Mr. CORNEL WEST.

Cornel West's social and political liberalism border on scholarly notoriety, when it comes to the right wing of any party, including the Republican Party, of course. In reality, he views the existence of the far right of the Republican party as being detrimental to society itself, on end.

However this time around, he is picking on President Barack Obama for undermining the agenda of the left wing base of the Democratic Party, where he, Cornel West, feels more at home and finds it easy to rebuke aggressively whomever he chooses, and whenever he likes.

He is calling Obama on the carpet, because he has failed to "deliver on promises to the left-wing base.", he, West, stipulates. He has recently been more vitriolic in his rhetoric on Obama's policies, and asking, in a sense, why he (Obama) has not taken his liberal activism with him to the White House. Honestly!

Fine, but being committed as a community organizer and president are two different things; for what Obama takes for granted as a community organizer is no longer there or normally at his disposal, however inherently; and although, he may feel the dint of it, he can not go back to utilizing any of its cognitive parts to have everything going his own dogmatic way, no matter how hard he tries. Unless he wants to be stupid and attempts doing so; which he is not, and therefore he will not attempt to do as such in a million years.

He is now sitting in the Oval Office and everything in him must conform to his newly found environment. He has to change, from what he has been all his life, into a person receiving official briefings and making top decisions that will affect a whole nation, America; and using all that advice, some short, some lengthy, to arrive at the right conclusions. Why? Because of the weight those (conclusions) will carry, when they leave him. There are no two ways about that.

His critics are waiting to bite his head off, if he makes the slightest mistake, and he will end up being what they want him to be, a lousy president; and he is no fool to want or to ever allow that to happen.

Yet, West does not get the idea that Obama is doing all in his power to appeal to him and his left wing friends, who say that they have campaigned for him, Obama, in 2008, he is therefore bound to live up to their expectations. What?

Very selfish on their part. Very selfish indeed; is that not so? The president is not obligated to any special interest group, in the country or anywhere, let alone the "progressives" of the Democratic Party, and West of all people must know that for a fact; for crying out loud.

This is what he is quoted as saying in a recent interview with TruthDig, "West had scathing words for President Obama, calling him “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats. And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it." he says among others.

Those are harsh words that must come from a lunatic, and nobody will expect them to come from Mr. West, because he is an erudite African American scholar, who digs deep down into his gumption before he speaks; or so do what many Americans think. Yet, surprisingly enough, he expects President Obama to do his (West's) bidding. That is what the whole thing amounts to; is it not so?

Nevertheless, it all boils down to a single point of understanding, that nobody is perfect; including the President Of The United States, Mr. Barack Obama; and so, he will deviate from the agenda to which Mr. West is so much attached from time to time. Therefore, accusing him of being a black mascot of any kind is foolish; for he is doing the best he can to master his new line of work, to say the least; and nobody can blame him.

What he can now observe from the White House, he, West, will go to his grave before he will have the chance to observe the same things. It is a whole new different view on the world at large. Besides, the fact is, because of his new position, he must not make mistakes. He cannot afford a scandal; therefore, he must always be on his guard, and be right in whatever he does.

So, if Obama has disappointed the left wing base, which happens to be his comfort zone before, and a natural spot for Cornel West, it is because of the simple fact that his outlook has been transformed to something that is entirely different from the one of his past. He is also only human, and therefore he cannot do everything to please everybody. Putting it another way, he can only do what is humanly possible.


He, West, must bear in mind that Obama, is now responsible for a whole nation, America; and not just for a small section of Chicago, Illinois, where he has once been a community organizer many months past.

Again, he, West, with his enormous educational background, can read between the lines, of how his kind will be treated, if Obama loses his present position; and so, he being so wise, must keep on supporting Obama in his 2012 reelection bid. Anybody or anything else will definitely not be to his (West's) liking.

We all live to see it.

OBAMA'S RECORD.

The slate of candidates of the Grand Old Party for the 2012 presidential election seems to be having a pulsating or gyrating fetishism relating to musical chairs surrounding it.

First, it was Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee that hopped on and off; then came Mitch Daniels who said "I could have beaten Obama if I had run", putting himself in the past tense to indicate that there was no real hope for him in the race.

There has been a slew of them, like Newt Gingrich, who has troubled philandering habits in his background; Tim Pawlenty, who has so far failed to impress the general public. He is only well dressed, and he has no philosophy of his own; he has not even made up his mind to back Paul Ryan's medicare plan, which is already in jeopardy, or not.

Others are still hanging on for dear life, like Herman Cain, who has declared his candidacy to about one thousand of his supporters and onlookers on national TV, just to try out and see if he can be considered a viable opponent in anyway; but is he serious? Most people doubt it. All he is after is name recognition; and for what, nobody knows. Anyhow, he looks too old to wait for the 2016 general election.

Those standing around to see if they will hop on or not include Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and, of course, Mitt Romney, who has been trying to win the Republican Party's nomination once or twice before.

Yet, is there an end to the list of men and women who are vying for position to run against President Barack Obama in 2012? Nay; for all of a sudden, there appear Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor and of 9/11 fame; and Texas governor Rick Perry, both of whom intend to get into the mix and challenge Obama.

Now, everybody wants to be president in America, or so it seems; and most people are wondering why it is suddenly so. Are they having the notion that they can beat Obama, or is it that American voters are so gullible, they will fall for anyone who has some credentials of political experience or fortune?

Well, the picture is now clear, that Obama has been in office for less than three years, but he has been able to achieve so much to get an economy in dire straights up and running again. He has managed to get the foremost of all America's industries, of car manufacturing, back on its feet once more.

He also has conducted the kind of foreign policy that puts the U.S. equally at par and on the same forefront with other nations, and not attempting to surpass or lord over them, as previous administrations have always tried to do.

For that reason alone, America is loved, instead of it being envied. He has proved that equality is the name of the game, when dealing with other nations with respect and getting it back. He has quieten Al Qaeda by getting rid of its leader Osama Bin Laden.

In other words, he has a good record that can withstand any challenge; and besides, he has gained experience on issues that are nationally important to the American voter, because he has been able to toe the mainstream political line; thus not capitulating to the so called left, as most have been thinking he will do.

He has been very cautious of that fact; and if he continues in that mode, he will win again in 2012, no matter who will be his Republican challenger. He now has a record he can defend; and no one must put it past him that he is not ready to fight back any unnecessary onslaught, where his record is concerned.

Putting it another way, he will be able and, at the same time, tough on those that are willing to confront him on anything, come November 2012. We all live to see it.

NEW LEADERSHIP.

Lining up all the potential Republican Party candidates for next year's general election makes political forecast a science. American voters now have to sift through a host of "can be" and "cannot be" persons to figure out the one who will be a fitting challenge for President Barack Obama.

The fact being that, there must be just one person, and only one person, that will be involved in the faceoff with the present occupier of the White House; but it has become quite obvious that none of his challengers has the wherewithal to lead the country; on policies, from achieving low level unemployment numbers through to making America safe from future terrorism.

Not Newt Gingrich; not Mitt Romney; not Tim Pawlenty; or any of the president's opponents has come up with a straight forward plan that can replace Obama's foreign policy, economic solutions, legal postures to deal with the Gitmo (Guantanamo) detainees, border security and immigration reform, the strategy to overhaul Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran's quest for nukes; you name it, and it is, and will be waiting for them in the Oval Office.

Whatever remains for the nation to face still lurks in the future; but is it clear if any of these people is capable? Americans seem to be entertaining a great deal of uncertainty; if not outright doubt.

