FARRAKHAN AND AHMADINEJAD

What must have been the subject?

I have always had a smidgeon (smidgen) of respect for Minister Louis Farrakhan, even before he became head of The Nation of Islam; and although, his meeting with Iran's President Ahmadinejad last week would not surprise many people, because the two men shared the same faith.

What baffles the general public is that, Minister Farrakhan has been outspoken on many political issues, particularly, on the shabby treatment of African-Americans, and the need for America to repair the damage done to them socially, economically and politically.

On the other hand, President Ahmadinejad's background does not reflect the slightest of sympathies for the down trodden, as he heads an autocratic regime that smothers any kind of freedom through Sharia Law in his own country.

The bone of contention here is that Minister Farrakhan tends to be an avid scholar of world history. He has read widely on the indigenous and anthropological make-up of Africa, and the effects that ancient Islamic slavery has had on the black race. It has, by and large, contributed to the social conditions that are seen in present day Africa; it has inflicted so much harm on black peoples everywhere, more than any historical activity; and it is through its modalities that the trans-Atlantic slave trade has materialized.

So, it is beyond any amount of comprehension to see the two men, with such opposite and distinct dichotomies, sitting and talking.

Is it (subject) about freedom; or is it about slavery, or is it about the brotherhood of man? That is the question.

AN UNWELCOME GUEST.

(UN)WELCOME TO THE CLUB.

From many of the interviews with Iran's President Ahmadinejad last week, he never broke away from his rehearsed male monologues that he has compiled over the years. (...and he never broke a sweat repeating them, either).

On the question of whether he wanted Iran to have nuclear weapons or not, during the many interviews, he had come out with the same answers, several times over; as if they were a carbon copy list of replies he had given reporters and TV interviewers before, the last time he was at the U.N., almost two years ago.

"Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes,"; quote, unquote.

Or, did his country support terrorism or not; and he would say,

"We don't support terrorism in any way, shape or form. Iran is a peaceable country."; quote, unquote.

Only this time around, he had to throw in two new subjects; 1. That, some believed
"9/11 was caused by segments within the U.S." to cover up a failing economy, and "to save Israel." However, how that happened, he was completely mum about it.

If he had mentioned the CIA or any other group(s) used for secret military missions overseas or even internally, like the FBI, he would have given himself away as one, who has been thoroughly doing his homework; but he wanted to sound deliberate and off-the-cuff, if not summarily casual, just to deceive his listeners; therefore, there was no naming of any organizations.

The other was, 2. Presenting his views on the world economy at large, and saying the U.S. and other Western powers were dominating the decision making processes; and therefore an overhaul of "undemocratic and unjust decision making bodies," was long overdue.

There too, he refused to mention any names, like The World Bank or the IMF; however, those two organizations immediately came to mind, anyway.

With the second subject, he has found an opportune time to arbitrarily assume the title role of "the defender of the poor" around the world. CRIKEY! What a surprise.

Yet, all that was done to camouflage his own difficulties back in Iran, where the economy was in shambles; and his position as president was still in question, whether the election that brought him into power for the second time was rigged, just as the first.

In other words, his own political survival was at stake; and he would depend on being able to develop a nuclear bomb, (or at least an IED of it), to indicate to his fellow countrymen that his regime has taken Iran to a new level, militarily, of course, by ushering it (Iran) into the nuclear age, and thus making it an International force to reckon with. (A wondrous achievement; wouldn't that be).

The proof of that assumption was in his statement, when he first arrived to attend the 2010 U.N. General Assembly; when he said, "the future belongs to Iran," and that "the United States must recognize his nation 'is a big power'."; quote, unquote.

He realizes everywhere he turns, he is on slippery ground; even in "his own neck of the woods", where the elite in society forms a formidable opposition, as far as his regime is concerned; in addition to the fact that his U.N. audience was being wary of his radical views.

All of his remarks, whether he is aware or not, unequivocally give him away.

He surmises he wants a nuclear free world, and yet, he advocates the annihilation of Israel by nuclearization, probably; showing how unstable and insecure the man is.

