SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

The Senate Finance Committee killing the Public Option idea, which the Obama administration wants as part of the Health Care reform is preposterous; but why; and who's side are the Senators on?

Public Option part of the bill, if it becomes law, is to cater to the poor and those who have no insurance coverage at all. Should not members of the committee consider them as being "disenfranchised" and therefore their plight needs some attention just as much as the other factors in the proposals that are being looked into by the committee?

What about the Existing insurance companies; has anyone asked them about the uninsured and what they (insurance companies) will do if the portion of the reform that protects their (uninsured) interest is thrown out? Do they care at all about the 45 to 50 million people who cannot sleep at night, because they do not know where to turn if something happens to their loved ones? Are they ever going to be insured, and if so, by whom, if not the government?

The board members and directors of the insurance companies cannot wait to go back to their $1500 lunches, after they succeed in sabotaging the Public Option part of the reform, and continue living on the hug on the backs of the people from whom their high premiums for their insurance plans are generating so much cash for them. Instead of using those high payments to protect the people that are supposed to be insured by them, they are bankrolling Townhall meetings and Tea Party gatherings; and their lobbyists are interfering with the work that is only meant for lawmakers to be doing; yet, they are being pushed by them (lobbyists) to KILL the Public Option portion of the bill for the sake of Private and other rich insurance companies, whose costs are always skyrocketing.

They (lobbyists) are clamoring for the Republican members on the committee to do their bid; to oppose any semblance of government participation in the insurance business, and that, it will constitute an unnecessary competition, they are telling the whole world; however, the truth is that it will expose the high priced medical service that they offer; which not many people can afford to pay for anymore. They are afraid of the skeleton in their cupboard (from) coming out, and they will do everything in their power to stop it.

They are the same people behind the radio and TV commercials that are being used to wage a negative campaign that says that the reform is geared to "Social Medicine", and therefore people must reject it.

The AARP is a member supported insurance company; its insurance plans run concurrently with other plans offered by private and other insurance companies, and that arrangement works perfectly well. The government sponsored insurance program will be run the same way. In other words, it will be no different from any other insurance company; so why KILL it? If poor people need health care insurance coverage, it has to be made available to them, by any means necessary.

McCHRYSTAL'S REQUEST.

The United States mistakes in the Iraq war should not be repeated in Afghanistan, just as the delay of the surge that was needed to pin down the insurgency was. It was finally the strategy that brought relief to the forces on the ground and turned the Iraq war around.

At the time, the generals were asking for reinforcements, while many in Congress dragged their feet to respond to their call. They knew what to do, as they trained everyday and planned for new strategies to combat the enemy, and therefore their demands must never go unheeded by the government.

The general in charge in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, had requested more troops, but it was becoming more and more difficult for his demand to be met by the Bush government, when Senator John McCain approached President Bush in a private letter, exhorting him to show the "will" to win the Iraq war. It took the removal of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who was cutting corners in troop deployment, and thus slowing down the progress to quell the insurgency.

The same was happening in Afghanistan, presently being swamped by the Taliban, who would wait until a place, where the American troops had cleared, but did not have any back up or enough troops to hold and preserve, (they) would move in and disrupt the normal life of the civilians in that area.

Now, it was the turn of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was commanding the soldiers in Afghanistan, to ask President Obama to commit more troops, in order to "get the job done".

There were rumors of the general meeting with top ranking government officials in Germany, including the National Security Advisor James L. Jones, on the issue of additional troops for Afghanistan; but the outcome of that meeting was not seen to be resolving that issue; and Republican Senators were demanding that Gen. McChrystal testified before Congress, thus showing the seriousness of the situation.

However, the decision has to be made by President Obama, who has stated that his administration's aim was to defeat Alqueda and the Taliban, and that his ultimate goal was winning the Afghan war and bringing the troops home. Therefore any delay in answering the general's request would be seen as delaying the end of the war, which nobody would intentionally accuse the administration of.

Whatever the hold up causing the military advisers of the government to put off an immediate response to enable the president to make a decision on the issue must be swiftly dealt with, for Gen. McChrystal to get the troops he needed in Afghanistan. He has consistently maintained that the situation there was critical, according to many reports; and so, the sooner he received an answer, the better it would be for the nation in particular, and for all concerned, in general.

IRAN; YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

News that Iran shot one of the longest-range missiles in its arsenal a day or so ago, should not come as a surprise to most people, owing to the "great disconnect" between its president, Ahmadinejad, and the "grand command" of Ayatollahs who were in control in his country.

In that, while he was in New York, pleading for leniency, by the nature of his speech at the United Nations, plans were afoot to exacerbate the controversy that was currently existing between the International community and Iran; and that was to stop the enrichment of uranium, which could lead to making a nuclear bomb.

That meant, the regime was "hierarchical", with the religious leaders at the top, and the military command sat under its control, while the political groupings were powerless in the decision making of any significance and therefore the last to know what the mullahs were up to.

It showed categorically that Iran was refusing, and would refuse, and continue to refuse, to listen to the rest of the world, so long as its intent to acquire a nuclear bomb was concerned.

What it would do with it was, however, not hard to guess; and that was to attack Israel, as it (Iran) has already made perfectly clear.

Yet, attacking Israel was not going to be easy at all, because Israel was soundly prepared and ready for any eventuality, knowing its position of being surrounded by enemy nations.

Therefore, "the game" that Iran was playing was extremely dangerous; and it should be of grave concern to everyone living on earth, because if that should happen, the whole world would be engulfed in a conflict that was not a necessity.

In other words, whether they (the people of the world) knew it or not, they would be affected, if Iran made any attempt to use a nuclear weapon of any kind on Israel. It would cause a catastrophe of enormous proportions, whose result would estrange every living thing from the existence of what was called "life on earth", as all humans have known it.

The warning by the United States, Britain and France should be taken seriously by all concerned, including the Iranian authorities, as it (warning) was not made in the spirit of the U.N. Resolution 1441, which some nations failed to follow up on. Only the U.S. and Britain took the necessary action and brought down a despot who was a threat to world peace.

Take heed, Iran. You have been warned.

A DANGEROUS WORLD.

This week's meetings at the United Nations, of both the General Assembly and the Security Council, and the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, have been very dramatic, with not just personalities taking center stage with prolonged speeches that went over the specific time on the General Assembly's calendar, as one that Moammar Ghadafi (Qaddafi) gave; and the revelation by President Obama that Iran had a secret uranium enrichment plant, which was part of its intentions to obtain a nuclear bomb.

There was so much anguish expressed by many world leaders meeting at the U.N.; and no jubilation was forthcoming from an announcement that would shock everyone, that the problem with the rogue Iranian regime to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, was getting even worse.

Besides that, there was another secret that came out, of Iran cooperating with Venezuela of its research on uranium deposits in that South American country, which blew the lid off the top of the dangers that the world was facing now and in the future. Both countries were asserting that their goals were to utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; but there were no guidelines for the world at large to ascertain the truthfulness of their claims.

The I.A.E.A. (International Atomic Energy Agency), the watch dog and the center of cooperation in the nuclear field, did not make the announcement; and why not? It had come out with many reports on previous occasions that it was not making much progress with inspecting the facilities that were known by the agency, due to the difficulties being placed in its way by the authorities in Iran to conceal the facts of that country's nuclear plans.