Why? Because there are too many of them; and although, it is too early to predict the shape of how the person who comes up on top will be like, in his or her campaign to oust Obama. The reason is simple, and it is that, they are fumbling over each other, and none of them seems to have time for anything else, but only for himself or herself. Is that not ridiculous?

Besides, on the one hand, they are vilifying Obama; yet, on the other hand, no constructive criticism has been put forth by any of them, so far.

One is bound to think that the RNC (Republican National Committee) is in disarray, and whether it will eventually be able to choose between any of these candidates to carry their party to any semblance of winning the 2012 general election has become a monumental task.

One thing they all have in common is what they are saying, that the country needs new leadership; and that it (country) is moving in the wrong direction. However, the question still remains if any of them is cut for that role or has the knack to steer the country's affairs in any other way. Can any of them turn this country around?

Well, that is not for one person who is sitting in his livingroom and typing away to speculate on. That will be the job for American voters to judge them individually, and be able to single out one that will live up to their expectation, come November, 2012. We all live to see it.

These candidates are having their say, as the country's democratic system permits; and they can be as vociferous as they wish in whatever they say; but to most people, America is presently doing its best to compete vigorously with all other nations.

UNNECESSARY CRITICISM.

We all love America, including members of the media, of course; however, one network seems to have packed its personnel with dinosaur type of people, who do not know that the world is changing, socially, economically and politically all around.

They can see what is happening in the world, but they cannot analyze events by conforming to a simple ideological sense, that as history unfolds itself, so do moods or emotions of all the people involved in its (history's) sway; as there must be what is usually referred to as "change", and that nothing can remain the same forever.

The United States only recently voted for the first time an African-American as its president; a phenomenon that has taken the world by surprise. A new day has dawned on a nation that has thrived on slavery, for without it, there might have been a different nation or country or no nation or country at all.

In other words the United States has been born on the backs of slaves; but after its own revolution and civil war, it has developed into the most powerful nation on earth through agriculture, industry and technology.

However, its black population never seems to have evolved or "metamorphosed" as its other groups of people solely because of their color; though they have borne their share of the burden to make America what it is today.

Now, one has to surmise that there has been a spiritual change to make the election of an African-American possible; an experiment that shows a change of heart in the children of those that are responsible for bringing Africans to the Americas as slaves, and therefore he must be given a chance to prove himself worthy; and by doing so, to bring his down trodden people along with him into the new atmosphere of political change and social acceptance in America.

Yet, nay! One channel or network has set aside programs to rail against him everywhere he turns. Its workers have maligned him in his efforts to bring America out of an abysmal economic downturn, since the Great Depression in the 1930s; and there seems to be no end of their plans to remove him from office; thus upsetting the great experiment going on before the eyes of the world; even as we speak (or type).

However, America is a free country, and everyone has the right to do or say what is on his or her mind. Therefore, to be critical of the nation's leader within the boundaries of the country itself will be considered as politically correct; but not when he is outside on a foreign land doing his nation's work.

It must be realized that he is a volunteer and has sacrificed himself to be on the forefront of the nation's affairs; to fight and even die, just as a military man, for his country; therefore, he must be allowed to do the best he humanly can for all the people who really love America; and to criticize him on every single turn, as it is being done by a TV network, is rather not fair at all.

He is the epitome of what America stands for; the land of opportunity for all; with African Americans in tow, inspite of all those who want to reverse America's political, social and economic trends and advancement back into the Jim Crow laws era.

P.S. Shame on you, channel...., for unnecessary criticism.

AMERICA'S TROJAN HORSE.

The Trojan horse of America's fiscal problems is Medicare; and so long as it remains so, it will be difficult to reduce the U.S. National Debt, because it, Medicare, is an important part of the National Debt.

For many years, Congress has done close to nothing, but continued to look it in the mouth, saying, "Oh! what a strange horse; what a strange horse,".

The same thing has happened from one administration to another, thinking that it was a "gift", passed down to help, particularly, the sick, the old and the poor, who formed a great majority of the population. It was to alleviate a burden, and now it has become a burden in itself, with no way of finding a solution of resolving it.

The latest case is Representative Paul Ryan's plan to attempt to remake or refurbish it; however, many see such plan as one that is going to destroy the Medicare program as they have come to know it; and therefore there is a revolt against his plan, both in Congress and among American voters. (Tuesday's stunning Republican defeat in New York special Congressional election).

The general public views Medicare as a necessity; and although its cost is sky rocketing, it has to have a place in the National budget for the sake of the needy, in one respect; and for America to retain its social status among the civilized countries in the world which have similar programs, in another respect.

Yet, Medicare is sick and its "symptoms" are many, including overcharging by spurious medical practitioners. It is overspent, due to corruption in the health care industry by sleazy Healthcare insurance companies. It is being run lackadaisically by semi-trained personnel. It is coming apart by a bulging number of people it is designed to handle.

If there must be cuts to bring down its spiraling cost, those are some of the many aspects of the industry that must be looked into. They (cuts) must be carefully done as a surgeon uses his or her scalpel to remove excess; or, in this case, waste.

However, his (Ryan's) plan is so drastic. It is so uppish if not radical in such a way that it will totally demolish Medicare. It will change it beyond recognition. 6.2 trillion dollars in savings over the next ten years will reduce the cost alright, but it will be catastrophic.

Seniors will have to delve deep down into their meagre social security benefit checks to pay their medical bills. Also, a voucher program will be very confusing to them. They think that Mr. Ryan, who happens to be a Republican, is using a sledge hammer to kill a fly, considering that Medicare makes only 12% of America's National budget, and therefore they will have no choice, but to vote against it.

A commercial that is circulating the media with a man pushing an elderly woman in a wheelchair over a cliff depicts that person pushing her to her death as Mr. Ryan. The commercial has no known source, but people are not putting it past the Democrats as its originators.

Mr. Ryan's plan has been voted down in the Senate by 57 to 40 votes only yesterday, but he continues to say to ABC's Jonathan Carl that he will even take his "fight" to the White House, as part of raising the debt ceiling issue. Is he looking a gift horse in the mouth or what? We all live to see it.

Nevertheless, should not politicians be serious about what must be done to solidify Medicare, by putting politics aside and finding a realistic way to resolve the matter, as it is part of national pride, to take care of people in their old age, when they have served the country all their lives, as in so many instances? Instead of that, they are looking at Medicare just as a Trojan horse.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU 2.

The impertinence was gone from Prime Minister Netanyahu's attitude on Tuesday, May 24th, 2011, when he addressed a joint session of the Congress of the United States.

Seemingly, he had put behind him the debacle of last Friday's meeting in the White House with President Barack Obama; and also, his advisers have gone to work on him, this time around, to show more civility in his speech to the august body.

He was going to speak before some of the great minds in the country; like Senator Orrin Hatch, whose oratory prowess was unbeatable, and Senator Barbara Boxer "Don't call me Ma'am", whose investigative qualities made her to stand out in many debates.

Netanyahu's approach was different; and he started by thanking America and stressing the bonds between Israel and the United States as unbreakable, which awarded him several rounds of applause.

He also made it clear to the world Israel's intentions toward its neighbors, especially toward the Palestinian Arabs, with whom have been so much political tension and animosity, which have made the Middle East to be unstable for many, many years.

He wished them well of what they could achieve, if there was peace between the two factions; comparing their existence of having all the amenities of civilization, even in crisis, to when the Jews and the Arabs would decide to live peaceably with each other. There would be enormous progress and advancement for both sides, in terms of having all of their needs met, socially and politically, of course.

"Israel was not against an independent Palestinian State," he stated emphatically.

