THE JUSTICES & THE PEOPLE.

It will be a disappointment, if the United States Supreme Court decides to vote 5 to 4 against the Affordable Health Care Act by President Barack Obama, on political grounds.

The justices are people too, and they are likely to consider political inclinations first before any other options; yet, to lean on politics than the fact that more citizens will have health insurance coverage under the law will be an abomination.

Besides, the constitutionality opinion is likely to be that the U.S. Congress can pass a law to mandate anything that it sees fit and proper for a great majority of citizens, such as Social Security.

Automobile insurance is another category that every American has to have, if they are to have the use of a motor vehicle. Without that, there will be too many accidents on the road resulting in unnecessary deaths.

The so called "Obamacare" falls into the same rational, that people will get sick and that they will need health insurance coverage to be able to get medical attention without any kind of impediment; and so, to say that all Americans must have health care coverage makes a great deal of sense.

That is exactly what the Obama health care does, and to insinuate that it forces people "to buy broccoli," is not fair, in that a penalty being attached to the law does not mean that jail sentences will be passed on those not having insurance.

It (penalty) is just there to compel all persons to have the protection they must require in emergency situations and whenever the well being of their personal health is in jeopardy.

In fact, it is in the best interest of everyone to have insurance coverage, to be able to have access to immediate medical help, when he or she requires it, and at the proper time.

Legally, the justices have several options to choose from, as to knock the law out completely or to let it stand as is; and in between, they have the luxury to pick what they think must be part of the law or not.

So, allowing political dogma to penetrate their thinking into making a decision of the kind they are facing will not be a good idea at all; as it will become a precedent that anything that is not to their political taste must be considered as illegal or unlawful.

That will not be equitable; and doing justice to themselves and to society as a whole will be next to impossible, if they choose to follow that path.

Deep thoughts and genuine assessments must be utilized to play a major part in reaching a decision, as millions of Americans are relying on them (justices) to prove that they, as Americans, can have the law on their side and to be able to treat an ailment without any hindrance, when it happens to them.

That is what the whole argument boils down to; that people having their health needs met, when they become incapacitated; and not to permit politics to deprive them a right that they must have; that is taking care of their own ... given bodies in the proper manner.

Again, the justices are human too, and therefore they must be for or on the human side, rather than on pure political persuasion that is only man-made, to deliberately embarrass another political entity.

OBAMA'S ARDENT FOE.

The United States Supreme Court Justices know quite well that the Affordable Health Care Act before them is politically biased either way, as one party wants it repealed and the other wants it to stand.

Among the Justices themselves are those who bear a grudge against the originator, President Barack Obama, from his State of the Union address to a joint Congressional session about two years ago, when one of the Justices yelled, "Not True," after the president has criticized the Supreme Court that a ruling on political contribution would open the floodgates for corporations and big companies to make unqualified donations to one of the major parties than the other.

The two major parties, Democratic and Republican, were divided on that issue, that if no limit was placed on political contributions, the advantage would be one sided in favor of the Republican Party.

The president was predicting the birth of the PACs (Political Action Committees) as there were none in existence, and he was right.

They, PACs, have become part of American political life now, to the point that millions of dollars in political contributions have come from only ... knew where, to fund the Republican Party presidential candidates' campaigns.

The point was that there were no PACs until the decision by the Justices; and since the public was fully aware that Justice Samuel Alito, who belted the "not true" interruption, while the president of the U.S. was speaking, he should step aside in the final adjudication of the health care act before the Justices.

One would ask why? Because, apart from his rude statement to the president, he has been "a thorn in the flesh" as far as the Democratic Party was concerned. Therefore to sit in judgment on the health care Act, a law proposed and passed by the Democrats, would be a deviation or departure from justice itself.

If justice Alito would be brave enough to admit that he has a whole lot against the Obama administration, and that siding with his colleagues, who would vote against the law, signed by President Obama, would be very unfair, then he would have some credibility left to his character.

Also, believe it or not, but it seems that race is a factor in the case, as Obama is an African American, and therefore, anything he does will be criticized by his foes, from that stand point.

Alito, a known Obama foe, disqualifying himself in the decision making of the Supreme Court on Friday, on the health care Act, will be very much appreciated.

It will only be then that the American people will know that a better Court exists now than the one that has voted, some many years ago, that a black man has no rights.


("The black man was not considered a person under the Constitution. ... " by the Supreme Court. "Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857").

THE HEALTH CARE LAW & THE SUPREME COURT.

If the justices of the United States Supreme Court are going to indulge in politics, then there is no hope for millions of Americans that have no health insurance and are forced to crowd Emergency Rooms in hospitals each and every day across the country.

From all reports the court is picturesquely split on political and ideological lines; that four of its nine members are conservatively inclined, and another four tend to vote on the liberal side.

Yet, the swing justice, by all implications, must be Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, and that makes him a full fledged conservative, and therefore he cannot have any wiggle room to be impartial on that score.

Everyone seems to know that Justice Kennedy is the one that mostly plays the part of a middle man, but in the decision on the Affordable Health Care Act, his role is not all that clear.

Moreover, the justices are not being prejudged by the public that they are prejudiced against the health care law; yet, all indications point to that fact.

President Barack Obama has penned his signature on it, and he has made it one of his major accomplishments; he has every right to do so, because he has been able to pull the health care industry out, that rested in a quagmire of corruption and graft for its existence.

Therefore, it becomes the duty of the court to ensure that the insurance companies are not given the power as before, to deny coverage to millions of people, who are now, or about to be covered.

More than 50 million citizens are waiting to gain access to coverage under the new health care law; and those that have work related insurance will have the option of getting full coverage through it; and that adds more people to be protected from the previous despicable insurance plans, in which any type of change happens to be impossible.

In other words, setting political affiliations aside, the justices have to prioritize that it must not put the private insurance companies back in control. If they (justices) will forget the consideration that the insurance companies are behind the campaign to repeal the health care law, then they will have overlooked the core kernel of the health care debate.

In a nutshell, the insurance companies want to be reinstated; but the only thing that can stop that is a law that puts the decision making process in the hands of patients and their doctors, instead of private companies.

That is exactly what the Obama administration has initiated; and if that is not what forms the basis of the arguments that the justices are likely to hear and then base their decisions on, then they will allow political influence to gain the upper hand and interfere with their work.

Millions of lives are at stake on an issue such as this one, and they are hoping fervently that the Supreme Court will come to their aid, rather than siding with profit making companies.

The justices can make "Obamacare" to stand on its own to protect the people. That is what America wants and nothing else.

Conservatism is just for one section of American society; there must be other sections of the population with other beliefs that need to be safeguarded and protected, for America to be considered as being truly one nation......

OBAMA & RUSH LIMBAUGH.

Rush Limbaugh's argument that President Barack Obama referred to Trayvon Martin, the diseased African American teenager, who had died from a gun shot by a Florida neighborhood watchman, as his (president's) son was not true.

The president was using an analogy to say that he felt deeply for the family that has lost a son; and though, that family happened to be African American, it (analogy) did not equate to the skin color of Trayvon.

The statement in question did not correspond to what Limbaugh was making his listeners to believe, that the president was being racially inclined.

In other words, the remarks by the president could reference any family in America, whose member has suffered death, while doing no harm to anyone.

The story of Trayvon Martin could be any other boy's story, as he was walking home from the store, with a hoodie over his head, and he was not thinking of anything else at the time, but to get to where he was going.

Suddenly, he was confronted by a man, who might have asked about where he was heading, and he reacted and answered that it was none of the man's business. The man, now identified as George Zimmerman, continued to follow him, and he might have somehow touched Trayvon's person.

The boy turned around and said, "Come on, let go," trying to free himself. Instead of Zimmerman becoming civil in his actions and subsequent interrogation, he became unreasonably aggressive, and the situation catapulted into a scuffle.

The boy was defending himself, and he was able to beat off his pursuer and inflicted a blow on his face to give him a broken and bleeding nose. Trayvon was unarmed, and so, it was a fair fight, until the man pulled out a gun for whatever reason.

The boy was still in the mode of defending himself, and so he rushed Zimmerman to get the gun away, but it was too late for him to do so, because it was in that instant that the man fired the gun.

Zimmerman had been in contact with a dispatcher of the local police, who told him to stop chasing after the trespasser, which he (Zimmerman) thought Trayvon was; and even so, he was not up to anything that could be described as criminal for Zimmerman to be so intensely suspicious.

Therefore, there was no need for him (Zimmerman) to start a fight with Trayvon Martin, in the first place.

The boy laid dead after the shot, in an unfamiliar neighborhood; a community within a gated area that had a security company or a neighborhood watch guarding its property. He was young and only 17 years of age, and that should not have happened to him.

That was what the president was addressing his remarks to; an unfortunate tragedy that had befallen a family like his. Only to indicate that Trayvon was a boy, and he (Obama) had two daughters.

In was in that light that he made the statement, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon," just to show his sympathy toward the grieving family.

That was naturally understandable to millions of Americans, who took to the streets to demonstrate that children, of whatever shade of skin color, must be fearless walking practically anywhere in the country.