The insidiousness of the news by President Obama has also been made clear, by two other world leaders, Prime Minister Brown of the United Kingdom and President Sarkozy of France, putting Iran on notice, by "drawing a line in the sand", and pleading with it (Iran) to abandon its quest for nuclear bombs instead of just nuclear power for peaceful use.

The scene has been one of a dangerous world, in which every nation would want to procure a nuclear bomb, even for the sake of prestige; but the question still remained of who would use it first, and for what reason?

It would be expedient for Ahmadinejad to accept the programs set before his nation by the United States, Britain and France, in assisting Iran to choose a path that would lead to prosperity for its people; and that choice has been made very clear this week in New York and Pittsburgh. The International community, and in fact, the whole world, was hoping that he (Ahmadinejad) would do the right thing; or his country would have no one to blame but itself.

CONFUSION OR COMPLAINTS.

The rambling speech of Moammar Ghadafi; the pointing fingers of world leaders at the United Nations, accusing each other of malfeasance or the other; the stoicism expressed by audiences made up of delegates from all factions of the people of the world gathering in the General Assembly chamber; by their silence at one point and the smattering applause at other points; all go to show how confused the world was, or continued to be, since the inception of the U.N.

It was true that the meeting was convened to find solutions to the world's problems, as each other meeting has been; but there were more complaints now than ever before; with the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic worrying about their status in the United States decision to scrub the nuclear defense shield against the onslaught of potential Russian aggression; Israel's Nathan Netanyahu fuming over the hauling of missiles senselessly on civilian Jewish populations by Hamas, and saying no to settlement freeze; with Ahmadinejad's refusal to halt the enrichment of uranium activities; and even Chavez claiming legitimacy for his Cuban propped government. There was a demonstration, right there and then on the assembly floor, before Ghadafi was just about to address the Assembly; but order was finally maintained by the U.N. security personnel.

The complaints were numerous, but there were no solutions in sight, except for the U.N. Security Council meeting, which was chaired by U.S. President Obama, passing a nuclear disarmament resolution, which in itself was non-binding; and so, the problems quite overshadowed any possible future or foreseeable "nuclear banning" resolution; even a minor forceable one; that would ensure that the U.N. was not just a "paper tiger".

However, the most serious of all those problems was the one allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons or not.

The U.S. was not pushing hard enough on it, in favor of disallowing Iran to achieve its nuclear goal, according to some reports; Russia was silent, with Puttin and Medvedev remaining MUM on the issue; and China was bent on "no sanctions" against Iran to end its nuclear ambitions.

The scenario placed the whole world in jeopardy; in the throes of acute danger, so to speak, as Israel was poised on ending Iran's desire to make a nuclear bomb; and the question was not "how" but "when". For permitting it (Iran) to produce a nuclear weapon would not only encourage the nuclear spreading disaster that all nations were unwilling to entertain.

China's resistance to bring pressure to bear on Iran has made matters worse, knowing fully well that if the religious fanatics in Tehran had their hands on "the bomb", nobody knew what would happen next; and that the only way to stop other nations from acquiring similar weapons was to restrain a rogue nation as Iran was.

The U.N. has the obligation to bring order, not just under its roof, in the General Assembly, but in all its forums for all its members to comply to its resolutions, even if they were non-binding. For allowing Iran to retain the ability to produce a nuclear weapon would force Israel to take drastic measures to stop it.

The result was unthinkable; the end would be at the expense of the world's nations, which culminated into the United Nations. It's (U.N.'s) determination to bring a bad situation under control by any means necessary, must be established soon, before it (situation) got out of hand. The world would be the loser any other way.

UNITED NATIONS & ITS AUDIENCES.

The United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York this week will be presented with many speeches composed, as well as comprising, of many ideas and suggestions that will sound plausible on the surface; but what the world really needs is action and not just mere words.

Poverty and disease in poor countries must seriously come under the scrutiny of richer and developed nations, helping them to use modern technology to combat those problems through health and other programs that work.

For example, clean and healthy water usage needed proper methods of purification, such as making it possible to transform rivers and lakes to become drinkable, and not just the drilling of wells, which supplied small communities only.

This should be done on larger scale in areas of large communities, to cater to their size and population, with more tap water outlets in market places, school compounds and homes that were closer to those sources (rivers and lakes).

Foreign aid must be used to construct feeder roads to bring food from farms to where the people needed it; hospitals and the training of doctors and nurses should be made available wherever necessary; housing with inside plumbing, not only in the cities and towns, but in the villages as well.

Planning for better economies in which natural resources could be transported to local factories or exported to industries overseas, where they were manufactured into products that could fetch better prices all over the world, to bring even more revenue to governments, to add to the foreign aid that they already received from the United States, Germany and Britain, in order to carry out more viable developments to eradicate the extreme poverty and disease that existed in those countries; Haiti or Bangladesh, for example, respectively.

All types of technical help; of engineers, analysts, management personnel, field and community organizers, etc., must be sent on secondment to those countries, making the training of locals (people) the focal point of programs in areas where that was possible, so that there would be no shortage of man-power. Or where the expatriates had to leave for any reason, there would be capable personnel to replace them.

Governments should be encouraged to hire experts to oversee public works departments that they (governments) should have, to maintain facilities that required trained expertise. Those departments should be firmly established by law, under the management of the educated elite members drawn from all the communities. Churches and Colleges, if there were any, were usually the sources that provided such members for those management positions to serve in purposes that would assist their own communities to thrive socially and economically; and they should be approached to play their part in any possible role that would enrich the lives of those communities.

If resolutions of those kinds were initiated and passed by members of the U.N.; and nobody was saying that efforts of that nature have not been made before, but they usually failed; however, there was still acute poverty and pandemic disease "proliferation" in existence in most places; and so, practical help to secure and to hold them at bay must continue; and therefore it (U.N.) should not give up on them.

It should also count on forcing individual governments to follow strict sets of rules in the disbursement of foreign and other financial aid, particularly warning them against graft, bribery and corruption, or any such assistance would be curtailed.

Helping poor nations through pragmatic programs and education would go a long way to eleminate poverty in our world. The Organization must dedicate itself to that cause.

DAVID LETTERMAN.

A taping of the Late Night Show that will be showing on Monday, featuring President Obama and, quite obviously, the show's host, David Letterman, is today's topic.
The show itself is not what this piece of writing is about; it is the heading of an article on it that appeared on FOX News website, which is so laughable.

Nobody had any qualms with any type of a heading, when it appeared on a private page or website, but a rare one must be spoken about.

It was, "I was black", which was part of an answer the President gave Letterman on whether his presidency was being affected by racism. However, Letterman did not understand the answer. In essence, the president was saying that the position of the Presidency was not created for any one race. He also meant that there was a vote, and he won it. So, Letterman should "shove" his questions on racism.

The racists in the country should therefore forget about their sinister thoughts. They should also know that racism was the reason why the "freedom" that America purported to have has no real meaning. It was just an empty word, which became dirty, when questions of the nature Letterman was asking were posed anywhere.

Many people did not vote for Obama; but at the same token, others did. That should end "the story", at least for the time being, instead of going on about the president's race.

That did not indicate that former President Jimmy Carter misspoke the other day, when he said that the Obama Health Care proposals were being objected to by many Americans because of his (Obama's) race. He was just making plain of the sentiment being carried around by a great number of people; however, that (sentiment) should not be allowed to influence public policy in the country.

He was attempting to advise his own countrymen and women that it would be a very bad precedent to make decisions based on abstract sentiments, especially on issues of national interest. He was right.