The most smattering of applause came, when he mentioned the "borders of 1967", and insisted that Israel was never going back to assume that boundary. That seemed to be the bone of contention between himself and the White House last Friday.

Yet, Americans heard plainly from President Obama that it would be a starting point for serious negotiations to begin to resolve a long standing controversy. It has also been an idea held in private by two other presidents; and all he (Obama) did was to speak it out in public.

Surely, there must be specific boundaries or demarcation lines to tell between a sovereign Israel and an independent Palestinian State. Also, in every case, boundaries were indefensible until they were made defensible; and therefore, Israel's position, with regard to the core issue, did not hold water.

It (Israel) must start from somewhere in any dialog with the Palestinians; but where its starting point was, the Prime Minister did not say. Now, if he failed to do so, then President Obama's position was right; and Israel "has no friend like America", and therefore it must not reject an advise coming from a true and reliable friend.

More applause came, when he said that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons was a threat not only to Israel, but to the whole world; and that all nations should join in opposition to Iran's ambition to acquire a nuclear bomb.

There, he saw the United States and Israel standing shoulder to shoulder to fight against Iran to make the world a safer place; showing how important Israel held its relationship with the United States.

Therefore, to be impertinent, toward each other, no matter who did it, would be wrong. In fact, he indicated that the two countries were not just good friends; they were great friends. Together, they owed a long awaited peace to that region and to the world.

He has made it quite clear that the Middle East deserved better, with Jews and Arabs living side by side without friction of any kind; and that would contribute to world peace at large.

It was now the turn of the Palestinians to respond to a glowing offer of genuine peace, without the influence of Hamas; the diabolical, radical group, which has been fomenting so much rage between Jews and Arabs over a long period of time.

More applause to you, Mr. Prime Minister.

TORNADOES; THEIR CONNECTION.

I do not write about anything else, but about normal events and personalities; however, I am forced by present circumstances to choose to comment on the severe weather changes that the U.S. has been experiencing this year.

Generally speaking, the weather seen everywhere seems to be in revolt, and not just that, but the deaths in the areas most affected happen to be too high, if not abnormal. Like in Alabama, where over 300 hundred people have suddenly died through stormy weather.

The Mid-West has always had tornadoes; but they (tornadoes) have now physically expanded their reach outside the traditional boundaries of what has always been referred to as "Tornado Alley". They are also being more forceful, collecting winds of up to more than 60 m.p.h. in most places, and even wider in length and breadth, in scope and size, in devastation and in loss of lives. Pretty unusual; is that not so?

The storms in the South and the Mississippi River overflowing its banks and causing death to the population and damage to farmlands and other properties that people need to live, are all overly unusual. These tornadoes that do not seem to stop, and are creating havoc to life and limb, are a series of unusual and one ever occurring giant mishappenstance.

The latest case is Joplin, Missouri, where the whole town is completely wiped out within a matter of minutes; and with 1500 hundred people unaccounted for, plus several deaths; and also with the death toll numbering over 115 individuals and still climbing, the town itself is almost dead, empty and lifeless, but for a few survivors.

In physics, there is something called "cause and effect", and usually most people will relate these storms to seasonal atmospheric ups and downs that are natural to allow farmers to grow and harvest crops for food. They (storms) sometimes pass without much notice; yet, the storms that are manifesting themselves presently all over the country cannot go unnoticed. They are unusual, and therefore they must have an entirely different source.

"Source", singular; because these storms are happening so rapidly and more repeatedly, making them to have a rather one or single connection or starting point, if you may.

At this time of the year; and although there will be storms as surmised before; the sun will not be at its peak, but it will be showing here and there, mild and lukewarm; something it has failed to do. Why? That must be for scientists to determine the reason why that is so; and so, let us leave that to them.

Moreover, this year's storms tend to be more catastrophic; and many will agree that the nuclear disaster in Japan recently must have something to do with them. In a nutshell, the winds that are blowing east of that country must be filled with some type of nuclear fallout. America, sitting in its (winds') path, seems to be feeling the effects of that nuclear calamity currently going on in Japan.

That must be causing all this unusual severe and violent weather trend. Therefore, and again, scientists here and around the world must have another round of issue to look into; and it must be done now; even as we speak (or type); as any delay in doing so will be considered intolerable.

ISRAEL'S SECURITY.

Once again, President Barack Obama reiterated U.S. unflinching support for Israel's security before the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), completely exonerating him from the accusation that he "threw Israel under the bus" by his adversaries.

A section of the U.S. media was still chewing on the controversy on Sunday; and many snide remarks were made by the so called "contributors" about the president's speech last Thursday, part of which called for Israel to return to the stalled negotiations with its rival Palestinian Arabs, by going back to the 1967 borders.

In his most recent speech on Sunday, he (Obama) stated that the idea was nothing new; nor was he instructing Israel to do something that has not been suggested by previous American governments before; using it, in every instance, as a starting point to get the stymied talks going until peace was achieved between the two opposing sides.

Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have used the 1967 boundaries suggestion as a "bait" to get both sides to come to the peace table; and they (presidents) succeeded to large extent. Yet the same problem only kept coming back or repeating itself over and over and over again.

Israel could therefore go back to THE IDEA again, only to do so with a renewed determination to reach a settlement with its Palestinian neighbors. What was wrong with that?

Prime Minister Netanyahu took issue with the Obama administration's position in regard to the statement contained in Thursday's speech, stressing repeatedly, "that will never happen,"; thus making his meeting at the White House a battleground, when in fact the U.S. was trying to be nothing else, but a good unofficial "ombudsman".

Whatever Israel did from now on would be for its leaders to decide; however, they should not allow the Israel-Palestine conflict to interfere with American politics in any substantial way, particularly when there was the U.S. 2012 Presidential election in the offing.

That was how the scenario looked like from the perspective of many Americans, when he (Netanyahu) drenched the administration with so much rebuke last Friday in Washington D.C.

Media "contributors" should not be aiding and abetting in any such move; either by Israel or the Mahmoud Abbas government, as some of them tried to do on Sunday TV programs yesterday (5/22/2011). It was not right, instigating the matter any farther.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU.

Was Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel a beggar having a choice or what? In all actuality, the stoicism he used to frame his sentences in the White House meeting with President Barack Obama yesterday flew in the face of ordinary commonsense.

His advisers must be aware that they have not been properly schooled in International diplomacy, otherwise they would have warned him (Netanyahu) in advance that showing dissent to President Obama, was never the right thing to do.

The reason being that he (Obama) was in every respect an independent observer under the present circumstances. The U.S. has not been appointed as an arbitrator over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and all he had to do was to contribute to the discourse surrounding the matter, which he did in a speech the previous day.

The crust of the matter remained that a stalemate between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs has been brewing for so long; and its agitation was still being driven by the extremist among the Arabs, to use every means possible to forestall all attempts to bring it to an end.

In every sense of the word, Hamas, the Sunni Muslim Palestinian extremist group based in the Gaza Strip, was at the helm of that entangled crisis and not the Palestine elected government which was led by President Mahmoud Abbass. Meaning that the actual problem was not being created by any outsider, but by elements within the confines of Israel itself.

In his speech, President Obama used the word "truthful", directly addressing the issue and making it abundantly clear of where he was coming from.

His words and even his actions toward events in that part of the world were beyond reproach, because what he was striving to achieve was for a peaceful atmosphere for both sides in that fractured conflict; with Israel having a defined border from that of Palestine. His point of reference was only to suggest Israel to go back to the 1967 lines, not literally, but as a start for any realistic and tangible negotiations.