Zimmerman should have been arrested by the police that went to the scene, because he has earlier been instructed to stop following Trayvon, and he ignored that warning; and that alone was probable cause for the officers to place him in custody.

To politicize the case and make the president to be someone, who was discriminating against any other child, due to his or her color, was disingenuous and improper; and Limbaugh and other politicians attempting to gain some kind of advantage to maximizing their radio shows and political campaigns, should be ashamed of themselves.

The best those people could do would be to advice Zimmerman to give himself up to the police and to face the charges of killing an unarmed person.

Instead, he has chosen to remain in hiding, and that has infuriated a lot of people even more so; hence the civil gatherings and demonstrations around the country.

Aiding and abetting Zimmerman by anyone was not the right thing to do.

SANTORUM ON ROMNEY.

The Republican Party race for nomination now seems to have become a two-man contest between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum; and the party is divided down the middle as to which candidate will be politically strong enough to face President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

Romney tends to play it cool with just statements about the number of delegates that he is able to acquire so far, of more than 500 of them toward the target of about 1400 or so delegates that he is supposed to have at the party's convention, where a nominee will be picked.

However, Santorum is settling on making comments that a fellow candidate in the same party is not likely to make about any of his rivals in the race.

After saying that Romney is not trustworthy in several of his speeches on the campaign trail, he is now adding that he (Romney) is the "worst conservative in the country," (CNN, 03/26/12).

He is asking how his own party can put up a person like Romney against Obama, when the party establishment is well aware of the shortcomings of Romney.

He has passed a health care bill similar to the one that Republicans referred to as "Obamacare", as governor of Massachusetts; and also he has none of the Republican Party core beliefs to his credit.

He, Santorum, has the credibility and credentials of being a true conservative and therefore he must be the party's choice. Yet, the hierarchy of the Republican Party, for the obvious reason that Romney is wealthy, is eyeing him instead; though, an unsuitable person, to represent it (party) in such an important election.

Besides, Santorum thinks that he has the evangelical and an overwhelming tea party support than Romney, and that will cause a great number of the Republican grass roots membership to stay away on election day, if Romney becomes the nominee.

If that happens, Obama will win the election by a landslide that his party, the Democratic Party, is expecting against any of the president's challengers this coming Fall; however, they visualize that it will be easier with Romney as his party's choice than any of his colleagues in the nomination race.

There is no denying that there is a firestorm in the Republican Party that can end up in a broker convention in Tampa, FL. only a few months away; and also it will be more than critical to get Santorum, who is now digging his heels in into winning the nomination, to turn around and give in to Romney, who is the party elitists' favorite.

This blog's forecast that Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, the other two candidates left in the race, will just be "by standing" candidates is coming true. Though, they both are insisting that their campaigns are still functioning pretty well, the writing is still on the wall that their candidacy days to be president of the United States are numbered.

Gingrich's hopes to gain the conservative backing of his party has come to naught, and he is even expecting Santorum to drop out of the race, so that he (Gingrich) gets the evangelicals to vote for him in the remaining primaries; but that is now just an empty dream.

As for Ron Paul the only reason why he is staying in the race is to ensure his supporters that their financial contributions are going to be used until the final bell that tells them that their forlorn candidate is completely out.

Meanwhile, the Republican race continues, but it seems that whoever comes out a winner can hardly stand the tests of the many uncertainties that are waiting in the world today, if he is to be president.

For he will have been battered in such a way that he will be dazed from a totally frivolous fight, and his own party will not give him its full support; let alone the country.

OBAMA'S REMARKS.

Trayvon Martin's death should not be dragged into politics and be made dirty, and even more so for Newt Gingrich, a Republican candidate running in the party's nomination race, to call President Barack Obama's remarks on the issue "disgraceful".

The African American kid has met his death under circumstances that indicated that, even though he was an American, he was not free to walk around anyhow; and that he was to be mindful of who he was, because of his color.

That kind of feeling was marked in American society, in every nook and cranny, that a young man would enter an office or a store, and the security of that place would suddenly go on alert, solely because he was a minority.

That surely gave one the impression that racism was culturally inherent in people to the extent that one could not trust one's own lawyer defending one in a criminal court case. That kind of emotion has a long history of race relations that had gone awry throughout the years.

That was what was disgraceful, and not a comment by Obama that, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon,"

The nature of people generally was one of mistrust between the races, because it had started pretty early, when a child was not to bring home a friend, who was of a different color after a football practice.

The parents would wash the the glass the friend had used for a drink like never before, and that gave the child the impression from the very beginning that there was something wrong with his friend, due to his (friend's) complexion.

If many Americans would come out of their shell and admitted that they were racists, and that their attitudes should change toward people of different color, then the nation would be safe for any child, no matter what his or her ethnicity, could walk around without fear; period.

Trayvon was in that situation, as he was on his way back home, after getting skittles and iced tea from the store. He then discovered that there was someone behind him, watching his every move, and he became scared.

The very next thing was that the man was using ethnic slurs directed at him and asking him questions that he thought were unnecessary. A scuffle ensued between the two; and just because the man had a gun and he was authorized to "stand his ground", he had to shoot and kill Trayvon.

More so, he (Trayvon) was unarmed and did not pose any threat to the man, who was following him. That man happened to be George Zimmerman, who was on watch duty in a gated neighborhood that day.

At the very start, if he had approached the young African American in a civil manner, there would not be a fight; but he did not. After all, Trayvon was just trespassing; and there was no sign that he was a criminal or acting in any way to that effect.

Zimmerman's contact with people like Trayvon was rare; and so his attitude would stem from his upbringing of "those are them, and we are us," and he was inadvertently reaching out and reacting on that basis, when he saw Trayvon.

The incident was tragic, and has touched many people to the point that, even strangers have come out to give moral support to the Martin family; with some remarking that, if it was not for the misunderstanding between the races, such a tragedy would not have happened.

However, for a seasoned politician as Gingrich, to take the words of President Obama and turned them inside out for political gamesmanship went beyond the pale. For there was nothing in the president's remarks that even slightly pointed to the race of Trayvon Martin or that of George Zimmerman.

The training Americans gave their children should count for what their attitudes should be, when they became grown ups, for they took that training very seriously; and it appeared in places like the military, and even in government, when a person's race came first, when he or she was being screened for a position of trust, or how he or she should be assessed in any frame of mind for almost anything, instead of looking at that person's character; and for the fact that he or she, as citizen of the United States, should be given equal opportunity, wherever he or she went, to demonstrate that America was really a free country.

For a better America, attitudes must change. Without that, Trayvon Martin's death would have been in vain.

P.S. Of course, it should be Iced Tea, and not Ice Tea.

OBAMA & MARTIN'S DEATH.

The headline that President Barack Obama should intervene in the Martin shooting case in Florida, did not hold water; and it did not make a low profile incident, though nationally condemned, a priority for the White House.

At present, the economy, the gruesome unemployment figures and the high cost of gasoline would preoccupy the the president more than any other matters; and he was dealing with them step by step, as the nation expected.

To go out of that mode and to dabble in a racially motivated case would be a big distraction for him and for so many people, and that would not give credence to his political campaign for a second term. In other words, stepping out that (mode) would not be advisable.

He was presently in a groove or a tight corner, with his opponents on the Republican side using political rhetoric to blame him on all kinds of issues, from the Keystone XL pipeline to his Low Cost Healthcare Act.

In fact, all the jurisprudence was there for the law enforcement authorities in the state of Florida to take the necessary action to handle the case in the way it should be. That a homicide has taken place, and the accused perpetrator should be behind bars, while the initial investigation was in progress.

For Zimmerman, the shooter, to be walking free was obnoxious, and many Americans have expressed in mainstream media as well as the social ones, like facebook.com and twitter.com; showing how preposterous it was that an arrest has still not taken place.

That was a routine that the police officers on the scene in the complex, where Trayvon Martin was shot, should have done; to put the handcuffs on Zimmerman for being the gunman, and then an investigation would follow in due course.

Martin was already dead, and the procedure was to send his body to the nearest hospital, and then Zimmerman would be questioned for using a gun on an unarmed person. There and then, there was the probable cause for the police officers to arrest the shooter.

In other words, the initial legal procedures were not followed by the police; and if so, why not? It might have been that Zimmerman has claimed that "the shooting was in self defense." as they, the police, might have identified him as a neighborhood watchman, and so he was protected by a local "stand your ground" law.

"Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee is temporarily stepping down amid accusations that his department bungled the investigation into the shooting death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin." (ABC news, 03/23/12).

That was a good sign for Martin's family that the death of their son was being seriously handled; and now that Federal law enforcement has become involved, the course of the case would not be misdirected as they feared would happen.

The NAACP was there, and so was Rev. Sharpton; and they were present to rally behind the grieving family for legal advice and to give Martin's parents the moral support they so much needed.

