured if they lost their jobs or even changed them (jobs).

The furor that was taking place in town hall meetings across the country indicated that all that people wanted was fairness, as well as quality care. Some of them said that they were happy with their present insurance coverage; others were advocating patient freedom to choose their own doctors; while some other sections wanted government supervision to curtail the shenanigans of the Insurance Companies, because they (shenanigans) happened.

All those were important factors that our Congressmen and women should seriously look into before they proceeded in passing a bill that would enable President Obama to sign into law, to have every American covered, as 46 million people were not insured at all. That was a diabolical situation for many families, who had no choice, but to go to hospital emergency rooms instead; and those places were sometimes jam-packed to the point of making doctors, nurses and other hospital workers very uncomfortable, let alone the suffering patients who were there just for some medical attention or treatment that they badly needed.

Profit making Insurance companies, as the name implied, did not want their businesses hampered by laws and regulations; they (laws and regulations) would reduce or minimize their profits; however, they were part of the problem. Instead of providing quality care for sick people, they would consider the premiums that were being paid to see if they were comparable to the kinds of treatment they should offer their patients. In their calculation, money was what people should have to get adequate treatment, and so many (patients) lose their coverage because they could not afford those high premiums. Doctors would then say that they (patients) were not sufficiently covered.

What people needed was proper health care and not unnecessary hassle, when they or their loved ones got sick; and that should be the bottom line for Insurance companies, if they wanted to stay in business. The government should also be involved, with appropriate laws and regulations, to make sure that health care services were provided equitably.

There was no way that the Insurance companies could rule that out; and if there should be a "public option" or an idea to bring competition into the field of health care, by virtue of having co-operatives, for them (Insurance companies) to to toe the line that would ensure reasonable health care for all, why not?.

KENNEDY.

Senator Edward Kennedy's passing hit many of us like a hard stone on Wednesday morning, when the news came out. It was not just right to receive that kind of news about a man who was "The Rock" of American politics for quite a long time. So, the whole country should be in mourning with the Kennedy family for a man who was everything to each and every one of us; first, a brother, followed by a dear husband, a glorious Uncle and an ardent friend.

To many, he was only a politician; but to his children and other relatives, he stood out as a citadel of courage, to be able to withstand all the tragedies that had befallen their famous family.

Socially, and politically too, there was no necessity for the Kennedys to side with the poor and the down trodden; but as if it was embedded in their character, probably, from their upbringing and training of strict parents, to see and recognize what need was; even though it did not touch them in any way; to be compassionate and to position themselves to help those who were in awful need.

John, the President, showed it; Robert, the next senior to "Ted" (as Edward was commonly called) revealed it; and he Edward himself demonstrated that nature of innate concern for the needy, wherever and whenever he found the opportunity to redress it.

As a stalwart politician, he championed many social causes that were not regarded as the responsibility of a person whose background was as opulent as his was; health care, Vietnam, Iraq, food for the elderly, and many other such programs. His time in Congress as a Senator was never wasted, for he was on his feet for most of the time, fighting to correct the incorrigible; and even not stopping there, but reforming them to benefit those not of his own kind, but for those who were neglected by the system generally, but hardly congenially, referred to as society.

It is needless to say that "Ted" Kennedy will be missed, not just by his colleagues in The Congress of the United States of America, but just as his brothers, by "we the people".

WHO IS IN CHARGE?

First, there was a "list" of Al Qaeda leadership targeted to be killed during the Bush administration, which was proposed to be debated in the House of Representatives, by a parasitic Democratic Congressman from Texas; then yesterday, the Attorney General Eric Holder appointed a special prosecutor to investigate allegations that "terror suspects were abused at the hands of their CIA interrogators". What a smack idea.

The near surprise of the announcement to appoint Justice Department prosecutor John Durham, came soon after the President had left for his vacation in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, amid the turmoil of his comprehensive health care proposals. Although he, President Obama, had previously remarked that the issue should be "put behind us", and that there would be changes in the interrogation styles under him, when the story broke several weeks back.

Now, Holder's move to investigate CIA employees and agency contractors and subject them to criminal prosecution for the alleged mistreatment of terror suspects after September 11, went contrary to what was said by the President only a short while ago. Therefore, who is in charge?

The question stemmed from the fact that the President, Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, was responsible for the security of the United States, and so he controlled all the policies that affected national security. Well, finally prosecuting CIA agents and finding them guilty if they went overboard in questioning terror suspects during a war, was a matter of national security; and therefore, it (issue) should be left to him. Mr Holder's intentions also ran counter to the President's stated wishes to leave the matter in the past.

In view of that, it could be said that the Attorney General's actions were based on the wishes of Organizations as Move-on.org and the ACLU, who were endeavoring so hard, and even desperately, to politicize the CIA issue. It would therefore be just a political witch hunting expedition on his part, pure and simple; and particularly, with him knowing that the agents concerned were all acting on the orders given by their superiors. The chain of command would climb into the upper echelons of the Bush administration.

If that was his aim, just to please his political associates, then he should know that his decision would only polarize the nation even more so as it already was; and also it would bring havoc into the operations of the CIA, whose members were on the front lines fighting to protect the U.S. from the same terrorists he considered as "victims". He should know that they (terrorists) had nothing better to do than to kill, kill, kill. Mr. Holder, who is in charge?