What was seen was Prime Mister Netanyahu using a foray of words to baffle the American public; but was he successful? No; not to the majority. Was he missing anything in President Obama's speech? Yes; for he failed to analyse it carefully, to get its understanding, before his meeting at the White House.

It was obvious that the President of the United States of America did his homework for the occasion, far ahead of all others, and he must be congratulated on his efforts. Well done, Mr. President.

P.S. HAMAS: (in Arabic, an acronym for "Harakat Al-Muqawama Al-Islamia" -- Islamic Resistance Movement -- and a word meaning zeal) is a radical Islamic fundamentalist organization).

MIDDLE-EAST CRISES.

President Barack Obama's speech yesterday was brilliant, except that it displayed a whole lot of grandstanding, which he did not mean to foment, for it came to him naturally; but at the same time, it did not go down so well with a section of his audience.

However, that is what political speeches always do. You can please some of the people all the time; and you can please all the people some of the time; but you cannot please all the people all the time.

It was directed poignantly to the Middle East and North Africa, but his target was the whole world, which in itself was a good thing; why? Because, in the age of cyberspace technology and television, you must allow everybody, or at least three quarters of the world's population to see and hear you.

In other words, the time frame in which he gave his speech was very, very smart or even clever, as the English would say, for it was morning in the United States and afternoon in Europe and the Middle East. For at that time, he had a fully packed audience.

Nevertheless, was his message loud and clear, enough to convince the specific people he was addressing? That would be a hard nut to crack, to say the least.

Considering the intransigence of the Arabs on the one hand, and the overly cautiousness of the Israelis, on the other hand, it would be extremely difficult to draw those two factions any closer together, in a matter of a few minutes, which the speech took to complete. Yet, he tried his best to do it as he knew how.

There, he showed a great deal of integrity and statesmanship, for there was nothing ambiguous about how to resolve the Israel-Palestine problem. A proper solution must come from the boundaries of any state creation, on the part of the Palestinians, and the recognition and sovereignty of the State of Israel. It was a clear cut and precise statement, although some say that it had some amount of Fareed Zakaria-ism in it.

Yet, he also did not fail to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors, from Theodore Roosevelt through to George W. Bush, showing America's love for Liberty, which emphasized outright freedom for all men and women in the whole wide world; and thus, particularly empathizing with the participants in the organic revolutionary frenzy prevailing in the Arab world; as we speak (or type).

All in all, he had a good day, as far as making such an important policy statement was concerned; for there was just a few that would say that he missed the opportunity to define clearly the direct part the U.S. itself must, would or could play to influence events in the overall Middle East crises, comprising of Libya, Egypt, Syria and Yemen, as well as the core issue of Israel and Palestine; although, he glibly did do that, by mentioning U.S.-Israeli strong relationship.

He could have capitalized on the topic for his forthcoming re-election bid; however, to the surprise of many Americans, he did not do so; showing that his concentration was solely on the Middle East and North Africa. Bravo! Mr. President.

P.S. Fareed Zakaria, Editor of Newsweek International.

AMERICA'S UNILATERAL DOCTRINE.

After what happened in Pakistan, with the concealment of Osama Bin Laden for close to five years, is the U.S. going to trust any government, civilian or military, again?

There is no doubt that the Obama administration, like several U.S. administrations before it, is doing its best to conduct foreign policy matters to portray America as being a peace loving nation, and that its intentions are to make friends with all nations for all to live in peace.

That, to put it mildly, is a noble cause, and nobody in his right mind will say "No" to such foreign policy. However, is not such foreign policy an idealism?

One can even go farther to say that it is not only an idealism; but it is a myth. A utopia that can never be achieved by any one nation, no matter how hard it tries.

At this point in world affairs, everybody can assume that trustworthiness has been jettisoned out of the window, so to speak, not by just one single nation, but by all nations, including, of course, the United States of America.

The United Nations Organization was formed on the premise that peace must be the objective of all its members, and that the requirement to accomplish that milestone must be for all industrial countries to stop the development of weapons of war of any kind, including nuclear weapons.

It, UNO, was to continue the task of the League of Nations; and that was to ensure that war or wars never broke out again. (That idea has been found impractical; but that should be another story).

What took place in Pakistan must be clear to the U.S. Government that, idealism, however and whatever it was intended for, did not work; and as such, it must be stopped.

With all the foreign aid going to that country, there must at least be just one person there who would be honest, and even truthful, to the U.S. Yet, it did not occur to any Pakistani to be that type of a person.

It could therefore be assumed that the people there have taken all the money pouring into their country as "payola" that could be afforded by all U.S. administrations, in the name of peace, and for maintaining friendly relations.

As such, they could choose to be loyal or disloyal; or even dishonest to the U.S. Simply put, they could not care less whichever choice they made. All Pakistani leaders should be ashamed of themselves, with respect to Bin Laden hiding out in their country for five long years without their knowledge.

Now, it is not just Pakistan. It is happening almost everywhere, and it is about time for America to stop making peaceful gestures all around the globe at the expense of its own citizens. Free money to these countries, in many circumstances, is not appreciated. Moreover, they need schools; Americans also need schools. They need hospitals; Americans also need hospitals, and so on and so forth.

In other words, America cannot continue to hold itself hostage by doling out all its resources in the form of aid to help other countries, some of whom are not even its friends. It (U.S.) cannot afford to pursue a unilateral doctrine of helping other countries and getting nothing back.

Peace, after all, was what the UNO was created for, and therefore all its members must be made responsible for its upkeep.

THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

Of all the rest of the prospective nominees left in the Republican Party pool of candidates running in 2012 , for the presidency of the United States, Newt Gingrich comes first on the list of many political pundits. Why? Because, he has more experience in government than the rest of "the pack", so to speak.

Although, a few of them have been governors, and some were still governors, their expertise slightly fell short, with respect to the mechanism or the practicability of how things actually worked, particularly, in the Congress of the United States, and generally, in the federal government as a whole.

As such, he, Gingrich, happens to have much more knowledge of the ins and outs of Washington D.C.'s political and social organs and circles; a quality, which in itself is an asset for anyone running for office.

In other words, he has had a shot as speaker of the House of Representative during the Reagan era, and has managed to maintain his ties with the political machinery that drove his party and formulated its policies, even when he was away from the center of action or activities of it (party).

The Republican Contract with America in the historic 1994 midterm elections, which won a majority in Congress for his party should be a good example. It still stands out as a great political achievement.

Next comes former governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, whose business background qualifies him to be considered for the party's nomination. His relationship with the business world and his reputation as the head of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics organizing Committee, give him much credibility for his managerial acumen. The games were actually in monetary crisis; but he managed to successfully bring them to fruition in the end, with a surplus to boot.

However, both men have what can be described as "political baggage", which is a hindrance, judging from the reaction of both the media and the general public; a drawback consisting of infidelity accusations, in the case of Newt Gingrich; and a stumbling block or a bump caused by a questionable Massachusetts Healthcare Reform, in regard to Mitt Romney; respectively.

He refuses to equally compare its ramifications with the National Healthcare reform, which has recently been passed into law by Congress, with the signature of President Barack Obama. The snafu has generated so much political outcry and uproar, some say, to his (Romney's) disadvantage.

Any of the two men, Gingrich or Romney, can receive his party's nod for the nomination; but the scandal surrounding each of them, individually and separately, of course, makes them doubtful of their acceptance by the general public, and therefore the American voter.

With Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee dropping out of the presidential race, the rest of the field, which includes Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, Congressman Ron Paul, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and others, is still wide open, without a clear cut front runner or a probable nominee for the Republican Party; someone who will be ready and prepared to run against the Democratic Party incumbent, Barack Obama, for the presidency of the United States in 2012.