He cannot choose to be pleasant to his neighbors, as he is testing missiles for war; but here in New York City, he is clamoring for a world without "the bomb"; a precarious stance to please, perhaps the U.S. and members of what is termed "the nuclear club", which is determined to reject him.

Or to tantalize the Ayatollahs in Iran, whose views are, most of the time, at variance with the rest of the world. He wants to have it both ways, so to speak.

The message he brought with him to The U.N. General Assembly was fraught with so much confusion, and a whole lot of misinformation; indicating his political life was at its ebb.

In the end, there was every indication that, he has been "able to fool all the people some of the time," and "even fool some of the people all the time,"; but he could not "fool all the people all the time.", with his negative speeches to The U.N. General Assembly members, and his wry and warn-out answers to, at least, the American public, watching him on television.

Ahmadinejad, an unwelcome guest to the club.
　
P.S. (IED: improvised explosive device).

SHOULD AMERICA LEARN MORE?

Complete Fabrication.


The U. N. had an earful of anti-American political effusion, coupled with Israeli epithets; and uncompromising jargon that would come from a person no less than Iran's President Ahmadinejad, who had practiced his speech, several years ahead of time, to deliver it to the present day General Assembly meeting, Thursday, 23rd September, 2010.

His words caused the U.S. delegation to walk out of the chamber in protest, for insensitively accusing America of collusion in the 9/11 attacks of The World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C.

To many, it was a bunch of complete balderdash; and it would be looked upon as something to be brushed aside or to ignore, to the point of it being a passing fancy fit only for children; yet, to the politically astute, he was narrating what the Islamic world had known for years, that the attacks have been planned long before they happened; and that a cogent story had to be formulated to bring America into a corroborative position or some type of involvement in the attacks to support that story, and so to make it believable.

He really had nothing much to say than to make the U.S. look bad. It (U.S) would have no objection to the statements that he was dishing out, except to stage a walk out; which it did, because he was in a forum as head of state, and anything he said would not be held against him.

However, an accusation has been made, even though under diplomatic circumstances, to embarass the U.S.; it has to be taken seriously and be met with a response that it deserved. It was a total fabrication by a world leader speaking at the U.N to a worldwide audience. Therefore, its effect would be far-reaching, if nothing was done to counteract it.

It is for the U. S. Government State Department to issue a strong warning to Iran, opposing such an atrocious accusation; and investigate it as well, Should not America be forced to learn more?

THE U. N. AND HUNGER.

Hunger and Thirst.

The difference of opinion expressed by world leaders at the U.N. antipoverty summit this year is not surprising at all, with President Ahmadinejad of Iran holding on to the fact that capitalism is mainly responsible for the world's poor economic conditions.

He reiterated that, governments, led by the U.S., have somehow relinquished their moral obligation to bring lesser nations into the decision making process of the overall world economy. He continued to appeal for "the overhaul of 'undemocratic and unjust' global decision-making bodies, which are dominated by the U. S. and other Western powers."

The meeting has been convened to "assess and spur on achievement of U.N. targets set by world leaders in 2000"; and thus to garnish some results from its Millennium Development Goals that have been set some ten years before. It (meeting) portrays why the U. N. has been formed, several years back, to deal with all kinds of problems, including poverty, of course.

Now, it has somewhat the privilege to weave through the bickering and argument that have characterized the U. N. for so long, and has made it necessary for the suggestion that it must be moved from New York City to some other place, because it has outlived its usefulness.

Billions of people are still suffering from diseases of several kinds; and there is still hunger and thirst in many parts of the world; however, do all these things have to be attributed to the U.S. and its few rich allies, or do all leaders have to admit their share of responsibility for the negligence that has prompted such economic woes that the world is facing today?

The answer is "No", to the former part of the question; and "Yes" to the latter part. What must happen is for some cultures to change to allow basic education to become widespread, even in the remotest parts of the world; and for the attitudes of governments to be more responsive to the needs of the people that they are supposed to serve.