AFGHAN ELECTION IN PERIL.

The news of the Afghanistan Presidential election being rigged is quite disturbing, with voter fraud allegations rising, and doubts being cast on a fair outcome.

Millions of Afghans risked their lives, in the face of Taliban threats, to vote, thinking that it was a national responsibility to do so. Some had their fingers dismembered, and even others were killed, after they had performed their civic duty, according to reports; and all that was coming to naught.

Karzai's top challenger, Abdullah was insistent that widespread irregularities occurred, such as the turnout of 40% in areas where only 10% of the people there voted; and that in southern Kandahar province a general had used his house as a polling station and ordered polling booth personnel to stuff the ballot box for Karzai. He named the the general as Gen. Abdul Razig. Other candidates have displayed mangled ballots that have be thrown out by election workers; and voter complaints continued to mount.

According to FOX News, "The controversy threatens to discredit an election that the Obama administration considers a key step in a new strategy to turn back the Taliban insurgency"; and if not dealt with within a short period of time, it (controversy) would drag down the political process to the point of allowing the election to be declared null and void. Hopefully, that would be out of the question, if the electoral complaints commission handled the legal appeals brought to its attention by Abdullah to prevent that from taking place.

The Canadian head of the electoral complaints commission, Grant Kippen, has mentioned that his group has received over 200 such complaints, 35 of which were "material to the election results". The Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan has "also catalogued violations", which made the situation looked pretty bad. Added to that was the fact that, the Afghan Independent Commission could not have a positive input in the matter or could not play an imprartial role, since its head was a Karzai appointee.

The Karzai people were naturally saying that the allegations were untrue, but that the oppositon was "just spreading propaganda" of fraud.

In view of all the turmoil, there happened to be a "safety net" of a runoff election, if any thing went wrong; however the electoral commission must be able to finish investigating most of the major complaints before a clear winner could be certified. The legitimacy of the election must first be established before the Taliban could be routed out, and to make the Afghanistan War worth fighting.

Our men and women in uniform deserved a better result of the election; for it (result) would be a notable recognition of their sacrifices. The Afghan election should not be in peril.

AL-MEGRAHI'S RELEASE.....

The most despicable scene in the annals of Libyan history took place last Thursday on the tarmac of the Tripoli International Airport; with the arrival of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a convicted criminal, responsible for the Pan Am bombing that snuffed out the lives of 270 people.

A near hero's welcome was accorded a murderer, whose prison sentence was curtailed on the flimsy excuse that he was suffering from a terminal cancer; and that the decision to allow him to return to his country was made on "compassionate grounds", because of his condition. Compassion?

The real reason, however, as has been reported in some circles (Britain's Sky News), was that the deal to release him spawned from a Libyan trade contract with Britain; and although, Britain's Foreign Office had denied that allegation, the circumstances that permitted "espionage" prisoners to be released in exchange for other commodities sounded extremely familiar. The families of those who died would not want that to be the case, or else, it would be a marked and permanent stain on the British. That kind of "exchange" happened from time to time, but the one that was just witnessed from a prison facility in Lockerbie, was going too far.

Moammar Gadhafi, the Libyan President, had thumbed his nose at the world community in times past; and as his attitude showed, when he embraced al-Megrahi in Tripoli on Friday, he categorically demonstrated that he could not care less about what others thought. His gesture was an affront to decent people everywhere, and it should be counted as showing contempt to the world, one more time. His callousness would precede him wherever he went from now on.

As for the British, and particularly, the Scottish authorities who had recently flexed their political muscle to present to the rest of the world of their independence from White Hall (Westminster), it would be recognized that their conscience was not pricked for a moment, even for those who died on the ground, their own citizens, let alone the passengers and loved ones of the passengers of the Pan Am plane that al-Megrahi had a hand in its bombing. By their decision to release him (al-Megrahi) on "compassionate grounds", the Scottish had only proved that they were an independent entity; but they have not been able to indicate that they were politically "sovereign" by any chance.

The U.S. must condemn the release of al-Megrahi more vehemently than it already did.

VOTING IN AFGHANISTAN...

The voting in Afghanistan yesterday was a great political achievement for its people. The Talibans aim to keep that nation back, and be pushed into the doldrums of human ecology, must not be allowed to prevail; the voting has surely proved that point.

It is now incumbent on their leadership, whether Karzai or Abdullah, to foment the ideology of democracy in the minds of his people. A representation of the people, by the people and for the people; a system that must not perish from the earth, is the only way to go to procure social and political change that will last.

Any other way will be futile, as the waring factions will only inflict more damage to that country, which has seen more violence than any other nation in that part of the world. Violence that has affected even the ecosystems on which the people can depend and thrive, except for the Opium production that eventually serves them no good.

The Taliban assertion that any social and/or political reform will alter the cultural and spiritual ideologies of Islam must be unacceptable. The women being under subjugation and considered as inferior to men must cease. They must be treated as human beings and be permitted to strive for a better life for themselves and their families, Sharia law or no Sharia law.

They, the women, believe that education is the only avenue that can be pursued, in order to make opportunities available for every person to reach his or her highest potential in life. They are looking for a better place where they can bring up their children in an atmosphere of peace and harmony, first with their own neighbors, and second, with the rest of the world.