They, the parents, should rest assured that President Obama had their sympathy in mind, as White House staff members have already briefed him on the case; and that he would be following it, just as much as he went about his normal presidential duties

Given the nature of the incident, he should be very cautious in making any remark, as that would affect the ongoing investigation; and particularly as the case has racial connotations, it would be improper for him to directly comment on it, as Martin was an African American as he. At least, "no comment" would be the best thing to do at the present moment.

Having the report of the case was enough; and so they, parents, should not worry about the president's reaction, as he was with them in spirit.

That could be the guess of the writer of this blog, but it was possible.

TRAYVON MARTIN & HIS KILLING.

The shooting death of Trayvon Martin has caused a great deal of uproar in the country, especially in the news and the social media, with tweets on Twitter.com and postings at You-tube by famous and important citizens, to demonstrate their horror, not only of the incident itself, but also of the fact that law enforcement in Florida was conducting a racially biased investigation.

The shooter, a night watchman by the name of Zimmerman has not been even interviewed by police authorities and he was walking free, solely because of a law that protected people like him to use deadly force if threatened.

Trayvon Martin was walking in a strange neighborhood after shopping for some ice tea and skittles, and looking around just for curiosity sake before he went back to his father's house.

The complex of houses was gated and had a watch group in routine surveillance to keep people, who were thought to be mischievous or prone to cause any type of crime out of the place.

A confrontation occurred between the young boy, Trayvon, who was 17 years of age and Zimmerman, a grown man, on watch that day; and according to 911 calls and eyewitness accounts a fight followed from the altercation.

Within minutes, Trayvon was shot dead with a gun wound in his chest by Zimmerman.

Trayvon was unarmed and did not pose a serious threat to his assailant, and therefore using a gun on him was completely unnecessary. He was not a suspect of any kind. That, under any circumstance, was a cold blooded murder.

He, Trayvon, was just walking around and saw a man following him, and when the man, Zimmerman, approached him, he responded as anyone would do with a little bit of apprehension, which could naturally lead to a scuffle of some sorts, if a strange person laid his hands on another person.

That was what happened, and whatever the gunman was, whether a watchman or a futuristic police officer and therefore under training, he should have been arrested forthwith.

Local police did nothing to safeguard the interest of Trayvon Martin in the process of officers being called on a case of that nature. They would immediately put the handcuffs on Trayvon, and he would be arrested, if he was the perpetrator.

Now, the investigation of the case was not going the way it should, and the United States Attorney's office and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division officials have been called in to see whether Trayvon's rights were violated.

The investigation was continuing, but so far the incident seemed to be racially motivated. Too many African American young people were being gunned down by others in the law enforcement community, and that should warrant a grand inquiry by the government into whether some officers were racists.

Rev. Al Sharpton was getting involved, and the NAACP was playing a vital role in the case. Many were hoping that Zimmerman would be placed under arrest as the proceedings to really know what took place unfolded.

In this day and age, anyone should not be restricted in any way from walking freely in any neighborhood, gated or not.

Zimmerman, whatever his reason for gunning down Trayvon Martin, must be dealt with according to the law of the nation.

Others in other countries were watching to see, if America would live up to its creed of freedom for everyone, no matter what their racial background was.

OBAMA & GAS PRICES.

The southern part of the Keystone XL pipeline will begin, to deal with the oil crisis, and also to handle the oil glut in Cushing "where oil from the Midwest hits a bottleneck as it is transported to the Gulf of Mexico." (CNN, 03/21/12).

Though, the idea may to sit well with environmentalists that have protested the construction of the pipeline in its entirety, from Canada to the Gulf Coast; yet, due to Iran cutting back on its oil production to penalize particularly the West, the high of crude oil and subsequent gas jacked up prices will continue.

The punitive sanctions by the United States and other members of the United Nations, which are designed to stop Iran from carrying out its nuclear program, are crippling that country's economy.

The reversal is also true that with Iran reducing oil production and creating uncertainty in the Arabian Gulf region, many nations will feel the pressure with high oil prices, and so relent on getting Iran to come out clean of the charges being leveled against it by the rest of the world. They, world countries, will have their own economies disturbed, and thus creating a stalemate, whether the world will continue with sanctions on Iran or not.

For example, the high price of gas in the U.S. has a bad effect on all kinds of businesses, large and small; and with the slow rate of its economic recovery, that is not something to be taken for granted by the Obama administration.

The Republican opposition is pushing for oil prices to rise, and then assign blame of that to President Barack Obama, and so ravage his reelection bid.

It is a fact that as gas prices keep going up, consumers will turn against the government in power, Democrat or Republican, for its bad policies and the mishandling of the economy in general.

This time around, it is the turn of the Republican Party to initiate the political "dog fight" that comes about in an election year, to discredit the other party; and now, the Democratic Party is the one to find itself at the end of the stick.

To say that the big oil companies are manipulating the situation in the background will be an understatement, as they will only prefer to have the public (to) become dissatisfied with Obama, as they seem to be on the side of the opposition. The political contributions by the executives in the oil industry make that quite clear.

With the price of gas going up, the only beneficiaries are the oil producing companies, and the real losers will be those, who have to fill up the gas tank of their vehicles to take their children to school and/or go to and from work. Small businesses his will be running high expenditures too, based on the rising cost of oil.

Obama has to find a way to alleviate their burden, so that he may not lose their support, which he needs to carry him to victory in the 2012 presidential election; and also to bolster his efforts to grow the economy that his adversaries are so critical of.

He has been able to turn it (economy) around, but there are those, who will do anything in their power to undermine the hard work that he has been engaged in to make that turn around a permanent experience for the country.

Why? Because it will prove him right to have used stern measures to achieve his goal of getting the economy on the right track after a Republican administration. It will help his reelection bid.

Americans have to see the whole political atmosphere in that light, that he has diligently got the economy to revive, and that his policies will produce good results in the long run.

AMERICAN ENGLISH & PUERTO RICO.

It is ridiculous to say that Puerto Rico is ready for statehood, but to confuse the issue with the idea that the new state must be bi-lingual.

In every nation, language forms the background of the identity of its people. It is the basic need to differentiate one nation from another; and if any group of people have the desire to be part of any nation then they must have the obligation or to be ready to conform to the norms that exist in that nation.

What most people in Puerto Rico are confused about are two things, allegiance and cultural identity; and so, when it comes to choosing a language, if the Island becomes a state, they are disproportionately split between the English and Spanish languages.

The percentage for a statehood stands at about 80% to 20% in favor; however, when it comes to languages, the situation is reversed, making the majority of them to prefer Spanish to be their "official" medium of expression.

Yet, they fail to realise that the United States is an English speaking country, and therefore all citizens must be inclined to use it in dealing with the laws stemming from the U.S. Constitution, which is written in English.

If the Island wants to be part of the U.S. then the people must be willing to accept its language as being paramount.

That does not mean that they have to discard their heritage or cultural leanings, which have their roots in Spanish traditions. The Islanders must be proud to embrace those traditions, but they cannot own allegiance to them than the language of the nation that they wish to join.

In U.S. courts, one cannot interpret the laws in any other way, but in English; unless a translation is needed occasionally in any other language for clarifying situations involving cases that must be dealt with in that manner.

Otherwise, by using English and other languages simultaneously, they will cause so much confusion for judges; and not to mention the conundrum for lawyers and their clients in any such case.

So it is in the U.S. military, that all commissioned officers must be fluent in the English language, as a requirement. It is in their best interest for them to give orders and to be understood instantly. It also makes their work a little easy too.

Nobody is asking the Islanders to relinquish the Spanish language; and everybody agrees that it is their birthright to keep it; however, the English language must come first in all deliberations, if the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico becomes the 51st State of the U.S.

The governor there wants to have his cake and eat it too, but that will be a wrong approach for the Island to be any different in regards to the English language. He has even chosen a candidate for the Island, by backing Romney.

However, he is forgetting that the real reason for Romney to be on the Island is to get the votes he needs in the primary, which he hopes will lead to his clinching the Republican Party nomination, and so he (Romney) will do and say anything to tantalize the voters there.

The real truth is that the people must adopt the English language, in order to be able to call themselves as Americans; as it is the language that the founding fathers, and their ancestry after them, have been using, culminating in the U.S Constitution, for the purpose of uniting the nation.

Learning the English language will not happen overnight, but it must start with the desire of the people to vote in a referendum leading to statehood for the Island. They will succeed, by dint of hard work, and a change of attitude toward the American English.

That is the only way; and that will definitely conclude the Island being part of the U.S. in the future.

ROMNEY'S INTERVIEW ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY 1.

Why does not Mitt Romney trust Americans? Or, does he think that they, Americans, do not respect his right to privacy, and so he will do anything and everything to conceal his true identity from them.

His appearance on one of Sunday TV programs; and it is the one, which many think is the most popular, that happens to be the venue, where he is given the chance to tell viewers who he is and what he stands for, politically, socially and, of course, economically.

On the first and second categories, he chose to say nothing or answered the questions that were put to him, each in a sporadic manner or not in satisfactory detail; and he seemed confused at times.

In other words, he was not very clear with his responses on conservative principles; whereas on the third one, he condemned the other candidates, who were running in the Republican Party race with him as mediocre or low level economic candidates.