The picture of "Townhall Meetings" and "Tea Party" gatherings, if they were racially motivated, did not bid well for America's reputation abroad. Outsiders were envious of the liberty that America was supposed to stand for. "The land of the free" was a notion that every nation on earth hoped for; but it has singularly been given to just one nation, AMERICA, by fate. Its people should be proud and honor such a great accolade, than to make "mince meat" of it by being racist.

"Don't throw away what has been been bestowed on you, if it was good", happened to be the title of an old negro song.

David Letterman's question was racist, to say the least; and therefore he should tone down his rhetoric on and about race, or he would be called a racist himself; and he would only be inviting trouble for his show.

OBAMA; THE MISSILE DEFENSE SCRAP.

Touching on most issues affecting the United States, both domestic and International, President Obama worked very hard to answer both his critics and supporters on Race, Health Care, CIA Probe, etc.; yet, the most important issue was the decision to scrap a planned missile defense shield in Eastern Europe.

In his argument that his administration will have a different missile defense plan relying on a network of sensors and interceptor missiles based "at sea, on land and in the air", happens to sound plausible and practical; but fails to indicate what the Russian will give back in return.

The Russians will undoubtedly gain an advantage, however slight; although they are musing that they will also scrap a reciprocating plan to deploy missiles near Poland. Nevertheless, will that be enough to counteract what they deem as "victory of reason over ambitions." in regard to President Obama's move?

His missile plan will deter Iran's potential threat and eventual attack by the use of short and medium range missiles on U.S troops and allies in the Mideast and Europe; an assurance that has still sent jitters through countries like Poland and the Czech Republic, and a feeling of abandonment is what they now feel.

Part of the American News media, The Wall Street Journal, per se, is mulling over the idea that, "the U.S. is working hard to create antagonists where it previously had friends"; and that the
Russians who are paranoid before are now feeling a kind of relief.

Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made comments on the Obama administration gesture of the said defense system's withdrawal; with Secretary Gates writing in The New York Times that, "considerations for Russia played no role in his recommendation to the president to shift course."; as also the Secretary of State Clinton assuring analysts and critics that the "missile defense shift will only build on the U.S. capacity to protect itself and its allies from Iran". She adds among other things that, "we would never, never, walk away from our allies." in an answer to what others are describing as a snub to U.S. friends.

If such an expensive overture is going to have an equally reciprocal response, President Obama still has the opportunity, which is being given him this week, as the first U.S. President to chair the U.N. Security Council, to galvanize support from Russia and other council members to increase heavy sanctions on Iran, compelling it to renounce its nuclear ambitions.

FOX News, and therefore FOX channel; the only place that has not been visited by the president on his Sunday blitz yesterday, by visiting other news media venues, happens to be the one that has made a brilliant remark that it expects him "to emerge from a summit on arms control with a resolution that advances his goals of a nuclear-free world. The measure will try to put heat on Iran and North Korea, without singling out any country."; and that is something that he has to be able to do at the U.N.

The question of the defense of the U.S., and consequently that of its allies, is extremely important; and it cannot be denied by treating it with much less caution as any other "ordinary" issue by any president, let alone the first African-American president of the United States of America. We wish him luck.

RACE: Its meaning to me.

Race is not just the complexion one has on the outside. In other words, it is not the skin color only. It is also a spiritual sentiment (feeling) on the inside of a person.

Many people call themselves "black"; or they may look black, but they are not black at all.

What makes it distasteful is that they try very hard to behave as black people; and I personally detest that kind of what I call, "a deceitful attitude".

The image of a black person should be that of Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Gil Noble, James Earl Jones, President and Michelle Obama, Halle Berry; and many, many more.

It (image) is surely not that of Jay Z or Beyonce.

What can be seen as "race pretense" has been going on a lot in America today.

To be a true African-American is something that is felt on the innermost part of a black person; in his or her heart.

P.S. I don't normally come out on a Sunday; but this is important.
P.P.S. Jay-Z (rapper); his name has been appearing in the news quite lately, about his new album, marriage, etc. He does not represent anybody but himself. Also, is he BLACK?

7 FORMER CIA DIRECTORS.

All seven former CIA directors have come out against the idea of the Obama government probing the agency's interrogators during the years, 2002 through 2008.

Some of them (interrogators) have been accused of going beyond the methods described or prescribed as "enhanced techniques" on suspected terrorists detainees; and an official preliminary investigation has been opened by the Justice Department to bring them out to face eventual criminal charges.

The directors had jointly written a letter to President Obama, asking that the action should be stopped, because it would cause an avalanche of cases that had been closed for many years to be re-opened. Those cases, the directors maintained, have been internally dealt with by career prosecutors, both inside and outside the agency, in the past, who declined to prosecute them.

The decision to start a new investigation was made by Attorney General Eric Holder, when he appointed a special prosecutor, Mr. John Durham, for that purpose a short while ago, based on an Inspector General's report, which has been in existence for five years; and it was solely declassified to "choose certain cases", and to go after those CIA operatives who had interrogated terrorists prisoners placed under them at a particular period, during the Bush administration.

At the time, former Vice President Dick Cheney, had objected to any action being taken to bring back cases that were declared closed by previous Justice Department attorneys; and said that they were being brought back for political reasons.

The White House answered by saying, in effect, that the attorney general had the right to make an independent decision to follow through the law and investigate any matters he saw fit. The White House, failed to point out, however, that the attorney general was picking the cases that, according to him, would "correct America's image abroad"; a job that was not his to do.

There was a Secretary of State, a post presently held by Mrs. Hillary Clinton, whose duties involved the repairment of any damage that the United States has incurred, politically or otherwise, in recent past.
　
In their letter, the seven former CIA directors said among other things, that, "Attorney General Holder's decision to re-open the criminal investigation creates an atmosphere of continuous jeopardy for those whose cases the Department of Justice had previously declined to prosecute," they had written.

They continued by saying , "Those men and women who undertake difficult intelligence assignments in the aftermath of an attack such as September 11 must believe there is permanence in the legal rules that govern their actions," they added.

The letter had all the seven signatures of all the former CIA directors; and indicated the seriousness of what they farther denounced; the action taken by the attorney general; as not just being incomprehensible, but also, "this approach will seriously damage the willingness of many other intelligence officers to take risks to protect the country."

The current CIA director has been rendered innocuous by the action of the Justice Department, and all he could say, through a spokesman, was that, "he appreCIAtes Obama's "strong support for the men and women of the CIA". He further suggested that while he was in league with the sentiment of the directors, "he is bound to the administration".

This blog had written a page on this issue, stipulating that the President, Mr. Obama, CONSTITUTIONally, was the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the U.S.A., as stated by former Vice-President Dick Cheney; and that he could stop any embarrassing action started by his attorney general; as it was bound to bring ramifications that would not be beneficial to the administration in particular, and the nation as a whole.

He should, therefore, follow the advise of the former CIA directors, and do what was right.

P.S. The said page titled "Who is in Charge" was published Tuesday, August 25, 2009.
Website: http://owurakwasip.blogspot.com/
　

FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER.

It is true that racism in American society is a "historically fervent" reality; there is no doubt about that; and Congressman Joe Wilson may have had racial motives to be the basis of his reaction to President Obama's Health Care reform speech; but there is no need for former President Jimmy Carter to bring it up once again, at this present time.