Viva Afghanistan. Karzai; Abdullah; take note.

WOMAN OR NO WOMAN...

The South African track and field authorities have got one of the strangest requests that occurred once in a blue moon in the athletic world on their hands, and that was to conduct a verification test on one of their athletes to prove his or her gender. Whether a he or a she? that was the question.

The request came from the International Federation of Sports, in regard to Caster Semenya winning the gold medal in the final of the Women's 800 meters in Berlin, yesterday. According to reports, she had won the event in a record time, breaking it (record) by 2.45 seconds. She had done so before "by posting a world-leading time of 1: 56. 72 at the African junior championships in Maruitius"; and her accomplishment in Berlin was no ruse. However, her stature and physique did not naturally grant her the privilege of being a female. What?

The report did not say how long she had been on the South African team, or whether anyone in a managerial position, the officiating personnel, personally knew her. How about her own team mates; did any of them know Caster? If so, did they have a shower or a bath in the same facility at the same time before? Or would not the parents have known?.....There were speculations, here and there, of her being a woman or a man, but they were brushed aside sometimes, and she went on to participate in athletic meetings.

The questions kept pouring out to no end; and she herself had not had any questions directly put to her during the interviews she had had with numerous sports reporters and correspondents, with respect to her sex. Strange; was it not?

Now, there was another contest just ahead, and the gender test that took several weeks could not be completed in time. It was extremely complex, and it involved so many experts, from a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, internal medicine specialist to a gender expert.

"We entered Caster as a woman and we want to keep it that way", said team manager Mlangeni-Tsholetsane. "Our conscience is clear in terms of Caster. We have no reservations at all about that". she continued.

The story of Caster Semenya, however, also continues......

RACISM AT A TOWN HALL...

Bill O'Reilly was so much in denial, vehemently defending a man who assaulted an African-American woman at a Town Hall meeting in Hillsboro, MO. He was in denial of racism, and said that the incident had nothing to do with race. The man got arrested for no good reason, he said; and he (O'Reilly) might have added that the police acted stupidly, though, he did not say that outwardly. He spoke until his face became so red, a lot of viewers thought he would faint on the set; but he managed to get his composure back later on.

The debate that ensued during his program was with Marc Lamont Hill, PhD. of Columbia University, who was a regular contributor on FOXNews.com; and he looked so sleek and debonair in a black striped suit, just as a black prince would look, when facing a disgruntled Caucasian, who would go to the pits of hell to protect a redneck, reactionary buffoon.

The man had assailed an African-American woman, accusing her of holding a "Rosa Parks" placard; however, that was on the surface. For the real reason being, that she was there to support the Obama Health Care reform, and therefore, she was a "persona-non-grata", in his view. That sparked a heated argument, because the woman was not going take it lying down. She was equally adamant in making her voice be heard; and so she did.

Racism was, and would continue to be a factor in American culture; there was no gainsaying of that. So, when a man like Bill O'Reilly was found to be on the side of a complete idiot, it was no surprise. The surprise, however, was that he (O'Reilly) was backing a person who had criminal intentions; first, toward the woman, per se; and second, for the fact that she had the complexion of an African Queen.

If people like O'Reilly would sit down and think, in terms of what racism was doing in America, or even worldwide, they would know that the outcome of it would be to nobody's betterment. It was a natural conflict; a two way street battle that must be fought, if bigots insisted that it should be so; but we should also remember that it would spare only a fool the slightest dint of satisfaction, if there should be any at all, in the long run.

THE EMAIL LISTS?

The email controversy, with respect to the Obama White House, continues to make news. It has now been dubbed other names, including, "The Axelrod emails", connecting one of the most senior officials in the administration in the fray. The reason being that the so called unsolicited emails went directly from his office. Thus keeping that particular piece of news on the front pages of most news print establishments in the country.

The WH kept pointing at Third-party groups sending petitions to its official administration website, and that the emails were gleaned from there. Though, email distribution lists could be obtained from all sources, but that was how they were collected, according to a spokesperson.

That single reason should have ended the matter; although some people who received the emails might continue to discuss how their email addresses went into becoming part of other peoples' distribution lists or databases, but it should not be front page news, unless those pushing for more answers or clarification had some other idea in mind; that, perhaps, the WH was hiding something, which would not be true at all.

Major Garrett and his team from FOX News have stressed the need for more information on the issue, and it (team) continued to interview citizenry, who thought their privacy had been invaded.

If so, then where should the matter go from here? To the courts?

Lists were being formulated left, right and center, for all kinds of purposes; and there was no doubt that FOX News had its own distribution list or database from which it used periodically, if not repeatedly and extensively, to contact the public on intrinsic matters; and the WH was doing the same on one such as health care reform.

The WH has been engaged in reaching out to the public and presenting its case; the same general public that all news organizations tried to reach "by all means necessary"; which they had every right to do.

Well, so did the WH. It had every right to do so too. Period.

So, what was all the fuss about? If the people who were complaining did not want to be informed of current affairs, there was a thin line under almost every email that reached them, which said (paraphrased) that if a person or persons wanted to unsubscribe to an email and/or its content, they could and should click that link of a thin line.