It is wonderful for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to stress that "the primary responsibility for development lies with the governments of the developing countries," and she continued to emphasize that "the key to economic prosperity was good governance and a flourishing capitalist economy."

Such is the statement people are waiting to hear from the leaders of the world at the U. N.; alongside the fact that capitalism is good, if utilized properly to benefit all peoples.

REPEAL D.A.D.T.?

RECONSIDER.
America will never win any war in the Middle East, if the DADT policy is overturned. The Afghan war and the Iraq war will be in jeopardy, because they will be fought, tooth and nail, by Islamists, who think that homosexuality is an abomination, and that it must never be tolerated in any society. Therefore, they will be damned, if they are forced to face a bunch of soldiers who happen to be that type.

The whole U.S. military will be affected, as it will be branded as being abnormal or a company of "kafirs". In that respect, it will be impossible for any manner of support to be gleaned from even those who are regarded as moderate Muslims. "Kafir is the worst word in the human language.", http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/kafir/

If it is attached to our men and women, who are fighting two wars to secure our freedom and peace, they will be saddled with a moral burden that they have not asked for, and do not deserve, in addition to their normal military duties. In other words, morale within the military will deteriorate; it will be drained to such an extent that their readiness will become ineffective.

At this juncture, the Republicans, who are threatening to filibuster the Defense Bill, which is before the Senate Armed Services Committee tend to be right, especially from the perspective that Pentagon must be permitted to complete "a review of the impact of changing the policy."

Among whom is Senator McCain, a war hero, who is insisting that, changing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy will "hurt military readiness and unit cohesion in the middle of two ongoing wars,"

Many people, including myself, have written about this issue before; but the Obama administration keeps suggesting that the repeal of the ban will please a portion of its political base, even though such an act will be detrimental to the whole nation. The administration must reconsider.

P.S. Lady Gaga has had her say, regarding this matter. Now it is my turn. Thank you.

P.P.S. If the U.S. fails in the Middle East, it will fail everywhere.

A NEW DAY AT THE U.N.

Have Serious Talks.

The U.N. General Assembly is hosting world leaders again this week; with President Obama scheduled to address the august body on Wednesday. Other leaders will have their chance to speak, and to express their perception of how the state of world affairs are shaping, either for peace or for conflict among member nations.

To find ways to solve the myriad of problems the U.N. has at its door must be the foremost agenda for all the leaders, instead of the quibbling, wrangling and animosity that have pervaded previous meetings; such as Iran developing nuclear energy, and eventually having plans to produce weapons, and others following suit; and North Korea sinking a ship for no other purpose, but just to start trouble with its southern neighbor.

President Ahmadinenad has already been saying that, "the future belongs to Iran," and that "the United States must recognize his nation 'is a big power'." That already looks like throwing down the gauntlet on the part of Iran, and by so doing, putting the U.S. on the spot.

Most people will wonder what the U.S. response will be; and if President Obama is not too careful, such a statement can start a spark of contention, or at least, a great deal of misunderstanding that will go a long way to mar the spirit of unity and the purposefulness of peace for which the meeting has been convened, and of which the U.N. must be more concerned about.

The man in the street; the ordinary New Yorker, will be going about his business as usual; but he will also be watching how the leaders of the civilized world will tend to behave toward each other; and he will learn from it, whether good or bad. Have serious talks instead.

We all wish the U.N. peace and harmony in its deliberations this week.

A STARK OPPOSITION.

Obama's policies have always looked to serve the nation in general, and the poor in particular; like (1). the healthcare law that passed last year, amid a reactionary hoopla of a Republican Party opposition, and an acute animosity expressed by private Healthcare Insurance providers; (2). the new tax laws that would replace the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy that would soon expire; just to use those two examples.

The new measures would benefit small businesses, which were responsible for creating 75% of jobs in America; and who were deserved of a tax break. By so doing he would bring unemployment levels down from 10.5% to 8%, as he had previously promised, during his first days in office. His stimulus plans to save Wall Street, the banks and car makers, were all designed to keep unemployment figures from climbing upwards to where the country would experience economic recession indefinitely.