He (Obama) is running for re-election, while they are attempting to replace him; a formidable feat, looking at it from every aspect and direction; especially, since he has recently succeeded in getting rid of Osama Bin Laden, the flamboyant architect of the erstwhile 9/11 attacks that have almost crippled the economy of the United States, and killing nearly 3000 American citizens.

All of these, as mentioned above, are the names of competent people on the list of the Republican National Committee; but they are yet, or at least one of them is yet, to be selected to represent the Republican Party in the said forthcoming 2012 presidential election.

The nation awaits, with much trepidation, for a front runner, who will go on to become his or her party's choice. Nevertheless, the speculation is on Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney emerging as the Republican Party's candidate. It will then be each person's privilege to pick someone to run on the party ticket. They can both choose Congresswoman Michele Bachmann or Gov. Tim Pawlenty to be the running mate of either men.

P.S. Don't look at me; I am just expressing my views. Besides, I am an independent voter.

MR. DON LEMON.

It was, or it may not have been, sad to hear Don Lemon, the young CNN anchor, saying that he was, "born gay". (You may choose to have it your way).

I am not going to be judgemental here; but there are many points of view in assessing someone in social terms these days, when he or she comes out and says that his or her sexual orientation is different.

It will immediately be about changing one's disposition and thinking as to how to deal with a person "coming out of the closet", so to speak.

Some may say that it is alright for him to be what he says he is; while others may be more vocal and say that Mr. Lemon has made a mistake by announcing on national TV that he is a "homosexual" person, and therefore he has certainly created a problem for himself.

Moreover, he himself must know from now on that not even his closest friends are going to look at him the same way as before.

Their state of mind changes. Or to put it in another way, he has suddenly changed before their eyes; and so, it will be difficult for them to observe him in a manner that will make him feel comfortable, when he is with them.

Again, he himself must understand that, even under certain circumstances, he must feel uncomfortable. So, the situation becomes such a predicament for everybody concerned.

In private, he will tend to reflect on his life; and he has plenty of time to do so; however, in public, he has to be able to maintain a straight face, whenever he encounters any type of opposition.

For that, he has very little time to do. Why? Because he is a TV anchorman, and therefore there will be several instances that will compel him to "stand firm" on his convictions; and be able to accomplish doing so on his own terms.

Yet, the question still remains, whether he can do that all the time, considering the heavy strain that comes with reacting to other people's attitudes. Some may be pleasant and some may not be all that acceptable at all to him. Some may even suggest to him that he has options. Who knows?

I, myself, am heterosexual, and so my only advise for him is to urge him to remain strong, if he has chosen to be who he says he is. To me, the word "gay" means "happy".

P.S. He should not allow Ms. Joy Behar to be laughing behind his back. (That is a joke, of course).

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL.

To admit that somebody will come on national TV to make a mockery of himself or herself will be extremely infantile, particularly, if you do not really know that person.

However, many people, in reference to the Republican Party, have elected to become candidates for the 2012 presidential election, to cause President Barack Obama's ouster, and none looks more comical than Congressman Ron Paul; and believe me, not from his looks, but from what he says.

He has deliberately decided to be disdainful of all that can be described as good and meaningful in the U.S. Constitution; as he takes to task of what is said about "the poor" or, in modern terms, about 40% of the American people, who live under the poverty line; a specific demographic demarcation line, which has federal statistics to prove its existence.

He is saying in essence that they (the poor) do not deserve any privileges; namely, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that are commonly referred to as entitlements. According to the constitution's interpretation, "these entitlements" do not exist; he maintains, during one of his media interviews yesterday (Sunday 15th, 2011).

He starts by saying that these programs are not necessary, because the U.S. Constitution does not make provision for them. They are additional social responsibilities that have been formulated or concocted over the years to increase the burden that the federal government must bear.

He strips the constitution to the point where it means that, whatever help, given by the federal government in the way of relief to citizens who have been struck by natural disasters, such as hurricanes, floods and tornadoes must not be allowed; because they are not deserving to obtain any such help. They are just out of luck; and that their problems must not be the responsibility of any government.

In other words, people are liable for their own safety and upkeep; and even for their own protection, constitutionally, of course.

As it is said earlier, on the one hand, not everybody knows him personally, and it will rather be preposterous to malign him in any way; while on the other hand, everybody knows where he is coming from. He is a Libertarian, and he must carry his platform with him wherever he goes.

Yet, he is way out of line to say that the U.S. Constitution does not cater to persons, but provides only the basic directions of how they must be governed. He makes it sound like the constitution does mention everything else, but people. Thus, in one sense, it (constitution) is completely abstract and without sentiment, even though its preamble begins with the words,

"We the people...".

With that coming from learned man, as he is, makes present day political discourse void of ordinary commonsense, and completely derisive; especially at a time, when many people are literally struggling to keep their heads above water in society.

He is liable to stick to his beliefs of maximum freedom and minimum government; however, with all due respect, and many Americans will agree that, the constitution is structured with the people firmly and securely in mind; and there must be a part of it that addresses their needs, even if those needs are not specifically stated.

Even when he is confronted with a piece of the U.S. Constitution that makes reference of "the welfare of the people" in one of his interviews, he pooh-poohs it, and says that it is taken out of context, or that it does not mean what it says; thus insulting the intelligence of the writers of the constitution.

Nobody opposes his candidacy for the presidency of the United States; however, it will make very little sense to vote for a man who will cast out 40% of the people, who in his view, are a liability to a nation he intends to lead.

In fact, no amount of convincing will compel him "to protect and defend", that unfortunate section of the American people, although the constitution demands him to do so. Thus, in another sense, the people are beneficiaries, whose rights are fully endowed in that precious parchment, which every President must swear to "protect and defend".

Therefore, his attempts to make the U.S. Constitution inadequate must not be overlooked by the voting public.

He has been doing so for many years, to disavow its contents; however, that is no excuse for him to continue in his empty rhetoric and cynical effusions, of which many, many Americans tend to disagree, with respect to "We the people..." 's constitution.

P.S. I, myself, am 76 years old.

LEGAL RIGHT.

The legality of Osama Bin Laden's death has come into question among both legal experts and "commoners"; whether it was lawful for the U.S. Government to order a raid on foreign soil to get him pulverized.

How that should happen boggled the mind, because we all knew that the leader of Al Qaeda was a fugitive, if not from law, but from common sense.

It was common knowledge that he had organized and financed the 9/11 attacks, which had killed nearly 3000 people in Washington D.C. and New York City; an atrocious act, collectively, that went beyond the pale, as far as crime was concerned.

A special unit had been formed by the CIA to search for him; and former President W. Bush had vowed to get him "dead or alive" for his part in those attacks.

From then on, the search for Osama Bin Laden has become an obsession of the U.S. Government, because if he was not caught in time, he could do it again.

He has been languishing in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there was no sign of his whereabouts, neither by the governments of both countries nor the U.S. Government.

All his messages from his hole in the mountains, where everybody thought he was hiding, were threatening to America and its allies, to say the least. They were, at one point, in constant broadcast by the Al Jazeera news network, and quite visible on Islamic websites hostile to the U.S.

He had become invisible to a certain extent; however, he was still influential in recruiting new blood into his organization by his broadcasts and other connections; thus increasing the support for his heinous plots against the U.S. in the Arab world, particularly, among the youth, who, he knew, would continue with his nefarious schemes even in his absence, for "now or hereafter".