"They have spent their lives in Washington politics, and they have no experience, when it comes to a strong economic policy." he said. "I have spent my life in the corporate world, and so I have what it takes," he added. (Paraphrasing Romney).

He happened to be the "giant" economic strategists among his colleagues, and therefore the nomination was just some sort of a formality, as he would get it anyway.

"I intend to win; I intend to be the nominee," he said that repeatedly.

Apart from that, the segment was bland, lifeless to a point and uneventful, as he kept being as repetitive as he has been on the campaign trail and saying nothing to sway one opinion or another to specifically indicate where he stood on it or the other. He did the same on issue after issue.

He was almost caught flip-flopping on Education, when the interviewer, Bret Baier of Fox News Special Report, asked that his rival Nick Santorum was critical of his philosophy on a Bush law known as "No child left behind". "What is your response?" Baier asked.

"I support that program; and I have supported it from its inception; but what I am concerned about is how the program is being manipulated. Teachers' unions are using their power to undermine the authority of parents in the educational system, and that is what I disagree with, regarding the program" he answered among others things.

Baier, however, was not as aggressive as Chris Wallace, the usual Fox News Sunday talk show host, and he missed several opportunities to question Romney about Usama Bin Laden, and how President Barack Obama has commanded the operations of the Navy Seal Unit, "Seal Team 6", which was responsible for locating him, and his eventual demise in a compound in Pakistan near a military base.

Could the president's handling of the situation from the White House be described as impressive?

Or, the contribution of the president to the Libyan insurgency and the final ouster of Gadhafi by the United States and its NATO allies, in which there was not a single American military casualty. What was his (Romney's) comment on that?

Those were the type of questions that would have set Romney thinking.

Back at home, he was hitting on Obama's energy policy; and said that the price of gas was going up, showing that such a policy, if there was any, was almost non-existent.

"People, especially women, driving their children to school, and others going to and from work were feeling the pinch of gasoline prices; and that is unacceptable," he emphasized.

He, Romney, might have hinted or given the impression that he had an energy plan; and there too, he avoided elaborating on it.

Like his political party cohorts, such as Gingrich, who has been harping on gas prices, and would bring the price of unleaded gas down to $2.50 a gallon, he (Romney) would not suggest any such ideas, but he hardly mentioned or blamed any of the big oil companies, but "OBAMA".

He always brought the name Obama in to check his own presence of mind. One could not start to think on a television studio set; but that was what Romney was doing all the time, or so it seemed.

What he specifically failed to do, as he has refused in all his campaign speeches, was to be open about himself as a person. Many knew about his business connections, even more so than about his family; and how its members took patriotism, either seriously or as a matter of course. For none of his three sons has done any stretch of military service; and he himself has not boasted of any such experience. Incredible.

He had the chance to make known what he could do as president, instead of just being critical of Obama. On the whole, he did not go over as a person, who though leading in the delegation count in his party's nomination race, could be a viable and as knowledgeable a candidate as his campaign was portraying him to be.

To topple Obama, he needed more than his own personal fortune to back him up, or the PACs (Political Action Committees) that were supporting his candidacy and spending millions of dollars on media advertisement to push him to be the Republican Party nominee for the 2012 presidential election. He has to present himself as someone, who could really connect with people, both emotionally and physically.

He could be that person, but somehow, he did not appear to do so on the screen.

As such, his opponent, president Obama, if he Romney should win his party's nomination, would be farther away in the polls for him (Romney) to be any real threat to his (Obama's) presidency.

At the present moment the national poll figures stood at 50% to 44%, in favor of Obama; and that went to show that Romney has a lesser chance in November, if that trend continued. He would not be able to cause any kind of upset in the general election, as that could not occur in the slightest possible way, if he should trail behind that much.

To unseat the present occupant of the Oval Office would take a great deal of effort. However, no; not with his (Romney's) low key performance on the media yesterday; Sunday, March 18, 2021.

Perhaps, it was prudent of him to be cagey, as party echelon and establishment were looking in to make sure that he was not cocky or impatient to pour on his accomplishments as a Wall Street executive, and also flaunting his 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympics role.

They have heard him repeat that ever so often; and so has the whole country, and people were becoming immune to those statements.

He would have sounded too monotonous, and they (party chiefs) would have hated that; and so would potential voters and sympathizers, who have heard him tout those achievements too many times on every occasion the opportunity offered itself.

His rivals in the party's nomination race would change their statements from time to time, and why did he not do just that as well.

In a nutshell, Romney was not all that impressive; at least, not as far as many viewers were concerned. They visualized that a president, or even an aspiring one, should speak with much conviction; and he should resemble a president always, and not even just for most of the time.

That was not what they saw happening yesterday, Sunday, on Fox News channel.

OBAMA AND GAS PRICES.

As President Obama looks to the future, with respect to the versatility of energy types, namely, gas, solar, wind, renewable energy sources, including natural gas and even hydro electric, his opponents, especially those in the Republican Party nomination race, are concentrating on the present.

He uses the innovation of the telephone and the television, that people without foresight have made fun of them initially, but now their use have benefited the advancement of human progress.

So will future generations adhere to new energy sources, rather than depending solely on crude oil to run industries and transportation systems. What oil can do, other sources can do too.

That will cause high oil and therefore gas prices, that go simultaneously with each other, to go down for motorists of all kinds, such as mothers driving their children to school and those going to and from work.

The United States will become free from foreign oil producers in the Middle East and other such places, where prices can be jacked up overnight to disturb the budgets of individuals and companies, and also to have sudden, unexpected and unwanted impact on the economy.

At present, 40% of the U.S. economy depends on oil from other countries, while domestic production makes up for the rest; however, the consumption is always high for the 60% to catch up with that kind of enormous capacity.

In other words, no matter how much drilling takes place, in national parks and offshore platforms, oil production at home cannot match the use of oil by the American consumer.

In fact, the U.S. alone uses one third of the world's oil production; and as there cannot be "baby drill, baby drill" all over the country, the dependence of oil from overseas will continue.

That will always be to the disadvantage of America, because countries like China and India are exploring the world market for oil, and they will buy it at prices determined by the producing countries and organizations like OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), over which no body or any outside government has any control.

"You want the oil, you have to buy it at our price," the producers will say. Competition between buyer countries becomes stiff, and that will make matters even worse for the price to go nowhere else but up.

Speculators and oil profiteers will add their share to the price on the world market, and with that the ordinary motorist will be left to bear the brunt of the whole process.

In energy crisis like the one the U.S. is facing now, consumers tend to kneel on the government; however, what makes that inconceivable is that the oil companies are hardly mentioned in the media.

Though, everybody knows that they (oil companies) are playing a large role in all that is going on, but they hardly get mentioned; or are they ever asked to reduce prices at the pump? Hmm! One tends to wonder why?

Can it be that the media and the oil companies are hand-in-glove and working against the consumer? These are harrowing questions, but who is to answer them?

On the other hand, alternate energy sources will solve the problem of gas prices, as nothing else can do so.

Obama's opponents are using them (gas prices) to beat him on the head, when they even know that he is doing the right thing, by looking down into the future and telling consumers that there is a way out of the whole mess. They are only interested in making the blame to be on him. Yet, is that fair?

You be the judge.

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE & THE STATES.

Statehood must have its rules, and one of them should be that a state must conform to using the English language as its main official dialect.

There would be other languages that could be used to interpret the English language, but that would be as far as they could go; otherwise doing business or dealing with legal procedures would not only be difficult, but far too expensive to the detriment of the state.

I of all people digress to encourage former Senator Santorum to continue with his campaign strategy that, if Puerto Rico would become a part of the United States, as a state, then the English language must be adopted as a qualifying requisition or requirement.

It was like having to undertake or go through any kind of transaction in Mexico, one was liable to use the local language of that state, which should be Spanish. There would be no way that one could go around that, or it would create problems for one.

The U.S. has been an English speaking country for more that 200 years, and it should have made that language mandatory or even compulsory in all 50 states.

However, as the states were not totally dependent on federal law, in terms of using a particular language, it (English) has not been classified as "official" by the Federal government.

Yet, not most, but all the states conduct any type of business using the English language; the reason being that, though there were definite boundaries of each state, they were united as one single nation.

It would also be stupid for the states to make a choice of their own in languages; then what would be the use and meaning of the term "The United States"? In what manner would they (states) be united, if they were speaking or using different languages to port or import official deliberations? The confusion of such a situation would be phenomenal, and the cost of it would be too high, if not unreasonably staggering, for translation from one state to another.

The other candidates running in the Republican Party nomination race, like Romney, would want to make the issue a "hot potato", for political reasons; though they knew that the most sensible thing to do was to support the Island of Puerto Rico to embrace the English language, if it really wanted to be a U.S. entity.

For having a language that was contrary to the one used by all the other states would be unimaginable on several fronts. For example, would the governor there be speaking a different language at the Conference of U.S. governors? Or would he need a translator when visiting the other states?