His intentions may be good to say that Mr. Wilson's demeanor is based on his racial feelings; and that the Townhall meetings and "Tea Parties" going on around the country may be froth with racial biases. All these are facts, judging from the unusually strange behavioral attitudes of many of the participants; however, awkward gestures do not mean that the whole situation is racially motivated.

It may be true that some people are there for reasons which have nothing to do with race, and yet, others are also there to exhibit some kind of fears, which may have something to do with the fact that the nation now has an African-American leader or President; that sentiment cannot be ruled out, of course.

They find it hard to accept it, but it has already happened, and there is nothing they can do to change the outcome of the last Presidential election until the next presidential election season. That time is not here yet; so, they may be advised to "hold their horses" for the time being.

Former President Jimmy Carter was reminiscing on the assumption that, most people were horrified by Mr. Joe Wilson's nefarious outburst the other day, when President Obama was giving his speech to a joint session of Congress on his health care proposals; and he (Carter) had every right to call attention to what others might have felt of Mr. Wilson's abrupt and surprising action as having some racial connotations.

The reactions to Mr. Wilson's behavior could have been seen to be on racial lines; but that was only a perception. There was no real proof of it; and also such reactions might have varied. It was a risky thing that he did, and every decent person should regret it.

Yet, if race, however inadvertently, was dragged into present conditions, when Congress itself was skittishly nervous about which plan to even consider; the Obama plan, the Baucus plan, and so many other plans to choose from; it would make things rather worse. It must be admitted, though, that tempers were running high; they must be cooled rather than inflamed, otherwise the resultant backlash could be unsustainable. People were obviously at their wits end.

The nation was in a time, when even the news headlines were so confusing; such as "More Fights Ahead in Congress Over Health Care", "Congress Targets ACORN in a Bipartisan Way", etc.; all indicating that the country was facing a difficult period; and therefore, people like the Former President should be extremely mindful of what they say, in order not to exacerbate an already bad situation.

Invoking racism into American politics right now would be disastrous. It (racism) was intolerable, and it must be declared a felony. That would certainly put a whole lot of people in jeopardy, if they were racists.

So please, Fmr. President Jimmy Carter, toning down your rhetorical statements, at this particular juncture, would more than help an already divided nation

WILSON; IT SHOULD BE CENSURE...

Some people are in politics, but they do not really know what politics mean. Well, there can be many definitions for the word itself; but the practical side of politics is quite different; and that is, the issues that most people are thinking of, or talking about are the same as those that are being discussed in Congress, but in an atmosphere of "decorum and civility". There are no spontaneous rebukes or temper tantrums, as in toddlers, being flung out and about irresponsibly, in order not to make the center of government a common place of mere quarrels.

The rules of the House Of Representatives are clear in that respect; and therefore when one of their own members breaks any of those rules, he or she is "called on the carpet" to make amends by apologizing. The House will convene for that purpose, among other things, of course; and debate the issue and then assess proper punishment for that member. Any other way will be deviating from the norm, in regard to the rules, and that will not be allowed by a great majority of lawmakers.

That was exactly the situation in which Congressman Joe Wilson found himself the other day, when a vote to discipline him for his "insane" outburst during the speech given by The President of the United State of America, Mr. Obama, to a joint session of Congress on his (President's) Health Care reform plan, not very long ago.

Mr. Wilson had yelled, "You lie" during the presidential address, and that remark was heard around the world. However, since then, he has called the White House and personally apologized, and the President has accepted his apology, according to his own story. Yet, what he refused to realize was that he did not just cast aspersion on the President, he also offended the nation for disparagingly disrespecting his (President's) office; an office that reflected the words "We The People" in American politics.

Although, he had rendered an apology and issued a statement regretting the incident; nevertheless, he had to be punished for breaking the rule of how Congress men and women should proceed to behave "with a degree of civility and decorum" in the House. The decision to punish him was then put to a vote, which was 240 to 179, against him. In other words, the people had spoken, and he should acquiesce and directly apologize to them.

As important as other issues that were affecting the nation needed members' attention, the "people's" pride was hurt, and that also mattered to lawmakers; and therefore, an insubordination by a member, however trivial, must be dealt with.

Yet, Congressman Wilson's case was not at all trivial in regard to his behavior; it has become part of the country's affairs. His conduct that day, seen around the world, was nothing but destructive; and what the world saw was both uncivilized and unwholesome.

During the debate on the House floor, many Democrats hurled accusations at the Republicans, while some Republicans were defending him by saying that the effort to penalize him was just a "political witch hunt". The Dems. retorted and said that "His conduct was reprehensible", and therefore he should apologize to his colleagues, the people's representatives; but he refused to do so.

The House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said he "felt obligated to push the measure", adding that, "None of us is happy to be here considering this resolution. I know I am not....". He was speaking about a "resolution of disapproval" only, and not about any of the traditional means of discipline, which meant expulsion, censure, reprimand or fine. It was meant to be "a slap on the wrist"; for the House would forego any of the severe means of punishment, just mentioned elsewhere; but Mr. Wilson remained aloof and retained a stern face and resisted an apology to the House, and hence, to the nation; he would not budge.

A person like that has been in politics for a long time; but he still did not understand politics, and of how complicated matters could become, if he misbehaved by breaking a cardinal rule. In addition, he did not know when he was being despicable, and that was to face the people with such contempt, when the only right thing to do was to apologize; for they, the people, had the power to make or break, and therefore, unmake any politician by stripping him or her of any influence he or she might have. They were VOTERS.

They are still the VOTERS, and nobody can resist their will, because it is only a matter of time, when they will have the chance to repudiate a person, when that time comes. As for Mr. Wilson, his punishment should be "censure" or "expulsion".

SERENA WILLIAMS.

Everybody seems to be apologizing these days. First, it was Congressman Joe Wilson for his strange outburst, while the President of the United States, Mr. Obama, was giving his address on Health Care reform to a joint session of Congress; then came Kanye West for his "rude" interruption of VMA ceremonial awards; and just two days or so ago, it was Serena Williams who was rendering an apology for a tiff she had with a lines-person on the court at the U.S. National Tennis Open in New York. It must be pointed out, however, that the first two were proper, but not Serena's.

She had been called for a line fault, which was controversial, not just to her, but to many people watching the game at that particular time. She raised an objection and complained to the Umpire, venting her anger to the call. It was not an outrage that she displayed; it was only pointing to the fact that she was being "picked on" for no good reason. It was actually something that every tennis player did, if the occasion warranted it. She was not over-reacting to the incident or anything of that nature. Yet, there was the expectation all around that she should apologize; and so she did; but why?

She was fined $10,000, and even more later on, for asking a lines-person to be fair, because that was the mental state the person should be in, when assisting in ensuring a clear judgment of a game. The incident could happen to anyone; and it could happen anywhere, that a lines-person or even an Umpire, was making the wrong calls for a player to be asking the question "why?" or "what for?" However, she was called on the carpet for dealing with a presumptuously unfair lines-person, who was running helter-skelter to prove her point that she was right in making a flimsy call.

Serena and her sister, Venus, have always been real ladies; they have conducted themselves well both on and off court. They have worked very hard to get them to where they are today. However, they also knew that they have had a lot of help along the way; first, from their immediate family, of a great Dad and a gracious Mom, sisters and cousins, who have supported and encouraged them to no end. Their loving parents have pushed them to gain success; and second, they were also grateful to the tennis world that opened the chance and offered the opportunity for them to play the game, which they played so well. They have become champions "a hundredfold, if not a thousandfold"; and the whole world was proud of them.