The search had continued under the Obama administration, until it became clear that he was living on a million dollar compound at Abbottabad in Pakistan, and not in a cave in the mountains.

After that, the person, who had become a compelling anathema to the U.S. national security was a sitting duck; hence, President Barack Obama ordered his immediate ouster.

The whole world, including the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, was aware of the fact that Bin Laden was a wanted man; and not only that, but he could be dangerous if cornered. He also had body guards and couriers protecting, surrounding him, and doing his bid. Therefore, any attempt to flush him out of his hide out in that fortified compound would not be easy.

It was then that the U.S. Navy Seals moved in to take him down, on the orders of their Commander-in-Chief. They had gone there fully prepared to capture, and if need be, kill Osama Bin Laden, a sworn enemy of the U.S., who thought he was invincible.

Moreover, so long as he (Bin Laden) had committed a crime, the law was on side of the U.S. Government. It had legal right, and therefore, it needed no permission from anyone to obliterate Osama Bin Laden, a common criminal that he was.

OMAR BIN LADEN.

Arrest him.

The Osama Bin Laden's family, according to news reports, are not in mourning of his death, because, they are not sure whether he is dead, as the U.S. Government is reporting, or not. In the same breath, his son, Omar, does not take kindly to his father's burial at sea, "He goes on to show his disdain for the reported “burial at sea” (“His sudden and unwitnessed burial at sea has deprived the family of performing religious rights of a Muslim man”)...", he goes on to say.

This goes to show how unstable the Osama Bin Laden family is. How fickle minded its members are, to accept or refuse to accept what has been proved beyond doubt that their despicable father has been killed by U.S. Navy Seals unit right in his compound at Abbottabad, Pakistan, where he has been hiding for close to five years.

All this is contained in a statement released to the New York Times, which has the signature of Osama Bin Laden's fourth son, Omar; and unless he (Omar) has been living in another world for the past ten years, then he is just a reprobate, in the real sense of the word; otherwise, he will be considered a cretin by all standards, in sheer common sense, as well as in a pure ideological sense.

Among other things, he says in the statement, that he has always been a critic of his father for being hostile to the U.S.; and "a paragraph written from his family's viewpoint sums it up...," which says that is true. He, Omar, is assessing his chances of taking the U.S. Government to court for "killing an unarmed man (meaning his father), claiming that to be a crime. What?

He seems to be a person with a warped mentality or that he is suffering from a case of severe amnesia since 9/11; He is to be reminded that his father has been an accessory for the death of nearly 3000 people in one day. A heinous crime of unparalleled proportions, and that he is worth every treatment that has happened to him in these past few weeks.

He, Omar, has given evidence against himself, that he has been aware all along of his father's plans; therefore, he is an obvious accomplice to his father's crimes, and he must be arrested and tried in a court of law.

In other news reports, some people have been saying that Bin Laden must have been arrested and put on trial. What?

Where will you put him; Guantanamo? Who is going to bear the cost of his confinement; the U.S. Government? If he is sentenced, how many years does he deserve; a thousand years? Who will defend him, and what will be his defence? Where is the trial going to be held? Do you want a circus on your hands in your city or not; whoever that accepts his trial in that city?

Nobody in his or her right mind will speculate on any of these questions, because they will arrive at unjustified answers for the unjustifiable attacks on September 11th, 2001, for which Osama Bin Laden has been the mastermind.

On the other hand, many people think the Obama administration has made the right decision to get rid of Osama Bin Laden to save the whole world the aggravation his trial will cause; particularly, to loved ones and families whose members have died for no good reason.

Omar is lucky to be loitering around somewhere. As a critic, he has every inclination and obligation to report his father's activities to the authorities. He has failed to do so. He must be arrested, in many peoples' view.

WHAT; A RAPPER?

What is rapper doing in the White House? Does his appearance there bring anything profitable to the country, or does it impart anything good to young people?

"Rap" is a subculture, which should not be encouraged at all, particularly, where African American youths are concerned. They are already vulnerable to all sorts of distractions, which affect their psyche in real life; and many of them find themselves at the bottom of the public education or high school scale. Those who proceed to go farther to University levels are literally fighting to survive.

It would be a misnomer to say that most of them were struggling to bring home good report cards, each and every school year, and something more positive should be made available to them.

It was pleasant for the First Lady Michelle Obama, to invite artistes to perform in the White House; yet, going to the level of extending an invitation to a person of bad repute should not have escaped her notice.

She also knew that the backlash of such act would not be favorable in the eyes of a whole lot of people; and that the idea would be controversial.

Besides, the time frame in which the event took place was not at all appropriate for her husband, President Barack Obama, who was doing all he could to bring up his political approval rating, in readiness for the 2012 presidential election.

It would not be improper to say that it was a fluke decision on her part to have invited a rapper, who unfortunately, had a bad public record as well; however, what she did should be looked on not only as regrettable; it would not appear cordial or even congenial among many sections of the country.

There were numerous poets who could have stirred up the young people of America; and they would readily have accepted her invitation; but she went out of her way to choose one, who had controversy surrounding himself to the White House, of all places.

Again, it was a bad choice, and not many people would be happy about it.

STEM THE FLOW, PLEASE.

I, myself, am an immigrant, and it would be hypocritical on my part to say that immigration reform should be formulated with the future of the United States in mind, more than having the political landscape changing for the sake of votes.

America is, and will continue to be, a melting pot, a "mixed bag", a conglomerate of cultures, a nation of immigrants; and so on, and so forth.

However, the underlying factor that has sustained its mantle to be a principal and influential entity or player in world affairs is its background of the western way of life, whose expression in all kinds of innate documentations to establish it as one nation, has been captured in the English language.

Its constitution and the bill of rights, which are the "bloodline" of its political, social and economic life, have come from the English language; and as such, its form of government has been deeply rooted in the parliamentarian system, without monarchical attachment of any kind, of course.

What will therefore be very disturbing will be the overflow of people, who are bound to introduce a new fangled culture and language to totally upset its (America's) status quo.

Ideologically, no one will be able to pinpoint what the U.S. will be, or how its geo-economic structure will look like in twenty to fifty years from now. Yet, not many people will want much to change for future citizens, as they find life in America today; unless its borders are not securely protected, and "immigrants" are allowed to enter the country illegally.

That is what a great majority of Americans are afraid of; and therefore, political objectives are important, to have the presence of other people translate into votes, it is also necessary to consider the outcome, when the present day basic culture is completely displaced to make America become transformed into an entirely different place, looking thirty or so years ahead.

Reform? Yes; but stem the flow over America's borders.

Osama Bin Laden's hiding place.

Now that the U.S. Government has successfully completed a phase of its national security agenda, by eliminating the notorious Osama Bin Laden, there is a slew of tremendously important matters to grapple with, both domestic and foreign.

One of them being the Obama administration's relations with Pakistan, and whether it (Pakistan) has been frank in coming forward with correct and tangible information about Bin Laden before the raid of the U.S. Navy Seals' action to kill him only last week.

There have been several denials from that country's top officials that there has been no information withheld from the U.S. Intelligence unit searching for Bin Laden for all these months, if not years.

The Pakistani Foreign Minister has persistently said that there has been no knowledge of Bin Laden's whereabouts since the 9/11 attacks; and just yesterday, the Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has angrily denied that there has been any collusion among Pakistani security forces to hide Bin Laden.

The backlash in regard to Bin Laden's killing will continue to grow; however, everybody now knows that he cannot manage to hide out in a compound only a few miles from Islamabad, and about 800 yards from a high profile Pakistani military training center in Abbottabad.