The U.S. would be proud to have the Island joining the union, and so it must adapt its (union's) practices, and not the other way around. It could keep its culture to differentiate itself from other states, but the people there must realize that to be a true American, one must be able to speak and understand the English language.

For convenience sake, the people there could use their own native dialect, as in Hawaii, under or in social circumstances; but for them to be part of the U.S. they must learn to do what all the other states were doing; and that should be familiarizing themselves with or to formally making "English" their main language.

It (English language) symbolized unity for all Americans.

OBAMA & CAMERON.

Another historic meeting took place in Washington D.C. yesterday between two long term friendly nations, the United States and the United Kingdom, to further cement the relationship that the two countries have had over the years.

President Barack Obama welcoming the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, with the pragmatism and originality that the "old colonies" could present, in the form of having the Revolutionary Army receiving the Redcoats to the very venue that they had fought to annihilate each other some two hundred years ago.

It was not like the pomp and majesty that the president was accorded, when he visited the U.K last Summer; that if it has been the other way around, with Queen Elizabeth 2 , as the British Monarch and Head of State hosting Obama, the picturesque of the occasion would have been quite different.

Yet, the deliberations on the lawns of the White House were presentable and resplendent all the same, with American citizens, including American school children, mixing with the prime minister and his delegation, among whom were also British school children; all to mingle and to rub shoulders.

If that was not the top of civility and understanding that all countries should learn, then nothing could bring people of different nations together to achieve the peaceful coexistence and harmony that the whole world needed so much.

President Obama was impeccably dressed, and so was Prime Minister Cameron, giving credence to clothes manufacturers of America and the U.K. for having some of the best tailors on the globe.

The relationship between the two countries has done wonders for all nations, and if it was not for those strong ties that they had, the world would have gone to blazes via the Second World War.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill had displayed enormous cooperation in the war effort to eventually defeat Adolf Hitler, who was determined to send humanity into oblivion by arming Germany to the hilt and using that military might in attacking his neighbors in Europe.

However, that was history or water under the bridge, as both countries had helped the world to survive and never to surrender to brutal force of any kind that would assail the peace of present day world.

The two leaders discussed Iran and Afghanistan, among other difficult issues that the world was facing, and considered ways and means to reinforce and equip NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in readiness to redress many political grievances that threatened them and other nations, such as Libya, whose liberation averted a bloodbath, had the dictator, Gadhafi, had his way in that country.

Syria was enveloped in a similar situation now, and children and women were being slaughtered in broad daylight by Assad using ruthless brutality to subjugate his own people. Couldn't he be stopped, and if so, why not?

Of course, the situation there was not the same as in Libya, but it mimicked the carnage that would have taken place there, if it was not for NATO.

America and its allies declared a "No-fly-zone" over Libya, and eliminating tanks and armoured vehicles that were targeting civilians, they brought Gadhafi to his knees. Even though, Syria has chemical weapons that were dangerous to deal with, a sophisticated way must be found around that problem in order to save lives.

Iran being another subject that Obama and Cameron could not avoid discussing, that it (Iran) must never be permitted to own nuclear weapons, as that would start the proliferation of them all over the world; something that the United Nations was saddled with, and the U.S. and the U.K. were doing all they could to stop that from happening, both on the floor of the General Assembly and at meetings of the Security Council of the U.N.

There were also many latent matters that the U.S. and the U.K. were very much familiar with, and they all required the tenacity and dint of hard work to handle and be brought under control.

In other words, the meeting between Obama and Cameron was not a regular one, as it must figure out so many solutions, almost all at the same time, before anything catastrophic happened, such as during F.D.R.'s and Winston Churchill's time.

The two finally found a way to humiliate Hitler; and so should Obama and Cameron, to be able to device methods to counteract the problems of modern day world.

THE KILLING OF INNOCENT PEOPLE.

Trayvon Martin's death was nothing short of murder, by Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman in Orlando, Fla.

The same applied to a young African American that was shot by a police officer in the Bronx, NY., a few weeks ago.

In Afghanistan, a United States Army officer was berserk and went on a rampage, killing 16 Afghan citizens, and the reason for that was still unknown.

In all three cases the victims were unarmed, and therefore did not pose any danger to the person or persons, who murdered them.

What ran common in all three cases was that an American killed innocent persons or people, just because those that were murdered and the perpetrators happened to belong to different races.

In the case of the Afghan killings, there was no race or racial difference, because in social science there were only two races in the world, Negroid and Caucasoid, which branched into the crossbreeding humanoid species of the present. They mated and produced children.

Yet, all the incidents boiled down to the mental state or mind set of many Americans that there was a superiority in the races, or one race had some kind of natural or progressive enhancement over the other race. That one race has advanced in civilization than the other, and that made it superior

Many people in the United States, Europe and other places went about carrying that burden of ignorance, due to their upbringing and social background; and so they would look on anyone, who was of another race as inferior or even an enemy, and from that state of mind, they would attack him or her out of sheer, virtual impulse.

They usually come out of a situation not knowing why they committed that kind of a crime with total impunity. They could not vividly tell themselves why they should not have done it. However, the truth was that their character stemmed from the basic impressions that they have received mostly from parents and social or institutional circles, that their race was superior.

One has often heard from other people that basic education should change. What they were really saying was that children, at the earliest age, must be taught that all human beings were alike, and that a pigmentation was not a choice by any individual; it was naturally assigned to a person by parentage.

Imparting such knowledge would change the character of people and the characteristic, behavioral stature of the world, which has a variety of colors and shapes for the myriad of species. It would be realized that a flower was a flower was a flower; no matter whether if was a rose or a hibiscus,it was still a flower, but by its own kind.

They (children) should be told that all humans lived in the same house, the planet earth; and that one must respect the rights of other persons to live in the way they saw fit; so that they themselves would be able to do the same, without rancor or animosity between "Us" and "Them".

In other words, infringing on those rights, or the reversal of them, would cause one person to pick up a weapon, a gun or a knife, to kill or murder someone else, only because the other person looked different.

If society was going to change, it should start from infancy, through education. A good example were the two English princes, William and Harry, who would mix socially and rub shoulders with all kinds of people, just to prove that, though they were royalty, they were the same as anyone else; and more so, irrespective of the color of their skin.

A preacher once put it this way, "...one must be judged by the content of one's character, and not by the color of one's skin."

John Wayne had that character of racial differentiation. He always referred to non-Americans as "foreigners", when they came to the U.S. Then he happened to be visiting an Arab country, probably Saudi Arabia, and there too, he called them foreigners. They turned around and said to him, "No. You are the foreigner," He (Wayne) had made a horrible mistake, owing to the education he has had as a youngster a very long time ago in his life. His superiority has turned inferior overnight.

Zimmerman, and many Americans like him, were of the opinion that they were superior; but they were not. They have only had the wrong education or upbringing. Parents were responsible in molding character, and therefore they should know how to inculcate civility in their children, with regard to racial differences; and they (children) would grow up to be better people.

Those three people, Zimmerman, the New York police officer and the Afghan gunman, grew up thinking that they were better human beings, because of their body color; but they were not. They should relearn that a person is a person is a person, no matter what.

THE PRICE OF GAS & THE PRESIDENT.

As the the Obama administration is trying to wean Americans from crude oil and petroleum use, which in itself is an extraordinary, difficult undertaking, gas prices keep going up, not because there is the need by consumers to fill their tanks, but that they are rather staying away from gas stations as much as possible.

They are driving lesser than usual or that they are using public transportation to go to and fro.

If so then why are those going to work and plying their businesses, but who require to buy gas are paying so much?

Could it be that the refineries around the country are producing less gas, as consumption is hitting its lowest point, therefore the only way to make up for the difference in revenue is for the oil companies to raise prices?

If people are driving less or using alternate energy sources, such as natural gas and electric charged batteries, to run their automobiles, then it means that they are moving away from petrol chemical products, and thus making President Barack Obama's vision of America becoming independent and free from foreign oil, which forms 40% of America's home use, a reality.

Foreign producers, like Iran, and organizations, such as OPEC, are constantly manipulating the output of their productions; thus creating an artificial scarcity on the world market, for the cost of crude oil to go up. The fear is that it will continue to go up in spite of what people say.

In other words, the oil companies and oil producers will be making their money and accumulating their profits anyhow. They will be saying that, forget about the motorist, not just in America, but in China, India and other places, because they will need to use gasoline, no matter how high the price of a gallon goes.

For many years, gasoline is known to be the only source of energy for automobiles and manufacturing industries; and people have become accustomed, to the point of being addicted to it.

However, to save the money to purchase foreign oil will benefit, not just the average user of the automobile, but also the American dollar from becoming extinct, which is the very basis of the economy.

If there is no money being dispersed into the home economy, because foreign entities are hoarding it, the United States government, no matter which one, will be forced to print more currency.

Yet, the oil producers and their suppliers will be financially alright by raising prices; and guess who will be left to bear the brunt of them (prices)?

Yes, the average user, who is now blaming the government for not doing anything or much about gas prices, instead of those, who are making their profits, irrespective of what is going on.