It was a negative milestone that he had inherited from a global financial upheaval; and his administration and the Democrats in Congress were endeavoring to manage and wrestle it, somehow, from completely getting out of hand.

It (upheaval) had ravaged the economies of most European countries, and as President, he was doing everything he could to contain it. However, according to many economists, it has gone past containment into what could be termed as a depression, and the U.S. seemed to be in dire straights, economically, of course. Yet, the situation was happening under his watch, and he had to do all he could to speed up a sluggish economy in the interest of the nation.

Nevertheless, his opposition has always come from the racist element of the American public; particularly, the leadership of the Republican Party, on the one hand; and in recent days, through the so called Tea Party movement, whose mechanized manipulation of public sentiment, resulted in an unusual assemblage in Washington D.C. last month, on the other.

It was an unusual gathering, because it lacked specific leadership or a clear cut objective, except to indicate that the country was in "the wrong hands", and it had to be taken back. In other words, the Tea Party movement had collaborated with others like it; and were connected, directly or indirectly, to the "Restoring Honor" meeting, coupled with a "march", that was witnessed infront of the Lincoln Memorial on August 27th, 2010. Its goal, whimsically, was "to take our country back."

The meeting had actually culminated from the vociferousness of a TV personality who had attacked Obama from the moment he became President of the United States; and he had instigated that he (Obama) had surrounded himself with socialist extremists, etc. etc. He had also in the past espoused radical views himself; and for those reasons, among others, he, the TV host, has vowed to bring him down.

The Republican opposition was also using lame excuses to put obstacles in his way; such as spending unnecessarily, and not being able to create jobs; hence, a sagging economy. His response was that, America needed to rebuild most of its infrastructure, and that was where the spending was mainly going.

Suffice it to say that Obama was black (African American); but the majority of the make-up of that gathering was not. Therefore, one could only deduce that, at least, it (meeting) had a racist outlook; and it was, by every stretch of the imagination, motivated by people with racism on their minds. "If we used the race card, people would come," they had said.

So that, however much wool its organizers would attempt to pull over the eyes of the American people, their goal, though secret, has more than become quite obvious to the rest of the world, that Obama could not run the country, because he was black.

If so, then he has not been judged by the content of his character, but by the color of his skin. His color was not conducive to the public good, and so he must go, according to his malefactor marchers.

Would not that be a turnaround from what the speakers at the meeting were philosophizing as the underlying factor to socially support and legitimize the motives of their "march"; thus making it politically acceptable by invoking the name of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and repeatedly referring to his "Freedom March" on Washington D.C. as their model? They also have described his famous "I have a dream" speech, which made mention of "character" as opposed to "the color of the skin" as a gauge of acceptance in society, almost 48 years ago, as iconic.

Were all those comments false on their part? Were they just paying lip service to the Civil Rights leader's memory?

To many people, that speech still stood for something truthful, great and special; and his "Freedom March" was the opposite of theirs. His was to free the down trodden.

In fact, the marchers have demonstrated that they were acting with malice toward President Obama; and that was the big picture that the world was seeing on that day; and if that was the case, then America has reverted to its old ways of dealing with the black uppity. It was making headway, "and it needed to be slapped down."

"It must be realized that it (uppity) must be suppressed; because it was an anathema to the American way of life."

That was what Dr. King's opponents would be saying. That was what the marchers of August 27th, 2010, on Washington D.C. were saying. A stark opposition; but did America need that?

A DESERVED HONOR.

A Primary Victory.

Many New Yorkers will say bravo! to Congressman Charles Rangel for crushing five opponents, including New York Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV, in yesterday's primary election. He has captured 51% of the votes to 23% for Powell; and the rest of the candidates have floundered around with very little numbers.

He has demonstrated that he still had the support of his constituents, and so, he would be "plodding up the steps" of Congress once again, as Washington D.C. has found him to be doing since 1971; though, the eighty year old has never complained of any physical pain for going up those steps; and he seemed to have always enjoyed the exercise.