It has lately been learned that CIA operatives lived close by; but nobody has been told the length of time that they have been monitoring the compound, which has been the sanctuary for Bin Laden for so long a time; five whole years, to be precise.

President Barack Obama has said that his government will thoroughly investigate the matter and would get to the bottom of how the whole thing should have come about. Good.

However, Pakistan receives billions of U.S. dollars in aid to prop up its military forces; and so, if its officials cannot be forthright with the United States to capture a criminal like Osama Bin Laden, then what is the point of shelling out so much money to that country?

It (aid) must be stopped, forthwith. It has to be forfeited for now, until they are truthful about whether Bin Laden has had a "support system", and even protection from capture, within Pakistan, for all these years.

The Obama administration must act without hesitation.

AMERICAN PRESIDENTS AND WORLD PEACE.

I was going to give credit to President H.W. Bush as the one who established a "new world order" by invading Grenada, until I decided to expand my research and discovered that I was wrong. It was actually President Ronald Reagan, in 1983, who made that decision; with H.W. Bush as his Vice-President.

He ordered the invasion of a little independent Caribbean Island, "fearing the encroachment of Communism in the Western Hemisphere."

As it happened, Communism was an anachronism; an evil concept. Banal and deprived of liberty. An arch enemy of peace; it would enhance totalitarianism and would render many countries to be subservient to Moscow. Finally, the fall of the U.S.S.R., which it became known as, was great.

Then came President H.W. Bush's turn to launch the latest invasion of Panama in 1989; to cause the ouster of a dictator; and thus creating a new world order, which was in principle, a continuation of what Reagan had started.

Then came President W. Bush's turn; (he is still the son of H.W. Bush). He was the one who ordered the invasion of Iraq, setting up a new world order, which was not new at all, for it linked the world to the Reagan initiative.

All in all, the aim and objective of those invasions were one and the same in each case; "to bring a mode of behavioral acceptance of conduct by individual states, nations or countries, based on civil norms."

However, the world, with the United Nations as its main back-up instrument or coordinator, did not see the pattern, for they (invasions) were for establishing true peace; to bring all nations in line to adhere to a clear set of rules governing political conduct, in addition to basic diplomacy, in the entire world.

For that reason alone, the U.N. should have readily embraced that notion. It was a succinct and a noble remedy that would be beneficial to easily counteract terrorism and bad governance almost everywhere. (Hopefully, it must not be too late for the U.N. to resign itself to that notion).

In other words, to bring that about, those American presidents attempted to set a precedent for the rest of the world to emulate; for they foresaw the need to maintain peace, by way of good conduct. They would do so, even through military means, when there was a threat to democratic principles anywhere, as in the case of Grenada; or to quieten a despot who was bullying his own citizens and causing a disturbance to world peace. (Manuel Noriega).

It must be made clear that those invasions were not for the domination or colonization of any nation; but for the sole idea that there would be peace in the world, if all nations conformed to decency and the rule of law; which were, in a nutshell, the essence of civilization.

America has sought for peace, since its inception on the world's political stage; and it has continued to do so even long before World War 2. At the same time, it endeavored to become the most powerful nation on earth; with the intent of building a platform, not to macromanage world affairs; but to use it on the lookout for its own security, and to be acutely responsible for its own peace of mind in a rather turbulent world. Self reliance was the best strategy.

Thus, the concept of peace was first and foremost to American governments; and protecting it was wise.

That was what made America strong; and that was why it was still seen all around the globe fighting to maintain it. No nation, in the history of the world, has ever done so before or could compare; and there would never be one. America stood alone on that score.

They (Presidents) recognized that reconciling responsibility with conduct could be the mainstay for peace in the world; and it could only be carried out by a nation, whose strength stemmed from selfless ambitions. They believed a uniquely kind of selflessness was required for achieving true peace, and cultivating that idealism was essential to their cause.

It was all so difficult to successfully deal with world affairs peaceably without strong principles. It was even more so, bringing many nations to come to a common understanding, to conduct themselves properly; judging from the nature of humans occupying the surface of the earth today, being oblivious to good mannerisms, and being farther removed from the idea of peace.

With governments and regimes, which catered, for most part, to violence, war and greed to achieve their own selfish ends. Despots and dictators, who realistically survived on brutalizing their own people, and hiding behind diplomatic cover for self protection and preservation; there was very little left to take any chance on by those American presidents. A disorderly world was not what they envisaged; for they wanted a peaceful world mainly for their citizenry too.

Presently, the baton has been passed to President Barack Obama, whose ideological views were quite stringent before he took office; for he had a different perception of how the world looked like from the Oval Office in the White House, until now.

It surely was a totally different view held previously by him; however, from all vicissitudes, he would have to be flexible and come to the conclusion that, he has very little choice, but to continue on the same lines, and in the same spirit from where his predecessors left off, with their insatiable quest for peace in the world, without much deviation.

Hence, his order for the invasion of Libya to overthrow another despot.

It would be a plus, as those before him were determined to accomplish, for The United States of America. Their vision of a strong nation, as America should be, always ready to defend the oppressed and maintain the peace, should remain unequalled.

When that was realized, a "new world order" of peace for humanity would be in place; and so unfurling the flag of freedom, and seeing to it to be flying high everywhere. One nation, resisting atrocity and disturbance, on behalf of all nations

A reminder of which the ultra terrorist group, Al Qeada, was a vivid example for being in ruins by all standards; demonstrating that being an adversary of the United States did not pay in any way. Putting its leadership to shame and out of commission was a feat for which many thanks should be given him; President Barack Obama.

An inheritance to be a "policeman" in the world, and to keep the peace has been handed down to him; and he must do all in his power to uphold it. Americans could hear him recalling the biblical words of Psalm 120:7, "I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war."
He would be speaking for all freedom and peace loving people.

Peace has always been a tricky idealism; Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain thought he had it from his trip to Berlin in 1939, but it was just on paper. However, American Presidents have always sought it in reality, in order to make the world a better place. This should therefore be President Obama's turn to pursue it, to maintain America's legacy for "peace in our world".



P.S. Police = Peace. (It may have other meanings; but "a peace officer" gives one a clear meaning of the word).

"JOB WELL DONE."

This week, the world breathed a sigh of relief after hearing about Osama Bin Laden's death.

This was caused, first, by the announcement from the White House delivered in person by President Barack Obama of the United States of America, leader of the Western World.

He did so amid cheers from Washington D.C. to New York City to Boston, and in fact, throughout the whole country.

It felt as if a heavy burden has been lifted off the shoulders of men, women and children, not just in America, but in all parts of the world.

From England to Japan; and from Venezuela to Argentina, there was a sudden calm that overtook people, who were worried in divers ways, about all the problems facing themselves personally and their individual countries in general.

It was as if there was one single night leading into its following day for all peoples, alike; and that they had woken up from a long nightmare that they thought would never end; however, when it did, the news was good.

Just yesterday, the Al Qaeda leadership, followed by the Taliban in Afghanistan confirmed the fact that Bin Laden, the mastermind of the attacks on the Pentagon and The World Trade Center in the United States, has died from his wounds inflicted on him by a squadron of U.S. Navy Seals in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where he was hiding.

Even before their admission, it was thought that there would be violent demonstrations, particularly, in the Arab world, by his followers; and they (demonstrations) would continue throughout and into many weeks ahead; with sympathizers committing mayhem in response to his killing.

Yet, lo and behold, there were only a few gatherings, here and there, which were even orderly than anything resembling a bunch of raucous assemblies of Al Qaeda men and women mourning their fallen leader.