The only way to beat them is to cut the use of oil, and better still, turn to using other alternate sources (as the Obama administration is telling people to do).

Eventually they will go broke, but who cares. The country will be free, especially, from the Saudis and the Iranians, who do not wish America well, except to hoard its dollars to make its people and economy suffer.

That, my friend, is what is going on; and if it does not stop, the country's fingers will always be in the mouths of foreign oil magnates and their cohorts on Wall Street; and who will dare hit them on the head? (Proverbially speaking).

Nobody can; because the fingers of Americans are stuck in their mouths, from the use of too much ordinary gasoline. Other sources must be checked out, to get those insufferable oil producers out of the crossed hairs of the common people, who toil night and day, just to feed their families.

The headline in the media, "Obama: 'As Gas Prices Go Up, People Feel I'm Not Doing Enough' is therefore complete balderdash, because the president has no control over the price of gasoline; and so, he must stop blaming himself.

The oil companies are in control of gas prices.

THE UNITED STATES & AFGHANISTAN.

Afghanistan was where Osama Bin Laden plotted his September 11th 2001 attacks on the United States; and it has also been a hot spot, because the Taliban would want to redeem it after the group was defeated by the Bush administration, and forced it to withdraw from making that country its main base.

President Barack Obama has plans to end U.S. combat operations there and would hand complete autonomy to Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, before the end of 2014, which many Americans favored.

Lately, relations there have become strident, because to the burning of the Quran at a U.S. base, and that has caused the death of two military advisers and four officers. Those killings happened as a retribution for the incident, which president Obama described as "inadvertent", and later on apologized for its occurrence.

The Afghan military officers, who have turned their guns on the U.S. servicemen and their advisers, have not been identified and arrested, and therefore tensions would remain high between the Americans and the Afghans; which might have provoked one officer to kill several Afghan civilians, among whom were children.

It must be realized that, because of the turbulent nature of that region, the two countries, the U.S. and Afghanistan, must continue to share a common interest, and that was to maintain peace.

There was also the side of the equation that was equally important, and that was to free that country from terrorists activities, and to keep Afghanistan out of the hands of the Taliban, who were constantly staging a "come back" of some sorts.

Also that the Afghan military and security forces have to be trained to protect the country's boundaries and be able to defend their own national sovereignty, and that was a formidable task for the U.S.

However, that was necessary, if there would ever be a strong government in Afghanistan to sustain the level of political advancement and retain the military advisement that would ensure the country's true independence. Democracy has been established there, and it was up to the people themselves to nourish and cherish it.

Many people referred to that as "nation building" on the part of the U.S.; and they were even saying that its (U.S.) presence in Afghanistan was unnecessary, due to the cost, in terms of money and the loss of American lives.

They refuse to think back about 9/11, and the idea that, if the Taliban was allowed to return, so much would have been wasted, and the assurance that there would not be any more attacks by terrorists could not be substantiated in any physical or possible way.

Of course, the burden to help the Karzai government to survive was costly; yet, the stakes to leave that government to its own fate would only go against the U.S. own national security; as that country could be overrun by Iran or Pakistan or any other entity, and the dangers there would then increase and could become far more worse than now.

"Sixty percent of Americans say the war in Afghanistan has not been not worth fighting and just 30 percent believe the Afghan public supports the U.S. mission there — marking the sour state of attitudes on the war even before the shooting rampage allegedly by a U.S. soldier this weekend."

That was what an article in today's ABC News (03/12/12) was indicating; but if the U.S. left without preparing that country for its future, that would create more problems, which would not sit well with the same number of people that were advocating for a withdrawal by U.S. forces.

In other words, a pullout would demonstrate the fickle mindedness that it (U.S) had, that its forces could not remain in a war for any considerable length of time; the soldiers would pack up and go home, when the situation became difficult.

However, that could not be true, as U.S. was still in Europe, after the Second World War; and it was doing the same, with respect to Korea and Japan.

What would therefore be required of the U.S. would be to have patience, and at the same time, assure the Afghans that the two countries would always act in concert toward a common goal; and that any type of animosity should stop forthwith.

That would be the responsibility of both leaders, Obama and Karzai, to engage in a serious dialogue, in which the mutual benefits, to safeguard peace and security, were paramount.

PRESIDENT OBAMA OR ROMNEY?

Mitt Romney, the Republican Party front runner in the party's nomination race tends to give the impression that he can solve the nation's economic woes better than any of his challengers in that race. However, is he not being overzealous, as there is no proof that he can?

He even jumps the party hurdle to attack President Barack Obama, not on his foreign policy, or his health care law or his ability to bring people like Usama Bin Laden to justice; but his (Romney's) sole target has been the president's effort to handle the economy.

In an election year, any number of promises can be made by candidates, to have a better plan to deal with important issues, such as the economy proper and high unemployment; yet, when it come to the crunch of it, they have nothing realistic to show for their assertions.

That is the Romney methodology, to use incessant statements to cloud the political atmosphere in such a way that no one can actually see through the smoke that he is creating.

His latest objective is the Obama campaign strategy to enumerate the presidents achievements and accomplishments during the past three years, with so much to do to pull the country out of an economic morass, since the great depression of the 1930s.

It is true that the situation he has inherited happens to be dire, but he has to wait until he is in the Oval Office to see the actual extent of it; and when he is able to do so, he gives it his all to improve conditions as fast as possible, fully knowing that will not occur overnight, but it will take some time.

At the start of his fourth year, his plans are beginning to bear fruit, as he has the economy in recovery and the jobless rate under control; and even the mainstream media have a sense of that.

Then comes Mitt Romney to pull the wool over peoples' eyes and calls the president's campaign montage strategy, which is in a documentary form, another name.

"Obama's team is "calling it a documentary. I don't think so. It's an infomercial," Romney told a crowd in Jackson, Mississippi. He then goes on to say, "I have some suggestions for the president and for the (film's) producer. ... Talk to the 24 million Americans who are out of work or underemployed in this country." (CNN, 03/10/12).

Where exactly does he get these figures from? He conjures them up in his mind and then throws them out, hoping that they will catch on. However that is completely wrong, and so worrisome.

He Romney is in the campaign and running for the presidency of the United States, and therefore he must learn to tell his audiences the truth, first about himself, and especially about how he acquires his wealth.

Dishing misinformation to party followers may be alright in his mind, but it is dishonest on the part of any candidate aspiring for the highest office in the land to do so.

He says he specializes in job creation and that he has plans "to put the economy back on track,"; but as a matter of fact he is not revealing these plans to anyone. All he does is to talk about them; and if he is not the simpleton as many people think he is, he will give them a chance to see what they (plans) are before they decide to vote for him.

He will then be considered a serious alternative to Obama, who is attempting to put the economy right and effectively succeeding; and so it will be irrational to replace him at any time soon.

Romney cannot even debate Obamacare on the campaign trail, as stated above. Why? Because the common belief is that it is based on Romneycare, a health care law that he has initiated as governor of the State of Massachusetts.

His rival in the Republican race, Santorum, is holding that against him, and saying that Romneycare is just as mandatory as Obamacare; and that he, Romney, must not run away from that charge. He has a lot of explaining to do about that conundrum.

He has even leveled another accusation at Romney that he cannot be trusted, because he is not truthful with the American people. He adds by saying that, "Gov. Romney reinvents himself for whatever the political occasion calls for." (Huff Post, 02/10/12).

Romney is harping on fixing the economy, just because he has nothing substantial to tell the American people. Or perhaps he thinks that he is a Wall Street magnate, and therefore anything he says will be believed; but will that work? That is a question only he alone can answer.

The other question for the country is, will the voters choose the person, who is doing the job right; or one, who is just making promises to do it right? Obama or Romney?

THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE.

The Republican Party is using the Keystone XL pipeline as its trump card in the 2012 presidential election campaign; and whether that will work will be for voters to decide.

That the pipeline that will start from Canada and end up on the gulf coast of Texas is the greatest idea of the century; they are telling the country; and if President Barack Obama refuses to have it built, then he is starving the American public of thousands of jobs, which the project will create, and also a much needed commodity, as crude oil is, at a time when gas prices are shooting through the roof.

However, the Republicans are thinking that people will not know that oil is traded on the international market, and that its price going up will not be any one person's fault, even if that person is the president of the United States.

Besides, oil and therefore gas prices are going up, because production has been cut by Iran as a reprisal to stern sanctions by the U.S. and its allies at the United Nations to get that country to eschew its nuclear bomb making ambition.

What the Obama administration requires to do is to make sure that there is enough oil in the country, and that is being done by allowing private drilling and production within the U.S. to go up, to counter the dependence on foreign oil supplies.

An Organization like OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) can reduce production to cause the price of crude oil to increase. Member countries fix the price, and speculators on Wall Street come in to add their pernicious profits, plus surtaxes that have to be paid by motorists and manufacturing plant managers; the result is that they all (production, surtaxes and profits) build up to high crude oil prices; and particularly, gas prices at the pump.