Yet, according to the news media, he was more than likely to face trial in the House in November, as thirteen charges were pending against him; and that (trial) would be gruesome and would constitute an uphill battle, even for a person who has been through "thick and thin", over the years, to get to where he was now.

However, Harlem voters have always known the resilience of the man who has represented them for almost forty years; his capacity to absorb all types of adversities; and they were hopeful, to the extent of being confident, that he would come out of his ethics trial with flying colors; otherwise, they would not have given him another chance.

Well done, Congressman Charles Rangel; and many happy returns for your 80th birthday.

FAR MORE THAN ENOUGH.

Incessant repetition.

Much has already been said about the mosque that has been plaguing the peace of mind of New Yorkers and of many people around the country in recent days; and to hear anything more in relation to it would make you want to puke, particularly in the face of what Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has been saying in the media.

To him, the extremists have been allowed to "hijack the discourse" surrounding the proposed mosque, regardless of the feelings of those who were closest to those who perished. He failed to realize that many families were still in bereavement, while the culprits who caused their grief were being aided and abetted by people who happened to share the same faith as them (culprits) were vying to build a mosque near where their family members died.

They were sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews, cousins...protesting an atrocious act perpetrated on their loved ones; and were they being referred to as extremists?

Now the Imam has chosen to mock the scene of the WTC attack "as 'hallowed ground' in a neighborhood that also contains a strip club and a betting parlor,"; and as in an ABC News interview, he has made an incessant repetition of not moving the mosque to another location, even in the name of peace and tranquility.

He also described to Christiane Amanpour, the interviewer, what "he called a tide of Islamophobia larger than the one in the aftermath of 9/11."; thus being critical of the opposition that he was facing from American citizenry, of which he professed to be a part. Besides, nobody knew where the noise would stop.

Americans have heard far more than enough about his plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero; and a great majority did not agree with him. They were saying that he could build his mosque in Kuala Lumpur and not in New York City.

9th ANNIVERSARY.

Americans will never forget.

The 9th anniversary of the event that shook America on September 11th, 2001, has come and gone; and there is the tendency of people insisting that "time heals all wounds", and therefore, the horrendous attacks will be put behind them as the years go by.

Many people, however somber the occasion may seem, will be tempted to replace the contempt they have for the perpetrators who caused the attacks, with complacency and lackadaisical reproach; and will even acquire an inward guilt or inner denial of why they need to hold the events of that day (9/11) in their memories, in order to "forgive and forget", and to look forward to a brighter, peaceful and better future.

A noble idealism it may seem; but it may also be the wrong one to assume, since nobody will be foolish enough to think that those who intend to harm the U.S. are not contemplating farther on doing so.

They may be relaxed in pushing forward their plans for the past nine years; and even so, there have been killings in a military camp in Texas, the attempt to blow up an airliner in flight on Christmas day; The New York City Subway has been under threat; and on and on.

There are others who are taking advantage of the generosity of the U.S. Constitution, which warrants them the right and the freedom to build or not to build on or near the ground that has been desecrated in the name of their religion.

Being kind hearted; that has been the nature of Americans. However, that must not be the attitude in regard to or toward 9/11, when so many of our citizens have died needlessly on that somber day. Americans will never forget.

AS STUPID AS THEY MAY SEEM.

The News Media.


One must never pick on the News Media, the third estate, because of its first amendment rights; yet, once in a while an article would be so one-sided on an issue, one has to make a comment or two on it.

There are two articles in AMNew York (a newspaper) this morning on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, and the desired intent of Pastor Terry Jones to burn the Quran on the 9th anniversary of a despicable act; caught on tape; which is now known as 9/11; and they (artcles) deserve comment.

One is by Erik Ortiz, titled "Mosque saga boils", and the other is by Ellis Henican, also titled "Ainniversary now an insincere publicity circus"; and if they (articles) are not the epitome of double-standard observation by two newspapermen, then I really do not know what is.