Those people should reach for that thin line; and FOX News should find something better to report on.

THREATS ON OBAMA'S LIFE.

ABC News report this morning, August 17, 2009, that President Obama's life is in danger makes very disturbing reading, and there is no doubt that some strict precautions have been put in place by the Secret Service and other salient authorities to deal with the matter without delay.

The report stems from hate groups' reaction to the President's Health Care reform proposals, which are under discussion in town halls and various places across the country. They have appeared at some of these meetings, holding nefarious placards, and voicing vitriolic assertions and making objectionable statements, out in public. In one such instance, a man openly displayed a gun to indicate his intentions of doing harm to the President, the report said.

It would be insane to say that hate groups have no place in America today, judging from the fact that, the political landscape of the nation has dramatically changed for an African-American to become President. Any such group must suppress whatever feelings it had to give the political phase the country was in a chance to develop to its fullest extent. It was not an experiment, but a realistic cultural change that America should go through to fulfill what had been its philosophy from the very beginning of its inception, that "all men are created equal", and that, regardless of race, that proposition should stand, no matter what.

Obama won the 2008 Presidential Election; and he had every right, therefore, to remain in power whether his opponents liked it or not. It should be so until the next election when votes would be cast again to either re-elect him or somebody else.

Rush Limbaugh and other people like him, who were pouring fuel on a very important issue, as health care reform proposals, was, should be ashamed of themselves. The hatred that they were dishing out on Obama would surely have a racial backlash, which would not be in the best interest of the nation, as it always had been the case. Unfavorable assertions from them would come back to haunt them, as it was for the racist of all time, George Wallace, the erstwhile Alabama Governor. He ate his own vomit before he died.

GIBBS Vs. GARRETT.

Major Garrett was right to have questioned Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, about the many complaints he personally received, and also those that FOX News received, from members of the public, in regard to the emails they thought to have come directly from the White House.

He (Garrett) was not a representative of those who were complaining; they only used him as a conduit to get through to the right place for their questions to be answered, The White House Press Room; and it should have been expedient for Secretary Gibbs to show him the courtesy of WH protocol, and told him to wait until he (Gibbs) gathered more information on the issue.

Instead of that, the atmosphere was made to look rather murky by both men, with each one talking over the other, which only went to strain the already strained relationship between part of the public and the Obama administration, caused by the Health Care proposals.

We should all be aware of the fact that, the White House had the authority, as any other Institution, to have a data base from which it could use to contact people and to inform them of its side of any issue; and therefore it should not have been a surprise to FOX News that a section of the public was showing concern about how the email addresses, some of which were private, got into the hands of the personnel at the White House.

Nobody should suggest that some sort of a secret list has been compiled on those opposing the Health Care proposals; and we must be sure, that was not Mr. Garrett's intention, to give the impression that it was so. We could not insinuate that the White House went out of its way to purchase a list of names either, although such lists were bought and sold publicly.

What people could imagine would be that through the progress that the Internet has made, technologically, in recent years, anyone or any organization could glean that progress to obtain any type of information, including email address, for any purpose.

That was what might have happened; and so there should be no hard feelings between Mr.Gibbs and Mr. Garrett, as they were supposed to be friendly toward each other. Besides, they both worked in the White House.

THE MEDIA.

The media's attempt to drive a wedge between former President George W. Bush and his Vice-President Dick Cheney would fail, because the two people trusted each other during their tenure of office; as they continued to do until now.

What ABC News did with the Martha Raddatz's interviews, plus other numerous ones by other networks, were preposterous; they were all fishing for information and material for some splurging news broadcast, rather than extending a serious "invitation" in each case, to the former VP to speak his mind about events of the past in a truly spurious manner.

Although, the VP sounded negative atimes in many of those interviews, and some of his answers were as much unimaginative as possible, because the questions were more intrusive, and to some extent, judgmental to deserve much elaborate answers from a very smart man like Mr. Dick Cheney. For it was not that he did not want to be forthright in his responses; he knew that a majority of the viewers saw through what was being explored by the media, and that was to cajole him into saying something "bad" or ineffectual in reference to his former boss and the policies they pursued during their term in office.

The fact still remained that the two men were honest and sincere with their policies about what was needed to protect the American people, to the point of bringing Saddam Hussein down after 9/11, because he, Hussein, was the foremost enemy of the U.S., if not the number one terrorist, of our time.

THE OBAMA LIES (2).

There was the Obama lie (1), which should not be exposed today; however, his lie (2) should be told before he went any farther in closing the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp; and that lie was that it placed the U.S. in a bad light. His actual statement was always that, "because it makes us look bad. Because it is a negative symbol". Article Posted by pudge, May 21, 2009 08:12 AM.

That was not true. The real truth being that those detainees were "his brothers by religion", Islam, in which he was originally initiated. His father was one; and he Obama would always remain one. Therefore, there was no chance in the world that he would not have a certain amount of empathy for those who were presently detained there, because they happened to be Muslims. That sentiment was even natural to the core, and he knew it.

He had gained support from some European leaders, who for many years wanted to drag the name of President Bush in the mud for invading Iraq, and those countries, particularly, were Germany and France, who had oil deals with Saddam Hussein prior to the war. They were, and had been, urging him (Obama) to close Gitmo, as a reprisal for what Bush did.