As for Serena, she has not got the slightest habit of throwing tantrums; her behavior is as graceful as that of her sister's. She is well behaved and extremely respectful to the public; and to her fans, she is just so adorable. She has represented The United States of America very well around the world. She is a beautiful African-American woman after all.

Yet, for a little misunderstanding on the court, in her own country, to be made to turn into a stain on her clean record is just unimaginably deplorable, to say the least. The media has blown a minor incident out of all proportion, and that is as unreasonable, just as it is unbearable. Tennis players of all kinds do the same without a smidgen of fault ever being enunciated against them; but she, being Serena, is left to bear the brunt of an altercation initiated by a prejudiced lines-person who is allowed to go scot-free. Incredible, is it not?

In view of that, The U.S.T.A. should come to her aid immediately, and completely exonerate her from such an unfortunate and stupid affray. She knows that in America it is normal to protest, particularly, against any kind of injustice, even if it happens on the tennis court.

KANYE WEST.

Everyone is discussing Kanye West this morning for what he did at the VMAs awards ceremony the other night. People are clamoring about the incident, and sympathizing with Ms.Taylor Swift for suffering what they will passionately describe as a public disgrace perpetrated on her by Mr. West.

All the television networks have been agog with what a juicy piece of news that is, concerning the person of Mr. West; something that they have every right to do. However, their attitude must be looked upon as being hypocritical, because they (networks) always expect something like that to happen, and many people are surprised about their reaction to the incident.

Majority of people would side with Ms. Swift, because it was supposed to be "her night"; and when that interruption occurred, she was completely taken aback. She was naturally miffed; however, she gracefully continued and accepted her award.

Mr. Kanye West has since apologized twice for what he himself described as "a mistake", and promised that it would not happen again; yet, what he did was not wrong, because he did it, but it was wrong for a time, when racial motives were to be put aside to allow Americans to become unified in meeting the numerous challenges that they now faced.

"Acorn", Townhall meetings and "Tea Parties"; they have all become the dividing factors between groups of people, and even between individuals, on racial lines. The political atmosphere in the country was strained so much so that, seeing a member of one race showing what could only be deemed as disrespectful to a member of another race exacerbated the situation even farther. Mr. West's action needed to be condemned by every decent person, no matter what race he or she belonged to. It was racially motivated; an unacceptable public exhibition that should not be tolorated, particularly at the present time; and not to mention Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst of "You lie" to the President of the United States, Mr. Obama.

Mr. West, himself, has admitted that "it was rude, period", in an interview with Jay Leno on his (Leno's) NBC show. He continued by saying that, he needed to take some time off to reflect.
"I need to, after this, take some time off and analyze how I'm going to improve. If there's anything I could do to help Taylor in the future or help anyone, I'd like to.", he had said.

He should also not forget to call himself a "Jackass".

THE MEDIA HEADLINES.

The idea that the Obama Speech did not change many minds, by the media headlines, was not fair; though, they knew that the odds were 10 to 1 against him on the very outset. The Insurance companies had put up a stiff campaign against his plan; and they had done all that behind the scenes. The so called "tea party" meetings and gatherings, as well as the opposing commercials on television and the insidious radio announcements, were all organized by them.
Those were craftily put together by the Insurance companies themselves.

They also had the support of those politicians who would never allow a government take over of private industry, especially, one like Health Care insurance; and so, there was no way that President Obama could change any minds in the House chamber and in the country with a well prepared speech, even as that was.

Most Americans were in agreement that a health care reform was necessary. It was a situation that needed to be fixed; but any plan with the slightest hint of government involvement was unacceptable. In other words, the Insurance companies preferred the status quo, with a few or no changes at all; and they were able to get the public on their side.

President Obama's health care reform was not something that everybody would be happy with; yet, his detractors were one step ahead of him, each time he took one forward. Also, what helped them was the fact that there was no consensus in his own party to decide whether or not those who were opposing the Obama health care reform were doing so purely for political reasons.

Public Option would allow illegal aliens to have free access to health care; and abortions would be rampant, were some of the excuses that the anti-reform faction presented at the "tea party" gatherings; and the President missed the chance to put the minds of many people at ease, by quite seriously addressing the two issues, particularly the abortion part, during the speech, because he has publicly said that he was against it.

Now, he has his back against the wall; and it would take more than just being a charismatic figure, as he was, to come out of the corner that the opposition has cleverly managed to get him into; it would take a genius. Buck up, Mr. President.

P.S. "The Obama Speech No Game Changer", is not apropos, media.
P.P.S. This blog is vehemently opposed to abortion and illegal aliens gaining access to health care in this country. (He did just about touch on the "illegal aliens" part).

PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN.

Britain's cooperation with Libya, lately, was raising eyebrows in the United States, as more and more reports were appearing, particularly, in British newspapers, pointing to the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, 1988, as one done under a shady deal in which "oil for a prisoner" was a factor.

The death toll in that bombing was 270 people, most of whom were American citizens; and although al-Megrahi's release has been condemned in many circles, and by the U.S. government, especially when he was greeted as a hero on his arrival in Tripoli a few weeks ago, it (release) was still prevalent in the minds of many Americans.

The scene was so obnoxious, it caused people to call for an investigation into why he was allowed to go free, although the Scottish, who had him in prison, insisted that he had prostate cancer, and they had to let him go on "compassionate grounds", saying that medical evidence showed he would die within months. He was then set free after serving only eight years of a 27-year minimum sentence.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown had vehemently denied the allegation of al-Megrahi's release as being part of an oil deal with Libya; however, there was another complaint surfing in the London Daily Telegraph, connecting Britain with Libya, which stated that, between "four and 14 men from the Special Air Service, SAS, were working with Col. Moammar Gadhafi's soldiers in Libya, a country once notorious for its support of terrorism."

On the surface, it might look like normalization of a relationship process, which the United Kingdom was having with Libya; yet, such courtship was dangerous, as it could turn around and hurt, not just Britain, but the whole Western Alliance.

Gadhafi was not one to be trusted; and although he had relinquished his nuclear ambition in 2003, he did so reluctantly, with the U.S. forcing him to acquiesce. He could always go back to his old clandestine ways. That also went for his son, Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, who was the prospective replacement in the absence of his father.

If the report was true, Mr. Gordon Brown should be aware that Gadhafi would not hesitate to take advantage of a well trained militia to either suppress his own people and/or do damage elsewhere on an international scale.

His involvement in Northern Ireland, with Libyan-supplied plastic explosives used to kill and maim Britons by the IRA (Irish Republican Army), excessively proved that point.

The British should think again before doing business with a slick and sly person as Moammar Gadhafi. Many American families are still furious.

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

September 11, 2001, like Pearl Harbor, will be remembered as a "day in infamy". It was the day that the United States became fully aware that it had grave enemies in modern times, by the attacks on the mainland; and therefore, it must be vigilant; and with all sincerity, be ready to protect and defend itself "by any means necessary".

The Bush administration made it a point to go after those who had perpetrated the attacks, be they nations, terrorist groups or individuals. Those attacks were intentional and unprovoked; and the nation would remain in shock for many months that followed.

The effects of that evil act of twenty Arab nationalities were countless. The whole economy was jarred to the point of nearly bringing America to a standstill; the Intelligence community was in disarray; the Defense Department could not make any move to respond militarily, because nobody in the government actually knew or could make any sense of what was happening; and there was commotion everywhere.