The two men are so biased in their separate ways that, they will remind one of a female and a male individuals groping to find each other in the dark, (check with ABC TV.); but they never do. The stupidity of it all is that they glide over the most important things that have to be included in their writings, such as, why Imam Rauf must come to the understanding that the proposed mosque must not be part of the new WTC complex.

The reasons are quite obvious; that the perpetrators of a heinous crime, who happen to be members of his religious sect, have still not been caught and tried in a court of law as yet. The Iman'sinsistence on building a mosque at the scene of the crime is therefore futile; because it will seem as if they have been allowed to get away with it.

The Imam is not showing any remorse for the crime as a whole, or even for the people who unnecessarily have become victims on 9/11 in any of his speeches in the media; and yet, these two journalists seem to give credence to his quotes, such as "We are not going to toy with our religion....Nor are we going to barter," and "we are here to extend our hands to build peace and harmony." The question here is, under what circumstances?

Henican gets into an advisory mode and requests how Americans must honor the occasion, and goes on to insinuate that the project "was New York's contribution to the anniversary." What anniversary is he talking about? Or "The New York Dolls strip club is closer to the former World Trade Center than this mosque will be." How stupid can a writer get for him to say such things.

Ortiz accuses the pastor of saying that the Imam has lied to him; and so what?.

Henican lambastes "Terry Jones to sink even lower than chasing houses of worship away."; saying so without using his pastoral title, "Rev."; and forgetting that the pastor is protected by the same first amendment rights to free speech, and therefore he must be respected for expressing them (rights) in any way he chooses; to burn or not to burn the Quran, or call the Imam a liar; as stupid as his action and statement may seem, respectively..

DIVIDED, NOT DIVISIVE.

DERISIVE, MAY BE.
Click edit above to add content to this empty capsule.

Americans are divided on the subject of a Florida pastor setting the Quran on fire, on the anniversary of 9/11. A day that has brought so much grief to many families, who are even now struggling to put the despicable event behind them; and continue to grieve their loved ones indefinitely. They have perished at the hands of some lunatics, who have done it, as some reports suggest, to the glory of Mohammad and Allah..

It can be said that, it (day) has to be one "that will live....."; as one will like to fully quote F.D.R., but for the sake of not being disrespectful to the 32nd President of the United States of America, one will not. The quotation has to be his and his alone.

However, the idea to burn the Quran may sound derisive, it is not divisive, as far as the bulk of the population is concerned. It is the choice of one person to show how he feels about the Muslim world, and how it has remained so quiet to the point of being reticent, after such a dreadful act by people of the Muslim faith. It (act) has been connected to Islam for the past nine years, and it will remain so in the minds of many Americans for a very long time.

It can be said that, at least an Imam or any Islamic religious leader can come out and say that America has been wronged by the people who has committed that shameful atrocity in the name of Allah; yet, the din of utmost silence still persists; it is deafening.

So that, one cannot blame Pastor Terry Jones to perform what he thinks is right in response to the obstinate pride of Muslims to apologize for 9/11. Therefore, many will agree with him; including myself, of course.

MOSQUE CONTROVERSY.

No need for a Mosque...

A meeting by religious leaders of Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths in Washington yesterday had many people scratching their heads. The objective of that meeting was to condemn the hatred based on the "anti Muslim frenzy" swirling around the nation, due to the fact that a mosque was being planned by Muslims near the World Trade Center, which was demolished by fanatics of that sect.

The meeting held at the National Press Club was attended by prominent people, among whom were Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the emeritus Roman Catholic archbishop of Washington and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who was the main backer of the proposed plan, and had previously written an opinion piece in the New York Times, published Tuesday, saying that he would not back down with the plan; "we cede the discourse and, essentially, our future to radicals on both sides.", he had said.

The archbishop had also commented that, "America was not built on hate."; and it would strike a number of people that he was missing the point.

The issue was not to prevent a mosque being built; it was to question the rational for choosing that particular site to build it. That was what has enraged all kinds of people, including those who were non-religious. They were seeing that the sensitivity of family members of the dead, and their right as American citizens to object to a dismal plan of that nature were being trampled underfoot.