The religious connection and the European "backing" were his main hidden agendas; they were his true reasons for closing the prison in Cuba.

The Europeans started their insidious plan of getting back at Bush by honoring Al Gore for something they had no proof of, Global Warming; and the closing of the Guantanamo prison would be the crowning glory of that plan; just to prove Bush and his policies wrong to the rest of the world.

Coupled with that was Obama's own religious Islamic link; and that completed the vicious circle originated both in Europe and in Obama's subconscious mind; otherwise why should a prison that was deliberately set up to house the enemies of America be closed? Many Americans await answers, which they had every right to.

P.S. The Obama lie (1) would be exposed at some future date.

SENATOR SPECTER....

Senator Arlen Specter's Town Hall Meeting in Lebanon, PA., streamed on FoxNews channel for more than an hour, yesterday; and soon after that, President Obama was in Portsmouth, NH., addressing a similar crowd on the same subject, Health Care.

What a difference a few minutes made, between the two meetings, for while the President's audience was not in any way hostile, the Senator's was, in the sense that, it (audience) was so much unnerved, disorganized and showed signs of resentment. It was wholly disarrayed, and that caused the meeting to be rather confrontational. In other words, his was an angry assembly; the President's was not.

What happened in Lebanon was that, the Senator allowed himself very little room to operate, by walking the floor and going from one questioner to another, while he called the numbers that his assistants had given to prospective questioners before hand. It appeared that he wanted to get close and be more personal, which would impress the people there.

However, in a highly charged situation as an issue as Health Care was, directly facing a questioner was pretty risky. The atmosphere did not lend itself for a close contact, because it was not friendly, and any unfavorable thing could occur, almost instantaneously. That was what took place in Lebanon.

What should have happened was for the Senator to set up a podium in one corner on one side of the room; had microphones stationed in at least three points, left, right and center; and then asked the people to approach those microphones when they had a question and a number. There would be very little movement in the hall to make things look more businesslike, and that would also give the meeting a more somber appearance. The people helping him should have done all that, of course; but they left so much to chance, it was unbelievable.

Hoping he would derive something from this blog. Often times, it were the aides who should learn from their own past mistakes.

SPEAKER PELOSI.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertion that the people demonstrating and voicing their opinions at Town Halls around the country are being "un-American" is derisive, to say the least. The demonstrators have the right to engage in public protests and to demand answers to questions on an important topic as Health Care that directly affects their lives and the lives of their families. That is purely the American way.

In many cases, the meetings have not been organized well, and they became rowdy when those who were supposed to be on the stage to answer questions were missing; and even if they were present, they did not handle the fielding of questions well or correctly. It (fielding) was haphazard and disorganized.

The reason why there is a Congress is to have issues resolved in an orderly fashion; and arguments will determine where the facts of a matter are and be explored to get to the bottom to find the right solutions. They, the Senators and Representatives, have taken the Health Care issue out of the Congress chambers into Town Hall settings, and expecting to get the same results, the orderliness that must prevail at these meetings. That scenario is impossible under the present circumstances.

Demonstrations must be left outside; placards and megaphones are not to be allowed on the floor to disrupt speakers, who must first explain how the meetings are to be conducted before they start. There must also be, at least, an ample amount of security present to restrict any form of lawlessness. If a meeting is going to be held in any public format, such as a Town Hall gathering, there must a presence of security guards or even uniformed police. Without that, there will be commotion, as emotions are being bandied around.

Madam Speaker must therefore conform to orderliness and free speech, as they exist on the floors of Congress, and not to Un-American statements.

WHO IS THIS MAN, TIGER WOODS?

Tiger Woods yesterday convinced the golf world once again that he was # 1. He won the Bridgestone Invitational Championship with such panache and style; his "symbolic" red shirt gleaming in the Akron, Ohio afternoon sun, and thousands of golf enthusiasts lining the length and breath of the golf course to cheer him on, all the way to the 18th hole, to witness his last putt into the cup; the final stroke that won him the Championship.

He thus became part of "the 70 Club"; meaning, he was officially acclaimed as the third member of the elitist group in golf, joining Sam Snead and Jack Nicklaus, the only two men who have won 70 major tournaments in their careers. They even did so while they were in their forties, while his was done at the age of 33 years. What a great achievement for the young lad who has never ceased to impress the lovers of the game called golf.

Although, his latest opponent was not at all mediocre in any sense of the word, for he played his heart out till the last moment when he dumped the white ball in the water. It was sheer hard luck; however, he knew from the very outset that he was in contention with one talented, if not the best, golfer the world today.

"Certain golf courses you just feel comfortable," Woods said. "You see the tee shots, you see the approach shots, and the greens seem to be easier to read than others. This golf course is one of those for me. I think my results kind of show that". he remarked later on to a reporter.

It was easy to say that when there were geniuses among all Americans, he was, and would continue to be one of them for many years to come.
Well done, Mr. Tiger Woods.

HEALTH CARE FIASCO.

The fights that are raging in Town Halls over health care across the nation are unnecessary and uncalled for. They are divisive, and they are hurting the images of our communities. The issue must not be used to create misunderstanding between our representatives in Congress and the public, and that any discussion about it must be done in a peaceful and harmonious fashion.