Washington D.C. and New York City; two major cities in the country; one being the Capital of the United States, and the other, the most recognized venue for international trade and commerce, the World Trade Center, have suffered such tragedy as never before.

The Pentagon itself, the military Headquarters of all the defense forces of the nation, was consumed in smoke and fire; and the two magnificent towers of the World Trade Center would instantly collapse. They looked so powerful to be coming down, but they did fall.

Several people were killed that day at those two places; and there were other people on one of the four planes that were hijacked to commit those atrocious attacks; they also perished. The whole nation could only respond in grief, as many lives and dreams of its citizens were shattered right before a world audience, on television news and in radio broadcasts. The agony of many Americans was showing in their faces, as that moment (of those attacks) was too hard to bear.

America did not fall; it has lived through pain and hardship for eight long years, and by what terrorists did on that day, and has survived; but the nation will never forget. GOD bless.

OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE SPEECH.

President Obama threw down the gauntlet, while presenting his case on his embattled health care reform. He was anxious to impress his audience of millions of Americans, who were watching him on their television sets and listening to him on their radios, and not just those assembled in the House chamber.

He was unafraid and showed a great deal of fortitude, proving his gargantuan strength as a candidate during the 2008 campaign was still there as president. He spoke as a man with a plan, and as one who was convinced that, although his speech might fall on the deaf ears of those who had already made up their minds, it was critical for him to appeal to others who were sitting on the sidelines.

He knew that the House was divided, but the country was just confused about the many proposals that have been thrown out by the opposition on a complicated issue as health care. He had to prove that they were wrong, particularly on the idea of "Public Option" that would allow the government to venture into the field of insuring people, and making sure that they had a choice to transfer to an alternate plan, if ever their private insurance coverage proved insufficient or totally failed them.

Presently, we all knew that the Health Care Insurance business was a monopoly, being practiced by individual companies and corporations, who played almost by their own rules. They could offer their service or deny it to patients, depending on their own assessments, and within "self prescribed" modalities that only suited the policies of those companies and corporations. Any involvement by the government, directly in the area of health (insurance) coverage, would lead to "Social Medicine", and that might be intrusive in private enterprise.

President Obama's reform would cut into the enormous influence of the Insurance industry, and it would be able to investigate how cases were handled financially between the industry and medical practitioners, on one hand, and sick patients, on the other. Thus turning the Insurance industry from being capitalistic in nature, as it was at present, to being socialistic. The idea would then spread to other industries for the government to have its hands in free enterprise as a whole; and that was exactly where the fear lied.

The Republicans believed that; and so did those who maintained that the United States would never become a socialistic state, based on its history and monetary structure that placed people in separate tax brackets; a system which supported the economic notion of "haves" and "have nots", and having a one sided advantage for some and not for all; and to change that would be like going to war.

President Obama presented his case well; the speech was exceptionally informative, and given in a modern and stylistic format; however, was it understood and therefore accepted by the majority of the people that were listening and watching?

The subterfuge, they should know, would be the argument of his detractors that illegal aliens would have free access to medical care or the high cost of medical malpractice lawsuits. Those were just distractions, and they (special interests and detractors) knew it. Excuses and pure baloney; and they must be exposed.

The result of his speech would be anybody's guess, because it still laid in the lap a Congress that needed to learn about the philosophy of "give and take"; and in the present state of affairs, it was hard to predict its outcome.

Putting it another way, political ideologies were stiffly standing in his way, and it would be very difficult to tell what would happen next. What he and his party could do was to use persuasive arguments in the remainder of the appropriated time; and continue to wait, with the hope that progress would be achieved in "the process".

SCOTT MOONEY.

Breckinridge County High School Coach Scott Mooney saw the Moon explode all around him, when he took a number of his football players on a field trip to an evangelist church, where some of them were baptized. He has since been reviled by a mother, who said that his son was involved in something that did not have her consent, and she was threatening to sue.

The trip was private or unofficially sponsored, and it was voluntary, according to School Superintendent Janet Meeks, who attended the service and witnessed the baptisms of the students; "They didn't get anything for attending", she said. "They didn't get anything for not attending."

However, Breckinridge High School happened to be a public school, and therefore going on a religious field trip was at variance with laws governing public schools in regard to religion.

A Mr. Bill Sharp, an attorney with ACLU (the American Civil Liberties Union) of Kentucky, said the trip seemed to violate the Supreme Court's separation of church and State clause, "especially since the coach likely discussed the trip with students during practices." "The message conveyed to the students is there's an official endorsement," Sharp continued.

He went on to say that, "There's certainly a coercive element," "He's (meaning Mr. Mooney) in a position of authority." , Sharp concluded.

So, that placed Coach Mooney in hot water; but for what, really? Naturally, he was the organizer of the trip, and therefore he had the obligation to tell his students about what was involved. They have specifically been told that the "purpose of the outing was to see noted evangelist Ronnie Hill". They were in agreement to go or not to go; that was their decision to make. That was totally the responsibility of the students themselves; and also to let their parents know what Mr. Mooney was up to.

There was no objection raised or reported until the trip was over, and suddenly out of the "woodwork" came one of the mothers of the students to complain, and to tell the Courier-Journal, a local newspater, "that she is considering legal action". Preposterous, was it not?

People did what they believed in; and Coach Mooney happened to be a church going person, which the students should have known. The trip was so important to him, he even told the School Superintendent about it and invited her to come along; and she did.

In other words, he did everything in plain daylight; and those who had concealed how they felt about the trip, and did not have their voices heard in opposing it, had themselves to blame; and Coach Mooney should be exonerated from any (blame). He would win any case with a good lawyer; and he could also pursue a counter-lawsuit against anyone who brought one (lawsuit) to disturb his peace of mind, if he so chose. By the way, he has the support of the Bible Belt.

PRESIDENT OBAMA.

Health care for every American continues to occupy center stage. It has been the most crucial issue of our day for President Obama to be addressing a joint session of Congress of a plan that would ensure that all factions to the problem were satisfied, through a compromise approach; or there would still be a broken system which needed to be fixed, even after he had given his speech on the topic.

So many versions to overhauling health care in America have been suggested by numerous sources, and no agreement of any kind has been reached after lawmakers have presented their case on all individual plans that they found to be feasible; but discovered none that would encourage those who were afraid of one type of plan or the other to be open minded and rescind on their own original kinds of plans, so as to bring some semblance of compromise that would settle the matter once and for all.

That was what everybody should be doing, by using critical thinking to sift through all the ideas that would produce a reasonable settlement for all to share in, rather than each and everyone having his or her own way, be they Congressional men and women, party representatives, insurance company spokespersons or whoever was at variance with any part or parts of all the plans that have been strewn before the public.

Genuine efforts were being made to have, not one specific health care plan, but a conglomerate of plans put together to give the nation a plausible chance to really reform the health care system as it existed now. It was not a fair one; it has flaws and pitfalls; it has outdated rules and regulations, and it was blemished with serious and bludgeoned high costs that would not allow the fifty million or so people to be covered; and so it needed to be reformed.

President Obama must show leadership tonight, and propose a tangible insight into how a correct and permanent solution can be found, on a bipartisan basis, to ensure a fruitful result that will go a long way to remedy the ills of the present health care system. It must not be just a normal speech, but one that has responses and answers to expiate past errors that have been used to strangle a system that is supposed to serve the health needs of all Americans.