That should be a cause for concern of those leaders who were suggesting that Muslims were being picked on unnecessarily.

Americans knew what religious freedom was more than people like Imam Rauf, who was running around vilifying others, without condemning the act of violence that started the whole thing. He has been noticeably making a case for a project that had no place near Ground Zero, particularly at the present time, when the nation was remembering what happened on 9/11. Many families were grieving lost ones in the inferno in which New Yorkers saw their people burn.

On the other hand, the spiritual leaders were abrogating their responsibility to ask the Imam to apologize for what happened on that day. The hatred swirling around the nation in recent days was about the callousness of the people of the Islamic religion to have done such a thing; and also insulting the intelligence of New Yorkers by insisting on building a mosque close to Ground Zero. How ogre (mosque).

To the religious and non-religious, there should be no need for a mosque.

QURAN BURNING.

What a great idea.

Florida pastor Terry Jones plans for "International Burn a Quran Day" was such a great idea for many people to acquiescing in doing so on 9/11, just to appease their minds.

However, according to Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. Military Commander in charge of the Afghan war, it would put the troops in harms way more than necessary. "It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort.", he said.

What happened on that September day should never be forgotten, as members of the Muslim sect committed a crime of immense proportion, not only against the U.S., but also against humanity itself. It was deemed as a tragic attack on the civilized world; as it would affect national and International economies alike in divers ways; the result of which has caused many financial woes, directly or indirectly, and continued to do so around the world.

It could be said that it was not all Muslims that were responsible for an act that would cause enormous physical havoc, and take so many lives of ordinary Americans. They were members of families who were there just to earn a living for their loved ones, or visiting the city; and to be murdered in such a way was unforgiving; and strangest thing of all was that there has been no apology of any kind coming from any person or group connected to the Muslim religion for what happened on that dreadful day. That was appalling, to say the least.

However, as events in history tend to repeat themselves; it would be the Quran now, and then the Bible would follow, and then the good books of other religions would also suffer the same dire consequence; and there would no end to it all. The whole world would find itself in a precarious position, and be forced to witness disastrous situations, which would make criminals of even people with good intentions.

Pastor Jone's idea would be considered as being lofty in some circles; but on the other hand, it would not be acceptable in others, and thus creating confusion and grave misunderstanding throughout the world. It would therefore be a good thing for most Americans to pay attention to what Gen. David Petraeus had said.

Pastor Terry Jones, be of good cheer.

PYRRHIC VICTORY.

A loss for NYC.

Imam Feisal Abdul Raul came back from his trip abroad, which was on the back of the American taxpayer, because it was sponsored by the U.S. government, to the news that the New York Community Board 1 has approved a plan to build a mosque in Lower Manhattan, near the site of the demolished World Trade Center, due to the 9/11 attacks by 19 Islamic quadrupeds.

No one could blame (the) Community Board 1, because it was an extension of the New York City Council, which agreed to the building of the mosque almost two months ago; and although, according to reports, the decision which was made "after a heated four hour meeting", was automatic.

The Imam was present at the meeting; and his presence could only remind a lot of people of the fable of "the Fox and the Hen". To make a long story short, the Fox beguiled the hen to come down from its safe perch and then had it (hen) for its (fox's) dinner.

That was what New Yorkers should imagine, that, after the establishment of the Community Center, the neighborhood could be turned into a propaganda venue geared to offset what happened on 9/11, 2001.

There were also some Muslims at the meeting claiming that they lost family members, or injured themselves trying to save other peoples lives on that horrific day. However, that should not be an excuse for a mosque to be built almost at the same place, because the attack on the WTC was perpetraded by elements of people who believed that it was an act to honor Allah.

It could be assumed that the Imam and those who supported the erection of the mosque have won, inspite of it being a Pyrrhic victory; but many more people, of religious, as well as non-religious persuasion, in the city and around the nation, would come together and determine that the mosque must never see the light of day, because, it would not only be a loss for New York City; it would also signify a victory over the U.S.