Instead of that, they (Town Hall meetings) have been made to resemble the Vietnam War protests in the 1960s, only this time, they are taking place indoors. However, the atmosphere that is being created is dangerous all the same. A mom or dad goes to a meeting and gets hurt. He or she is bruised all over, all in the name of Health Care proposals that must be left in the hands of the same people that are being pulverized and pushed around, our Congressmen and women.

Of course, the concept of Town Hall meetings is a part of the political process, and they facilitate a forum for ordinary folks to present their cases, to be heard and to get their questions answered. Yet, the meetings that are being held now have been allowed to deteriorate into a market place of arguments and counter arguments.

At such meetings, tempers will flare, naturally, but not to the extent of putting people's lives at risk. Demonstrations of any kind must be vocal and not physical or even violent, as they have turned out to be in many instances. After all, the issue is about health care, and how it can be made to satisfy everybody's health needs; and it must be handled with patience and care. It must not be propelled into being a health care fiasco; at least, not yet.

During the 2008 election campaign, we were promised by Candidate Obama that people will be having the same health care insurance coverage as he did; as a Senator. He was believed, and as a result of their votes, he became President. What ever happened to that promise?

In other words, a blueprint of some sort was fashioned into the minds of the voters, and therefore, they must hold the President accountable to it. To a great number of Americans, something close to his insurance coverage must be extended to everybody.

THE DIE IS CAST.

The English speaking peoples of the United States have just relinquished another bulwark position to those who pretended to owe allegiance to the Constitution on which the laws of the nation were based, while their real desires were in the hope that they would regain what they historically lost, in terms of land possessions and prestige in the past; and had their culture relegated, not into the background, but farther south beyond the Rio Grande, diminutively and insensitively called south of the border.

Yesterday would be remembered as "Capitulation Day", which would only encourage a certain group of people bent on making the United States of America a non-English domain, civically and culturally. Yet, not that America was under any foreign rule or domination, it has, by all means, thrived over the centuries on the basic tenets of an ancestral stock and breed, as well as a set of laws that sustained its institutions, and have been the fabric of the foundation of a "New Nation in the New World".

Those traditions were in keeping with the ties and bonds that had their roots from across the Atlantic Ocean, and had been the bedrock of the colonials, and had helped them greatly to found a nation of their own.

In other words, the use of traditions, vestiges of language and art, lay in the foundation of a society that would remain in perpetuity, as the founders envisaged; and it would be the pride of those who would come from behind, to protect and defend it always, against all odds, enemies included.

Of course, the U.S. was part of the Continent of North America, but it has been carved out to have its very own identity and wellness, of which liberty and justice were its pillars. It would, however, be negligent to assume that nobody else had assisted in building it into the "fortress" and the powerful nation that it was now.

The Indentured slaves had played a part, the East European Exodus and that of the Middle East have had a hand in its making, and the African Slave trade also contributed tremendously.

It was only the parasitic element who yearned to say that the land belonged to their ancestors, and they would "invade" and claim it, if they ever had the chance. Well, giving them high positions, as the one of a justice of the Supreme Court, was a step in the right direction for them. They would turn everything around, if they had their way. "Damn the Founding Fathers", they would say.

Those of us who were African-Americans would never want that to happen, the reason being that there was nothing enviable, socially, politically and economically, down on the south of the U.S. border. Besides, most of us were used to the English language, and nothing else would be satisfactory, except the old American way and traditions in which we were brought up.

"The die is cast"; thanks to people like Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who cast their votes against the truth. They would sleep soundly, even though their individual conscience bothered them so much.
　
P.S. Have you ever seen a black person, a man or a woman, on Channel Univision 41 before?
P.P.S. Eastern Europe's Exodus: Going West for the good life. SPIEGEL; Indentured Servitude of Colonial America. Retrieved 08/06/09. Website, http://www.geocities.com/nai_cilh/servitude.html; "Remembering the Forgotten Exodus", Retrieved 08/06/09. Website, http://www.ujc.org/page.aspx?id=43816

DR. SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTOR KIT.

The Dr. Sagan's baloney detector kit is a set of statements outlining the processes by which issues, such as global warming, can be logically analyzed using both factual (truth) and fallacies to arrive at different conclusions on a topic. It says that there is "no authority in science", and that what is viewed as logic by one scientific observation can also be viewed as being just sheer rhetoric by another.

The list consists of numerous statements made by Dr. Carl Sagan, which can be used by opposing factions to derive answers from several sources to deal with a whole range of idealistic subjects, be they scientific, political and economic, applying diversities in critical thinking to give more than one clarification on or to a problem, or to develop several answers to any type of a question.

Because, there is never a single, correct answer or method; or even a sole distinguishable analogy, that can be used to resolve or unravel any situation, however controversial, questionable or sticky. Just listen to what other people are saying, or even only speculating on, in their thought processes, and there are bound to be several answers or solutions to choose from.

With that said, just read the sentences that follow.

"Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it is yours".

"Spin more than one hypothesis--don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy".

He mentions "Occam's razor", which says, "if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler".

"Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?". Dr. Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, Based on the book, The Demon Haunted World, Retrieved 08/05/09, Website http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

These are some of the "jewels" of modern logical thought coming from Dr. Carl Sagan; and they are not on a page at just one website. There are more of them all over the place; and they suggest people to "put on their thinking caps", however insignificantly they may need them, in all circumstances. In other words, they may not compromise just for the sake of compromising.

In a nutshell, look at everything from different angles or perspectives; and consider other peoples' thoughts and how they contribute to the specificity and the analogical response in regard to any matter that is being examined, and its surrounding factors.

It (matter) may require two or more answers, each having a completely divergent, but comparable meaning, and yet all having reasons to rehashing any situation or problem and arriving at not just one solitary conclusion, but as many as possible. The bottom of the matter is reachable, but it does not depend on one mind or on the thinking processes of one individual to get there. What puzzles one person may not end a contoversy, a discussion or a conversation, because a break can come from anywhere; from others who are just listening or casually making observations.

Sagan uses passive and active logic to decipher thought, statement or knowledge; and he does so remarkably well, with such acumen, it boggles the mind. Only a handful of men that have ever set foot on this earth can do so, with such common fervor and scholarly agility, as he.

P.S. The actual title of the essay must have been, SAGAN: BEFORE ECOSYSTEMS AND THE ENVIRONMENT..... He can be described as the SIR BERTRAND RUSSELL of our time. He was a genius.

A CHEERFUL SIGHT.

Was it not a cheerful sight, yesterday, to see Journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee descending from the private jet of a Hollywood film magnate, after their flight from Pyongyang. They have been released from serving their prison sentences imposed on them by the North Korean leader Kim Jong IL.

The North Koreans called the gesture to let them go, a "special pardon", at the behest of former President Clinton, who flew to meet with Kim face to face to effect their flight to freedom.
Their arrival in the United States was a joyful one too, for their own families, and for former Vice-President Al Gore, for whom the two women worked.

However, looking back on North Korea's activities in recent months of launching missiles, left, right and center to cause International crises; and its insistence on developing nuclear weapons, it was about time that its leader demonstrated to the rest of the world that he was also human.

North Korea would not come to any talks designed to stop its nuclear program, and was continually flexing its military muscle to scare the daylights out of its neighbors. Its latest action, although purely diplomatic, would be regarded as showing some sense in the rationalization that it has finally become aware that it was the number one objectionable nation in the world, and that must stop. There must be a change in the thinking processes of its leadership.

They should realize that the days of turning a whole country into a vast military camp was over. Their country has been isolated by the International Community for the single reason that, it has been acting, and continued to act "stupidly", in terms of simmering down and dealing with world affairs as any genteel nation would do.

They have ecosystem and environmental problems; their agriculture has been down graded over the years, and there was widespread famine and malnutrition across the country. They were in dire need of help from the U.S. and other benevolent countries.

They should therefore use this opportunity, which was somewhat of a lackadaisical relationship in nature, to invite the U.S. Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, to sit down at a table and have some talks with her, just as they did with former President Bill Clinton, if only just to ease the tension between the two nations.

SOTOMAYOR, THE THIRD TIME AROUND?

The National Rifle Association decision to downgrade senators who supported the Sotomayor nomination should be applauded, not just for its opposition to the nominee, but for being a stalwart organization that always looked for what was best for America. The nomination happened to be a complete anathema, and the NRA saw it expedient enough to oppose it, despite Sotomayor's disregard for gun rights.

Its annual candidate ratings stood for the recognition of patriotic leanings of politicians in situations as appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. In other words, it (list of candidate ratings) called for an action of separating patriots from the general population, due to the seriousness, as that of the appointment of a Justice of the Supreme Court, which by all calculations, was a pivotal national issue. It could drastically alter the legal landscape of the nation. It was more dire than guns and pistols.

Yet, that was just one consideration; and there were several others, including the fact that she, Sotomayor, was biased in 75% of her rulings on many sensitive matters, involving race, gender and ethnicity; and that was certainly not conducive to the legal health of the nation. Laws that we all hold so dear must be protected. The point being that, if such a person succeeded in reaching the status of a Justice in the legal system, he or she was bound to carry his or her attitudes to that position, regardless of the responses that senators were able to formally extract from that candidate during the confirmation proceedings.

Attitudes were hard to change; and in her case, absolute attitudes, involving her beliefs, prejudices and convictions, were absolutely difficult, if not unnatural, to change. Her personal statements, both public and private, bore witness to those facts; not to mention her own testimonies and philosophies on other subjects such as abortion, and on Roe Vs. Wade itself.

Where would that leave the country then, but in a quagmire of legal rigmarole, inextricably hard, if not impossible, to free itself from, for many years.

Again, a great majority of Americans were rightfully aiming to have someone who would interpret the law, according to the dictates of the Constitution of the United States. Period. Anything else was complete balderdash and totally unacceptable.

P.S. The Judge has appeared before the Senators more than once. Each time, she came away doing the opposite of the corrective answers she gave them.

THE DUO.

The Duo are here again. When Hillary was appointed Secretary of State, everybody knew that her husband would find a way to get into the act. He would be involved in foreign affairs, and probably become an Ambassador-at-large for the United States. Low and behold, there he was in the papers yesterday (08/03/09) ready to negotiate the release of the two journalists who have been imprisoned in Pyongyang. He had already traveled to North Korea, according to news reports, for that purpose.