By doing so, he will undoubtedly bring relief to the minds of many people and put his critics to shame. In other words, he must insist on a Health Care Insurance coverage for all or nothing.

WHO'S TO BLAME?

It was true that the "Green Jobs" czar's resignation, and the firestorm controversy surrounding it, was not reported by major news outlets, like the New York Times and the Washington Post, and they were being blamed by FOX News channel for not doing so.

As far as Mr. Van Jones was concerned, FOX News spent some two full weeks maligning him and making pronouncements about statements and remarks he has made in the past; and then decrying the fact that President Obama was having a self-avowed Marxist and Communist Socialists with him in the White House.

However, the WH denied the allegation and said that Mr. Van Jones was hired to be a member of the Council on Environmental Quality, only because of his expertise in the area of environmental issues, and that made him a better and qualified candidate for the job.

His profile was checked through a vetting system that cleared him to accept the appointment. He was a skillful employee and that he was not brought in through the backdoor or stealthily ushered into the White House under sinister circumstances. Yet, FOX News contributors, "anchors" and commentators saw red; and with the help a few political henchmen from both parties, they practically forced him to resign.

So, what was the complaint about, that "major news outlets" did not report the story? It would be anybody's guess, but they might have had something better to do, as reporting on the Health Care Reform, and whether the "Public Option" proposition should be part of it.

To many Americans, it was a vital aspect of the health care proposals being nationally discussed presently; and so, ABC, NBC and CBS, with other popular newspapers were rightfully spending their time and energy on that discussion as a whole; rather than to join in the conspicuous "lynching" of a man, for the mere fact that he had said certain things in the past.

We all do; newspaper reporters and television personalities do say stupid things most of the time.

However, there has been so much hypocrisy on the part of those who have been critical in maligning Mr. Van Jones and causing his ouster; and they should be ashamed of themselves. Their conduct should be seen as undesirable during the past few weeks; and though, like them, many of us were not proud of Mr. Van Jones' utterances and actions, but we would not go to the extent of forcing him out of his job.

THE VAN JONES RESIGNATION...

Not many Americans were proud of Mr. Van Jones' background; nevertheless, his ouster was a "lynch mob" conspiracy by a section of the Republican Party, who would go to any extent to revile an African American, just because he or she happened to be so. The Obama government has ignited so much animosity among those people, even the appointment of a low level official had to have a faulty appearance.

Senior members of the White House staff have maintained that, Mr. Jones was appointed to the WH Council on Environmental Quality solely on the basis of his savvy in matters affecting clean energy, and his desire to organize and create community oriented jobs to fight the blight and acute unemployment seen in so many poor areas in the country; hence, his unofficial title, "Green Jobs" czar.

His rhetorical statements in the past, some of which made on the spur of the moment, were not to be considered as part of his resume. His ideological views were similar to those held by so many Americans; his penning his name to the "9/11 truther movement petition" was done almost under duress. He has even said that it was a mistake on his part to have signed it; and he has apologized to that effect.

Yet, a slew of FOX News contributors and other disgruntled politicians would not allow the controversy surrounding his appointment to be put to rest. They were repugnantly gunning for him, until he finally gave in and tendered his resignation last Saturday morning. No body could resist such avalanche of criticism and survive. However, he was not fired; and so he was not disgraced, as some were anticipating. He decided to step down quietly, demonstrating his resilient nature to overcome any misfortune, such as the one he was presently facing.

His best commendations came from some of his colleagues in the WH; with Senior Advisor David Axelrod "saying he showed "commitment" to his cause by removing himself "as an issue."; and also with WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs adding, "What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual", meaning that he, Mr. Van Jones, was not going to stand in President Obama's way. He quit on that score.

The African American community is taking note, Republicans.

MR. LEON PANETTA.

It looked like the CIA Director Leon Panetta was doing the right thing to resist the reopening of cases involving the agency's employees in the past, particularly during the period between 2001 through 2008. According to many reports, he has been urging Attorney General Eric Holder to accept the fact that the matter has already been dealt with by (the) Justice Department officials, who reviewed it (IG's Report) several years ago. They found that certain prosecutions were unnecessary, and although, only just one solitary case was justifiably deserving of prosecution.

Director Leon Panetta has every right and obligation to protect his department and to safeguard its interests. He has stressed that an ongoing criminal investigation would be a grave interruption into CIA operations everywhere; and it would be a serious distraction in the affairs of the agency; a luxury he could not afford. His agency was world wide, and deserved to have operatives who would not entertain any fears in performing their duties diligently, wherever they might find themselves. Their sacrifices must be recognized and rewarded instead.

What Mr. Eric Holder was actually doing was driving a wedge between the White House and the CIA, and therefore causing a split in the administration. His decision to appoint a special prosecutor should not have come at the wrong time, when the country was mulling over a Health Care reform, and did not realistically know where to go with it.

It (decision) was creating an amalgam of difficulties for Mr. Panetta, personally, and for the department he headed; as well as for the Justice Department itself. It was presumably the Attorney General's foray into politics. In other words, his motivation for a new probe was political, because that was what it looked like; and as such, many fingers were pointing to people at the "left" of the Democratic Party as being the joint source of the fracas that was unfolding between the two departments in Washington D.C.

There was no doubt, however, that the WH was endeavoring to sift through all the commotion, and to come up with the rightful solution to resolve the existing tension brought on by Mr. Holder's move to "address the problem of America's bad image abroad". After all, that was what the whole thing boiled down to, according to those who knew him.

The idea of the two departments being at loggerheads with each other was more than distressful, awfully unconventional and unproductive. In fact, it would seem more closely to being counterproductive, in the face of an enormous economic recovery, an embattled health care reform, and the recent slipping of the President's approval ratings, among other things.

More important issues that the country was grappling with at the present moment must rather be on the government's priority list; such as the huge trade deficit and an ever increasing National debt, both of which were forebodingly stirring future posterity straight in the eye.

The argument between the two factions here was not even an ideological one, where an attorney general was attempting to snatch a case, involving an individual or a group, from the "powerful jaws" of the CIA, for equitable reasons; it was just tomfoolery on the part of a Justice Department acting to bring rancor within the (Obama) administration; and it was high time for President Obama to act to steady the course of his government.

P.S. "Trade Deficit with China Continues to Expand: Why?", Article, 2009. Retrieved 09/05/09. Website: http://seekingalpha.com/article/155931-trade-deficit-with-china-continues-to-expand-why
P.P.S. The Blog had computer problems yesterday, Saturday.

MR. VAN JONES.

The adviser on "Green Jobs" Van Jones in the Obama administration has landed himself seemingly in a whole lot of trouble; and as one of the czars, as the President's appointees have come to be known, he is quite in hot water from the many statements he has made on past administrations and other political situations; and even after his apologetic announcement of dubbing Conservative Republicans as "A-holes", the controversy around him is still swirling to the detriment of him being in the Obama government.

His stance on the environment in the past, according to some members of the Obama White House staff, led to his appointment as a member of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; and though, his position on environmental matters have not changed, his general attitude and common views have simmer down considerably.

It was on that basis that he was offered the appointment; and that the administration must be given credit for that appointment because the President knew his record as a strong advocate on environmental issues, and therefore he concurred that he (Jones) had something beneficial to offer, in the service of the country.

Yet, some in the media, and particularly on FOX News programs, are urging his ouster, due to his background, and for the provocative assessments and observations he has made during his lifetime. They were assuming that he would not last in his position before the week was over.