If the U.S. is ever going to be free from paying enormous amounts of money for foreign oil, it has to cut consumption; however, weaning it (U.S.) from that (consumption) is the problem. People will drive a few miles to buy milk and/or bread, instead of walking to the grocery store; or for them to use public transportation from time to time, rather than using the family car to go to and fro.

Now, the Republicans are using the project as a political tool to undermine the Obama administration's effort to get people to switch to other renewable energy sources, such as natural gas, solar and wind power, to replace the use of oil as the main energy source.

They are saying that the Canadian pipeline is a job creator; and they have even been able to convince some trade unions to agree with them; yet, the government will not cave in, as there are serious environmental issues to address before the construction of the Keystone project will be possible.

Just yesterday, the U.S. Senate has to throw out a Republican sponsored measure aimed to bypass the Obama administration officials objection to the Keystone XL pipeline's construction.

The purpose of the bill is basically to beguile the public to think that high gas prices are being caused by Obama's refusal to get the project started. When in fact, if construction is allowed to commence today, it will not have the slightest effect on gas prices. It will take at least five years before a drop of oil comes out of the pipeline.

The contrast here is that the construction of the pipeline is only a straw that the Republicans are clinging to, to prove their point that Obama is responsible for high gas prices; meaning that in an election year, they will extract some amount of political gain from a controversy that is so close to the hearts of the American people.

However, the real truth is that the president is interested in encouraging people to use less oil products, such as petroleum gas, to curtail the nation's dependence on a commodity, whose source is sometimes not friendly at all; the Middle East, where Iran is on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon, and it (Iran) must be stopped by all means.

It is for that reason that Obama has clamped that nation under severe sanctions to restrain it (Iran) from achieving its desired goal. In his State of the Union address recently the idea of making America less dependent on foreign oil happened to be paramount on his mind.

He has since opened areas that can be drilled for home based oil production; yet, the superlative idea that oil must be the only source of energy in America, as the Republicans are using as propaganda, is wrong.

He has all along impressed upon the minds of Americans that energy sources must be versatile. That natural gas, which is plentiful in the land, can also be used to run automobiles and industries of all kinds; and in addition to that, wind power can also be tapped. Electric cars that use electricity derived from charging a device in those cars, can keep them going for miles. All that must be available.

All that is done to save money for Americans, and to reduce the importation of oil from overseas, and especially from volatile regions.

The opponents to the Republican sponsored bill say that, "the pipeline may leak, and that it will lock the United States into a particularly dirty form of crude that might ultimately end up being exported anyway." (CNN, 03/09/12).

That will even make matters more disastrous; with the environment permanently damaged, and the health of citizens being placed in danger. The expense of that will be far too high; and therefore the pipeline must be scrapped for now, until further research is done to make it safe.

Furthermore, the Republicans must stop using the Keystone XL pipeline for political gains. It will fail them, and the country at large.

THE UNITED STATES & GHANA.

President Barack Obama is planning to meet with his counterpart from Ghana, President John Evans Atta Mills, at the Oval Office today, the significance of it will not just be two men reuniting and reminiscing over their friendship from the Obamas visit to Ghana in 2009.

It will be more than that, as Ghana being the first African country to declare independence from Britain in 1957, has a vital role to play in the affairs of the continent, whose natural resources have been the bedrock and mainstay of modern civilization; yet, it has been neglected in so many aspects, such as in formal education, basic health concerns and inadequate housing for its people.

To this day, Africa has been known as the dark continent, not just for the brand of its negroid population, but that true advancements, into using its richness in cultures and traditions, have been slow in coming to be recognized by the outside world, as they were demurely looked upon as antiquated and remote.

Its (Africa's) importance has been reduced to being pieces of tourists attractions, here and there, with castles along the West African coast receiving thousands of visitors each year, for them to elicit a little bit of history, particularly, where slavery to the Americas has originated, was concerned.

Of course, if it has not been for Africa, there would not have been America as we knew it today. Its labor force grew the economy out of a complete wilderness, from cotton and sugar cane plantations, with such products being sold in Europe to build nations in the New World, including the United States.

Yet, Africa itself has been lagging in almost every sphere of achievement, in terms of having good and clean water for drinking and the kind of healthcare and scientific research that could eliminate Malaria, a disease that has decimated millions of its population, especially, children and the elderly. Next to that was Leprosy, and other serious ailments, which should be in the past. They should all be dealt with, to bring up the life expectancy rate, which was very low in many parts of Africa.

In a nutshell, Africa has too many problems, enough to cover its surface area of thousands of square miles, from South Africa to Ethiopia, and from Kenya to Senegal; where agricultural lands could be used to grow food in abundance for the hungry and the poor, instead of shipping milk powder and cornmeal from overseas to fight starvation there.

The two leaders would be discussing all kinds of topics, and reaching decisions to be fodder for the media; but they (decisions) must not be just on paper, like the form of a formal statement coming out of the White House at the end of every such diplomatic meeting. They must be practical and could be put into actual deed on the ground for others to see their outcome, as benefiting the people, not just in Ghana, but in the whole of that continent.

In other words, playing host to each other should be secondary. Tackling real problems should be their main objective, to assist the economic and political growth on the continent. The world must not leave Africa behind, as it was part and parcel of its (world's) well being and development.

Strengthening ties between the two countries would be more than essential, but bringing Africa to the U.S. to gain support for its myriad of issues and finding solutions to them would be far more important.

The people of the U.S. would wish both leaders well in all their deliberations.

IRAN'S RELUCTANCE.

Amid the hoopla of the Republican Party nomination race, one cannot, but concentrate on the issue of Iran wanting to obtain a nuclear weapon.

The idea is scary, not just for Israel, but rather for the whole world; as such a situation will call for Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other countries to arm themselves for eventual self defence.

That will be the start of an unstoppable nuclear proliferation, which has been the topic at the United Nations for a number of years; that the spread of "nukes" will put the world on the path of destruction instead of peace.

Forget about the prosperity that all nations seek simultaneously with peace.

Just as it is now, the ordinary news of Iran being close to having a nuclear weapon makes people nervous; an outbreak of nuclear weapons in the most volatile region of the world sends chills down the spine of every individual on earth.

Iran, and therefore the adjoining countries have or will want to possess "the bomb"? That will be unbearable.

At best, it makes for nations to be jittery, as it will be bad for the world economy, and render the Middle East hapless; but at worse, it can end life as we all know it.

As it was seen on Monday, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were on the same page, with respect to stopping Iran from using its nuclear program for making bombs; and that a military option, on their part, was still on the table.

Yet, the headline "Military at odds with GOP on Iran policy" makes a bit of any bad news worse; and that is to say that some politicians do not trust the resolve of the Obama administration to use force with Iran.

There have been differences of opinion, back and forth, between Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey on one side, and some Republican Party leaders on the other.

"In recent weeks, he and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey made several Iran-related comments that irritated Israel, prompted an unusual public rebuke from Republican senators and became campaign trail fodder for Republican presidential candidates."
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73698.html#ixzz1oQpDlNO0).

Needless to say that Israel is in dire straits, and its defence is paramount to President Obama; however, the timing is not right for bombs to be rained on Iran, as some Republican Senators are urging him to do.

Still talking about the forceful rhetoric going on between the two sides, the article goes on to say,

"There’s no indication that any of the remarks by Pentagon officials contradicted the advice the U.S. had been giving to Israel privately. However, they diverged from the public stance at that time of President Barack Obama, who insisted that the U.S. and Israel are “in lock step” on Iran." (Politico.com, 03/07/12).

Therefore, why the rush?

As everybody knows, severe sanctions have been applied on Iran, and its economy is in distress, showing that it is only the timing, which is being considered by the two sides, that makes the difference. Nevertheless, the stern sanctions now on Iran must be allowed to work.

With that will be diplomatic channels still open for serious talks for the reluctant Iranian leaders to come to their senses before any drastic step is taken.

Other nations, such as Germany, Canada, etc., are putting pressure on Iran; yet, however skeptical they are, there is the slight chance that Iran will listen to them. Also, there is the hope that, somehow, the people of Iran will take matters into their own hands and correct the disastrous path their country is taking.

It is true that "time is of the essence"; but it is also true that circumstances can force Iran to change course and save the world from a crisis that it (world) does not need at this time.

It is all a matter of time.

IRAN MUST TAKE HEED.

Iran must think twice, as the United States and Israel made tough statements yesterday and and on Sunday, showing that the two nations stood together in making sure that the Islamic State did not acquire nuclear weapons, now or ever.


The taking out of Iran's nuclear facilities would be very easy; yet, the rational that the U.S. or Israel should go slow on making that decision should not be deemed as a sign of weakness. The act was easy; but the thought was difficult, as the repercussions would affect the whole world's economy, in particular, and its cooperation to resolve issues of the kind that currently involved Iran, in general.


It was not just the U.S. and Israel that were ready to talk some sense into the Iranian leaders; the United Nations Organization was playing a vital role in the discussions behind the scenes, asking them to use their gumption, in response to the situation. Meaning that the problem at hand was global, at least, if not universal.