Americans handled the jubilation pretty well, with the laying of a wreath at Ground Zero by President Obama; and people going about their normal lives as usual after that. The atmosphere was peaceful, and even the weather was generally well behaved.

The troops that had returned from their mission were greeted by their president and Commander-In-Chief on behalf of the nation; honoring them by saying it (raid) was a "Job well done."

Let us hope that America's enemies have learned their lesson; and that they were bound to suffer defeat, over and over again, if they did not mend their ways.

GOVERN SARAH PALIN.

It was extremely shocking to see former governor Sarah Palin using the phrase, "No pussyfooting around" in her tweet yesterday, urging President Obama to release the photos of Osama Bin Laden's death.

The former governor is not the only one making that request; yet, she should know that pictures have always had more impact on people's emotions.

These photos may be morbid to such an extent that, there is the possibility of them inflaming sentiments that will feed into the already hostile situations in North Africa and the Middle East.

"A picture is worth a thousand words", as the famous adage indicates.
Besides, considering the environment in which Bin Laden's death has occurred, where he may have been taken down by U.S. special forces, perhaps, in a hale of bullets, it will be obvious that he will not be recognizable.

The image would be so distorted, it would raise more doubts as to who was actually being pictured. So, just the announcement of Bin Laden's death is what people have to know and nothing else.

That was what President Obama did; and to many Americans, it was the right decision to make, under the circumstances.

Again, consider what Al Qaeda membership will do with the photos of their slain leader as propaganda to recruit more followers.

A slew of reasons are there for the news to be accepted on its face value; and she as one of the possible nominees of the GOP for the 2012 presidential race must agree that making a spectacle of the said photos will not help in any way, except for Bin Laden's followers to glean more advantage from them to boost their dwindling membership.

Showing the photos will endanger the lives of all Americans, including the men and women in uniform, who are out there protecting the U.S. each and every single day.

A MIXED DAY.

Today's presidential visit will be a special one; and as President Barack Obama is supposed to lay a wreath at Ground Zero, it will be a solemn occasion in which Americans will have the chance to reflect on a decade that has come to be known as the 9/11 years.

It could be said that the terrorists wished to strike fear in the hearts of Americans; and to bring the two cities of Washington D.C. and New York down to their knees, so to speak; but they failed miserably.

The two cities, as well as America as a whole, became stronger and even more vibrant than ever before; showing that they could do damage to structures like The World Trade Center's twin towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington D.C., they could not break the spirits of the people of a great nation.

Although, the day will be marked as one of remembrance, not of the infamous day, as 9/11 has come to be, or to think about the news that the architect of the attacks on that day has finally met his end at the hands of U.S. forces in Abbottabad, Pakistan; but as one that is proof that the country is more united now than ever.

The Pentagon has been rebuilt, or the part of it where the attackers plane hit; and The New World Trade Center has had its solid foundations laid, and construction was in progress.

Americans must bear in mind that there are sworn enemies out there; radicals and even home grown terrorists, who are waiting to do harm to the nation and its people. Therefore, they must not relent in their efforts to remain vigilant, and do all they can to protect the freedom, which is the legacy left them by their forebears and needs to be protected always.

That is what the enemies are after; to destroy and enslave all lovers of freedom. However, the whole world is doomed, if America loses its liberty.

P.S. Privately, the day calls for a celebration too. It is a mixed day.

CELEBRATION TIME, COME ON.

Surely, praises must be showered on President Barack Obama, for the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden; but much of it should go to former President George W. Bush, who had put in place protective plans for the U.S.; from which no serious mishaps, aside of the Christmas Day underwear bomber and other close calls, had happened, both at home and abroad.

Those plans were still in use by the Department of Homeland Security to maintain vigilance on U.S. borders, at airports and seaports; the CIA and the U.S. Intelligence community as a whole, continued to utilize them.

The search for Osama was even initiated during the Bush administration era, when he (President Bush) announce on a megaphone at Ground Zero, soon after the attacks, that who ever was responsible for such atrocities "would hear from US."

Washington D.C. and New York had then been hit badly, and he felt that a kind of retaliation was proper. He also took them (attacks) more personally; he felt more strongly about what had occurred than anyone else, owing to his position as President of the U.S. at the time.

He had even surmised that the act of aggression had come from somewhere in the Middle East; hence, his raid on Iraq that uprooted another despicable person and despot, Saddam Hussein.

To this day, many Americans agreed with him and thought that he did the right thing. He had the backing of U.S. Congress, as well as the U.N. resolution 1441 to cause Hussein to disarm.

President Obama had vigorously continued from where the previous administration had left off, which had produced good results, in regard to Bin Laden's demise. Therefore, it would be fair to say that he had done most of the hard work to bring down the arch designer of the 9/11 attacks; but he had had much help from those plans set up by his predecessor.

Americans must celebrate the occasion; from Florida to Alaska, and from Washington State to the New England State of Maine. It had been a long wait for justice to have been served on behalf of all Americans, particularly, those whose family members had died unnecessarily, on September 11th, 2001.

It is therefore apropos for President Obama to come to New York, and join in the celebration this coming Thursday, May 5th, 2011; however, it is regrettable that the former President is not likely to accompany him. According to news reports, he has decided not to do so. It is a time that all Americans must dance to and make merry; it is about time.

America needs you now, President Bush.

A GOOD OMEN.

The U.S. counterterrorism operations that took place in a compound near Islamabad, the capital (city) of Pakistan, should be commended for its precision and timing.

The secrecy surrounding its action, put in place by the Obama administration, the CIA and other security branches, showed that covert plans were safer now than ever before, in that they were protected and securely kept under wraps until they were ready to be executed.

Not long ago, communication channels between the special forces were tenuous and laxed so much so that, the media and other information outlets could leak vital information to endanger some of the most critical and crucial actions planned to keep America safe, particularly, from terrorism.

9/11 should not have happened, but it did; and as a result, the complacency that existed after the first WTC bombing would have developed into a complete available vacuum for news vendors of all types.

Nevertheless, thanks to the Bush government, a situation which could have been taken advantage of by high level news reporters and correspondents, was averted.

It (Sept. 11) was a wake up call for America to be more vigilant of its security and to properly safeguard its interests both at home and abroad; and so, there have been no attacks since then. Yet, the underwear Christmas bomber and other attempts were reminders that there were those who would still do harm to America, if given the chance.

It was such a momentous occasion last night , when President Obama announced from the White House that the chief protagonist and perpetrator of the most heinous crime on the American mainland was dead.

Osama Bin Laden, the atrocious leader of Al Qaeda has finally bitten the dust.

Americans were able to breathe a sigh of relief, after ten years of empty anticipation of his capture and trial for his part in that ominous and despicable terrorists act on the morning, when they saw the twin towers of the erstwhile World Trade Center, toppling down like decks of cards, and taking with them almost 3000 innocent lives to their untimely deaths. A horrible scene that would live in the minds of people all over the world.

For a moment, the news broadcast from CNN became unbelievable; and then people jumped out of their beds and began to rejoice and shout for joy. Others must have, obviously, cried their eyes out, as their hearts continued to bleed for family members who perished.

Even so, jubilation has come to America at last, for millions of people who have waited too long for this day to arrive, and therefore they should celebrate (it); in Washington, in New York, in Boston; and all across the nation, young men and women leaped in the air from sheer ecstasy.

It was propitious, for the day has come soon after, and at heels of the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in London; and the beatification of Pope John Paul 2 in Rome. Both of them were ceremonial for most people. What a great timing; what a good omen for the whole world at large, that U.S. Forces have killed Osama Bin Laden.