Well, should not that privilege be left to the White House? Such wild guesses were not helping in any way, neither were they honest, because those people have also had expressed negative views, one way or another, in so many instances, all their lives.

In fact, Mr. Van Jones has been a controversial figure for quite a long time, and some of his political leanings and assertions have been unsavory, to say the least; he has also made considerable contribution in his role as a community organizer to galvanize groups, such as the "Green for All", an organization looking to create jobs in poor areas and to bring economic and sustainable living for the people there.

He has also written widely on the subject of the environment, drawing attention to the plight of those who had no "voice" in the present day political and social settings. His book, "The Green Collar Economy" was a 2008 New York Times best-seller; and he has been praised by outstanding members of society, such as Actor Leonardo DiCaprio who accorded him a brilliant honor that anyone could have.

"Steadily -- by redefining green -- Jones is making sure that our planet and our people will not just survive but also thrive in a clean-energy economy," DiCaprio wrote in Time magazine's 100 "Most Influential People" article.

He has "won plaudits" from former Vice-President Al Gore. In an interview with the New Yorker (publication), he said "I love Van Jones", according to the New Yorker.

Mr. Van Jones is rambunctious, flamboyant, big-mouthed socialist and communist, overzealous radical activist; you name it, and he will fit in the niche you care to put him in; but he is also a talented individual; a man enormously given to great accomplishments and achievements. Besides, he has mellowed in his despicable ways that always created problems for him. He has lately been very apologetic to those that he thinks he has offended; and he has now joined the political "mainstream", so to speak.

He is pragmatic and sincere; one of the people that President Obama wants to surround himself with, and not just "plain radicals and activists", as FOX News contributors are saying. He (Jones) must be allowed to keep working for the administration, at least for the time being; and only at the President's behest, of course.

THE C.I.A. INVESTIGATION.

Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to move forward with the investigation of CIA interrogators could lead to more and more probes into the activities of the agency during the Bush administration. Despite the fact that the idea was a political one, as many people have remarked, Federal prosecutor Mr. John Durham would proceed to preoccupy himself with the arduous task of carrying out his assignment.

The Republican members in Congress have objected to any type of investigation of CIA operatives from the past, as that would affect the morale of the people presently working in the agency. "They've kept us safe for eight years, " said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "And now to have an attorney general of the United States opening up a criminal investigation against them -- it's disgraceful and I think it's going to have a demoralizing effect on the CIA."

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney was the first to raise a red flag against such a move on the part of the Obama government, and said that it would set a bad precedent for future administrations.

In his appearance on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, he made it clear that the investigation was uncalled for; it would damage the image of the CIA; and it would not be in the interest of the nation's security. He was answered by Gen. Jim Jones, the present National Security Adviser to the Obama administration, who presented very few facts to counter-act Mr. Cheney's statements.

Yet, senior members of the Democratic Party were urging what could only be described as a political witch hunt to continue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted it, as she herself has even accused the agency in May (2009) "of lying to her in 2002 about its use of waterboarding". House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers also maintained that the investigation, as it stood right now, did "not go far enough".

The CIA has been under attack before in the 1970s; however those were for its delving in domestic affairs, which did not fit its role of dealing with external and international matters. In fact, some of its members went to prison as a result.

Nevertheless, the 9/11 attacks released such public outcry and anger that called for aggressive intelligence maneuvers in handling terrorists, and especially, high-valued ones, when they were detained; indicating that the circumstances at that time were totally different. Indeed, they, interrogators, did what they were supposed to do to keep the country safe.

Breaking of laws should be taken seriously, as the Attorney General should insist; but on the pretext that his decision would alter the image of America one single bit, was not at all convincing to warrant an investigation of the kind that he was putting forward; and if President Obama allowed it (investigation) to go on, where would it end?

WHITNEY HOUSTON.

Whitney Houston's return to show business is good news for many Americans who have been her devoted fans for a whole decade, if not more. Her concert airs on "Good Morning America", an ABC morning program; and it will bring back loads of memories to people, young and old, after her absence for seven long years.

Her comeback is a personal triumph for a young lady, who has been through so much adversities and pitfalls in life; first, her divorce, two years ago; and then a slew of strange stories involving drug use and/or abuse; and added to that are all kinds of unsavory family problems not fitting for a talented singer that she is.

However, all in all, she has re-emerged, "with full diva qualifications"; her new album, comprising of songs as "I Look to You", "My Love is Your Love" and "I am Every Woman".

Her appearance in Central Park's Rumsey Playfield, New York City, will gladden many hearts of million of music lovers and ardent fans around the world, who have been missing her for all these years. She is a great, delightful, charming singer and performer, and she will remain so for many more decades to come.

We wish her well.

GENERAL JIM JONES.

General Jim Jones (Ret), the National Security Adviser to the Obama government disclosed in an exclusive interview with ABC News that President Obama was having "greater success taking terrorists out of commission than Bush did"; although he did not provide any empirical or conclusive proof of his statement.

He was responding to former Vice-President Dick Cheney's remarks last Sunday morning, when he appeared in a segment of FOX News Sunday program with Chris Wallace. Mr. Cheney had commented among other things that, he had "serious doubts" about the extent to which President Obama "understands and is prepared to do what needs to done to defend the nation."

His assertions were based on Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder's decision to conduct "preliminary" investigations on some CIA personnel who had broken the law or had gone overboard in their interrogation of terror suspects during the Bush administration. He had said that some of those interrogation techniques had forced suspects as September 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to give information that, in his view, helped save American lives, after that attack.

Gen. Jones, on the other hand, had argued that he "couldn't provide any definitive answer as to whether, as Cheney argues, any detainees who were interrogated using methods President Obama has banned -- ones that qualify as torture under international law -- provided information they would not have offered using other methods". What?

He continued by saying that, "I haven't seen any compelling evidence that would argue because somebody was subjected to enhanced techniques that there was a revelation that we wouldn't have had"......"but it is very hard to prove the negative on this."; which literally meant that the former VP's assertions were pure conjecture.

The general said that the new approach by the administration on the issue of terrorism was working better, with the co-operation of international law enforcement agencies and America's allies; and that Mohammed's confessions, after being water boarded dozens of times, were lies, "He himself admitted that in order to get them to stop doing it, he lied.", the general added. Which also meant that the CIA enhanced techniques never worked. Yet, and almost at the same time, he admitted that he was not sure, whether they did or not, as he had said before.

In other words, he would rather believe Mohammed, a terrorist who had engineered the 9/11 attack, a ferocious and unprovoked one (attack), on the U.S. mainland than Mr. Cheney, who had all the facts at his disposal, at the time when the country was under (fire) that attack.

However, we all knew what Mr. Cheney's main complaint was, that investigating CIA operatives from the past would damage the morale of the people who presently worked in the agency; and that the Obama administration must stop politicizing an issue that had already been dealt with by career and independent lawyers in the same Department of Justice long ago, and it was being "resurrected" by Mr. Holder; thus by so doing, finding a flimsy way to bring it back again.

As for the general, he had to make those comments to Jake Tapper of ABC News, just to counter-balance what was the obvious, that the administration had done nothing to seriously affect the plans of Al Qaeda and those who meant to do harm to America.

Nevertheless, a great number of people knew that the country was still basking in the peaceful atmosphere created by former President W. Bush and his mate, Mr. Dick Cheney, after the awful September 9/11 attack. Any "nonchalant" attitude on the part of the present government, with respect to the nation's security, therefore, would not suffice.