Iran being part of the Organization should "lend a helping hand" in bringing that problem to a close. It (Iran) should not be the bastard case that it was leading its neighbors to believe. It must be part of the whole, or go its way alone and face the consequences that would follow.


President Barack Obama has been put on the spot for him to declare that Iran would never become a nuclear bomb manufacturing nation on his watch, and if it took military action to get it (Iran) to change course, he would use it. ".... I say all options are on the table, I mean it," he has reiterated in his most recent public speech.


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has also made similar remarks, such as, "I will never let my people live in the shadow of annihilation." showing that he was more than willing to take whatever action to protect the State of Israel from any harm, bar none.


As in one accord, they were saying that, if Iran should have a nuclear program, it should be aimed at using it for peaceful purposes, and not for war; or to use it to threaten and endanger the lives of its neighbors.


Both leaders have, and continued to approach the issue with the seriousness it deserved. It would be best for Iran to assume the same mode of conduct; as its own people mattered too, to be considered in their national affairs. To be devoid of the peace of mind and economic stability they sought after, just because the leadership there wished to have a nuclear bomb. Surely, that was not what the people in Iran wanted. Did their country need a nuclear bomb? The answer should be a resounding "NO".


Just as they did not want to live in fear, so did other nations, especially, Iran's neighbor, Israel. Therefore, no matter how the political atmosphere looked like in Iran, its people themselves should come out in droves to show their public outcry against the actions of their government, so as to prevent an event that could destroy them; an attack on their country to stop it from making a bomb would be nothing less than devastating.


In this day and age, what affected one nation affected many nations, if not the whole world; and it would be insane on the part of Iran to engulf their neighbors and the world in a nuclear confrontation. Iran itself could not afford it; and so could not the rest of the world.


The thought coming out from between Obama and Netanyahu at their meeting in the White House yesterday was one and united; and it was as clear as the sound of a bell; and it was now for Iran to listen and hear it.


It was for Iran to take the kernel of common sense in it, and acted in accordance with that thought.


In other words, Iran must take heed.


It was the hope that it (Iran) would do so; and there would be peace on earth for all concerned.

OBAMA AND NETANYAHU.

Iran arming itself with a nuclear weapon is unacceptable to many nations, as the numerous United Nations resolutions indicate, which have always had a majority members voting "against" Iran in the Security Council.

In other words, the issue has become an anathema not just for Israel, but for all peaceful nations, as the risk of an all out atomic conflagration will increase. Such a war will be a possibility and not a probability any longer, and it will involve every single nation on earth.

It is a risk that the world cannot take; however, there is also the danger of another country, like the United States or Israel, staging a preemptive attack on Iran and realizing that it (Iran) has the intention of producing a nuclear weapon, but it has not firmly decided as to do so as yet.

President Barack Obama has expressed his resolve to be on the side of Israel, if it is confronted with any type of aggression by Iran, as such threats have been rampant in recent months. He has also reiterated on several occasion that he will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

The U.S. is spearheading an additional sanctions on Iran to force it to give up its ambition to obtain "the bomb", and while such sanctions are having an effect on Iran's economy, there is no evidence that it is slowing down on its uranium melting program that can lead to making the inevitable (i.e. a bomb) a reality.

The setting now is one of a quandary, where the U.S. is not in agreement in making a decision to stop Iran by the use of force, whereas Israel considers that step as the best way to handle the matter. It will therefore be advisable for it (Israel) to relent a little bit for sanctions to further work as planned.

Diplomacy and lines of communications must still be open for negotiations to continue, with Iran allowing inspections by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), to verify that no nuclear program by that country is in progress, and that the nuclear technology that it is trying to achieve is for peaceful purposes; namely, medicinal and for electricity.

The meeting between President Obama and Benjamin Natenyahu, prime mister of Israel, this week is a crucial one. It must be held in a cordial fashion, in which neither is exerting any kind of coercion on the other; and understanding of each other's position is the key for a cooperative outcome to emerge.

After all, the U.S. and Israel are partners, having to face a common problem; and so, instead of bickerings or arguments, they must take the opportunity to address one another with respect and trust, as those two qualities are essential in extremely sensitive talks of this nature.

They must think together and be able to plan together, instead of having two different objectives on the table, with either side wanting and even forcing the other to acquiesce.

Both leaders are very smart, and they can have a dialogue that will bring the best out of them, to be able to embark upon a decision that will satisfy both themselves, one which will be beneficial to their respective countries and to the world.

Iran is behaving as Germany in the 1930s, but it must remember that Hitler's preparation has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. He will have thought twice before declaring war on his neighbors.

Iran must realize that the next world war is bound to be different; and it will be one without a winner. It will not be conventional; it will be nuclear, in which the end of the world will be clearly spelled. (Forgive the pun). There will be no U.S., no Israel, and in fact, no Iran in the end; if there is going to be an end at all.

AN AWE INSPIRING INTERVIEW.

Kirk Cameron's interview with Piers Morgan on homosexuality makes an interesting episode in television viewing, in that the younger man, Cameron, will come out as being far more knowledgeable than the older person, Piers Morgan.

Nobody would know whether Morgan was a homosexual, (and I am writing in the past tense; forgive me), but he took a stance and portrayed himself as being one, and then challenged Cameron to critique him personally.

He, Morgan, has made a big mistake in doing so, for the answers that came from Cameron were so poignant and straight forward, they made Morgan to look more like a child asking for advice to evaluate his conduct as a "thief", whether that trait was good or bad.

He looked Morgan straight in the eye and said that there were all sorts of issues that came into play for saying that "You are gay," and that "You yourself are using a standard of morality for yourself; and another man would be using another set of morality," to justify his behavior. That would be chaotic.

That would only mean one thing for individuals to make their own moral laws, and if so, that would spell complete chaos for society as a whole. In fact, forming a society based on that premise would be impossible.

Cameron had previously defined marriage as a relationship made by God, and to him redefining it in any other way would be atrocious. In a sense, it was the only relationship, between a man and a woman that has a purpose, and that was to create a family.

Even, after that, Morgan was saying that seven states in the United States have legalized "homosexual marriage", and Cameron pointed out to him that being a Christian, the states could do whatever they liked, it did not affect his moral standards.

Whether that was immoral or not, look at where it would end up; the end of humanity as we all knew it, if homosexuality should be the plan on which to build a society.

There would be no children born, and society, and therefore humanity would die out. The earth would not be empty, because animals, which did not have any rules, but only their natural, mental preoccupation, would be the only things here on earth. Mankind would therefore be out.

Cameron has taught the limey some good and serious lessons that he would never forget.

BOLTON ON "OBAMA APOLOGY".

The reason why the United States Senate did not approve John Bolton's appointment as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations has been very clear after the end of the Bush administration.

He has been given a platform by some of the media to show his "hawkish" side on every issue, from Israel and Iran to the Libyan uprising, always being on the side of aggression.

In Libya he wanted the Gadhafi compound to be bombed instantly to end the regime quicker than how or what the U.S. and NATO forces were planning to achieve to remove the dictator.

The slowness of the Obama administration to rain bombs on Gadhafi and his supporters was a sign of weakness. Yet, events have shown that he (Bolton) was wrong, as Gadhafi eventually fell at the hands of his own people.

With Iran, he would have bombed the nuclear facilities there, in the blink of an eye, if he had the power; and there too Obama was weakening the U.S. resolve and determination to stop that country from producing nuclear weapons.

He has been advocating for war to solve almost every issue, and a person like that could only be placed in the category of Adolf Hitler, who propelled war against all nations in Europe and lost.

Bolton's newest target has been Afghanistan, where there have been religious demonstrations across that country for the burning of the Quran by members of the U.S/NATO forces.

As a result, six U.S. military personnel have lost their lives, even after President Barack Obama and his Afghan counterpart, President Hamid Karzai, have discussed the situation over the telephone and through some other means.

His argument was that Obama's apology was "not accepted", and that the gesture has been a reinforcement for the Taliban; but how would he know that, nobody could tell.

The demonstrations were of a religious nature, and therefore they went beyond just one faction of the Afghan society; and although, the Taliban would take advantage and elicit support from the act of a few soldiers, who might have thought that burning the Quran was just a joke; but that was not the point.

The outcome has been devastating, with the death of two military advisers and four officers, and it was hard to tell if that was the end. So, any statement from politicians and people like Bolton, should be made with some sense of condemnation of the Quran burning, to cool tempers.

Bolton has joined the Republican Party candidates running for president, Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, to berate Obama that an apology was not necessary. "That would embolden the enemy," they all had said.

However, many Americans have concluded that the action of the soldiers was foolish, and that they have contributed to the deaths of their colleagues as a result.

The Afghans were demanding that the actual soldiers should be punished; yet, in light of six army personnel losing their lives over the incident, any such demand would only prolong the matter even farther.

If Obama's apology, which to many was in line, but was not acceptable by the demonstrators, then Bolton and others should add theirs to it to see how far they could go to stop the outrage that the Afghans felt.

To make inflammatory remarks, as Bolton and his kind were making, would only aggravate more people.