THE WHIP!

A bleak future.

The last time I addressed Congressman Charles Rangel, I used the salutation "Sir Dearest" ; and I meant that, until he insisted on backing the forlorn idea of building a mosque near Ground Zero.

Most of his constituents have been asking him to reconsider; and Adam Clayton Powell IV would challenge him for his Harlem seat, citing that as one of the reasons that should compel Rangel to go.

He , Rangel, happened to have insurmountable problems, some of which were, "Rangel, D-N.Y., has been under a lengthy probe by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for a series of ethics allegations that includes failing to report hundred of thousands of dollars in income and assets; improper use of several rent-controlled apartments in his Harlem district, fundraising efforts for a college center that bears his name, and failing to pay taxes on property he owns in the Dominican Republic." (Posted by Lori Ziganto, Saturday, July 24th, 2010. REDSTATE, Web site: http://www.redstate.com/snarkandboobs).

Now, let us go back to see how he had a seat in Congress. He beat Adam Clayton Powell, who was facing similar charges, like failing to pay taxes, allegedly accepting money from a Bronx Strip Club, etc., being levelled against him by the same House Ethics Committee that was grilling Congressman Charles Rangel at the present moment.

It might have been that, at the time of Congressman Adam Clayton Powell's troubles, he Rangel used the accusations confronting Powell in his (Rangel's) political campaign to his advantage to topple him (Powell). Now, the tables have turned, and it was Adam Clayton Powell IV, the son of Powell, who would unseat him (Rangel). A bleak future was awaiting Rangel; every way one looked.

There is an African proverb: "The whip that is used to flog Baah, will be used to flog Takyi"

Takyi was a slave driver, and he had a whip to control his slaves. However, I new Colonial replacement Governor came on the scene and appointed his own slave drivers, thus pushing Takyi back into the slave population once again, and likewise finding himself at the end of his own whip, with which he used to victimize Baah, who's son happened to be one of the new appointees.

(I still think that he (Rangel) may have a chance to redeem himself to earn the "Sir Dearest" salutation again, between now and next November's election day; but I am doubtful of that).

VOTE UPVOTE DOWNSHARE

COMBAT OPERATIONS.

A GREAT MILESTONE.


The President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, yesterday announced the end of combat operations by U.S. forces in Iraq; a historic milestone reached after the toppling of Saddam Hussein seven years ago.

It was his promise during the 2008 political campaign to bring that about; and although, he had opposed the Iraq war at the onset, it was his privilege, as the new Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces, to release the good news to the nation.

All must commend him for keeping that promise. However, his predecessor, former President W. Bush, also deserved some commendation for having the foresight to get rid of a despot in that volatile part of the world; and thus making the occasion possible.

The reasons to attack Iraq at the time it happened (March 3rd, 2003) were manifold, and no amount of discussion, for or against that decision, could decipher them. The horror of 9/11 was on the minds of all Americans; and whether Hussein was responsible for it or not was a moot point. However, the advise, by the Security Council, as many people had assumed, of taming the Islamic world, from where the danger emanated was realistic, due to the manifestation that all the 19 terrorists taking part in the attacks in New York and Washington were of Islamic descent. They were fanatics of Bin Laden, who had sworn to eradicate the United States.

It was an action that still had its pros and cons; but it was, more or less, taken to ensure the security of the United States, as well as for the protection of its citizens.

Now that Iraq has realized its full independence and sovereignty, through the pronouncement by the President of the United States, Americans would hope that iraq would emerge from its internal political conflicts and sectarian violence; and be able to form a unified government, and conduct its affairs to the betterment of its own people.

By the tremendous sacrifices that Americans made, in terms of U.S. Military casualties; and the huge cost that has somewhat bedraggled its economy, America still has a stake in Iraq's future. It (announcement) was, therefore, a great milestone reached by Iraq; and just the same, it must be admitted that, because of it, "America is more secure.", as the President said.