The idea happened to be a good one, but was not the former President doing exactly what the State Department was supposed to be doing? Madam Secretary was surrounded by experts, all of whom had diplomatic status, able and willing to do their job very well; however, former President Clinton had to step in "to the rescue".

The thinking behind it (idea) was what worried many Americans, which was wrapped in the proverbial "enigma" of a question, "why was he doing it?" Was it to help Mrs. Clinton, or was it to free the journalists in the name of Liberty, or was he engaged in assuming himself as the unofficial "Ambassador-at-large"?

The first two parts of the compound question would be great for America, if the answers to both of them were "yes"; nevertheless, it was the third part of the same question that needed to be further explained or clarified. For if it was just for fame and publicity, many would say, "The Duo are here again"; stemming from their role in Washington D.C., which was only marred by the White Water years.

THE HEALTH CARE REFORM PUSH.

The health care reform that has been in gridlock on the committee level has now passed and ready to enter the realm of the House of Representatives, and to be debated and dealt with in September by the full House, after members returned from a recess of one month.
The previous weeks have been gruesome for the White House and the three committees that have to review the Obama government proposals for a better health care system for all the people of the United States.

The Blue Dogs travail, whose members numbered 40, nearly dislodged the plan in toto, but for the inner wrangling of the Democratic Party, the White House, Speaker Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman on one hand, and the leaders of the Conservative Blue Dog Democrats on the other, a tentative compromise was finally reached.

Although, the government's argument did not hold sway with all of its own party members, the Republican Party must not attempt to gain or derive any comfort from the grim situation that evolved, because many working people, particularly those in the African-American communities thought that Obama was in the fight for them, while the Republicans were siding with the big Insurance Conglomerates, especially those who have, for most of the time, had a raw deal with the general public.

Their policies would not cover certain health conditions, but they had managed to get folks, who were not conversant with the "small print" in those policies to sign on the proverbial dotted line to commit themselves, and into thinking that the premiums they paid gave them adequate coverage. Their main concern was not that of the patient, but rather it was the stock holder who mattered most; and to them, profits came first in the health care systems they operated. A reform was long overdue, because the status quo could not be permitted to continue. It was not working properly, and in some cases, it was "short changing" members of the public.

However, many news reports were saying that the President's popularity was waning, because "he was doing too much" or "going too fast and therefore he should slow down", owing to the fact that he had so much to deal with, all at same time; such as pushing for a health care reform, almost expeditiously, soon after his first day in office; plus having the Economy, Education, Energy Independence, and the Environment, all on his plate, simultaneously.

We might or we might not agree whether the reports were true, or the percentages dealing with his job performance approval were accurate; but from all assumptions, many thought that he was on the side of the people against the Republicans and the Insurance Industry. That has obviously made him into a hero; and shone a bad light on the Republican Party, to say the least.

What the Republicans could do to regain political support would be for them to come out with their own plan that would appease a majority of Americans; and which would be different from the projections of the insurance companies, being just a dress up of old wounds, merely using bandages; namely, the status quo. That was what President Obama was determined to replace, and on that score, his personal approval rating has not been affected in any way whatsoever, according to many reports too. He also maintained the needed backing of the Democratic majority in Congress.

So, the old saying, "put it in your pipe and smoke it", would be more than an appropriate advise for any member of the Republican Party.


P.S. This Blog is not in the defense business; it tells it like it is. (Apologies to ABC News Organization).

THE "BEER SUMMIT".

Harvard scholar Gates and Sergeant Crowley met with President Obama on Thursday; the meeting stemming from the racial "fracas" with political connotations that engulfed one of the nation's problems, racial relations, and bringing it to every person's attention for several days. To many, that was another wake-up call, and there have been several, to bring all races together for the best interest of the American people as a whole.

There was no doubt that racism existed in the United States; however, it was also true that it was prevalent in other countries as well, yet as almost as all other issues were concerned, be they social, political or cultural, if America could find a way to ameliorate them, so would the rest of the world go. There would never be a "cure" for racial differences, because they happened to be what they were, differences. What could be done instead would be to insist on a common ground in which all factions could exercise restraint, in cases like the controversy involving a college professor and a police officer in Massachusetts.

In that one, a second officer could have been called in, not for an arrest, but for an instant investigative procedure to take place on the spot, in order to avert any misunderstanding. That would have been Sgt. Crowley's responsibility to call for that kind of assistance, and for the professor to agree to it that a second officer was required to be present at the scene.

What sparked the turmoil, and the consequent media frenzy, was the President's initial comment, using the word, "stupidly" in regard to the arrest; however, to many Americans, that was not a snide remark meant to infuriate anyone at all. It was merely describing a scenario in which restraint was not applied. Period. Any dispute could be settled between a well recognized College Professor and a police officer who happened to be a Sergeant, for both were highly trained. If not, why not?

The coming together, however, was the best idea in many decades, with the White House being a mediator to help bring common sense to prevail; the "Beer Summit", was like the one between Begin and Sadat, with all former enemies finally shaking hands for the sake of peace. For all we knew, it was President Obama's idea, and if so, then we as Americans must join together in congratulating him. Well done, Mr. President.