T-shirts symbolizing a culture of hate, of inhumanity.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Ominous Cloud Beyond the Border
I was watching MSNBC this afternoon and one of the guests on the show said something quite interesting. The looming threat in the United States is not "radical Islam" (ugh that word makes me want to hurl). He said that in 10 years, the American public will not be concerned if the Sunnis or Shiites are in power in Iran (or any version of that). Rather, the threat exists just south of the border. Mexico.
In one of my classes, a couple of students remarked that Mexico is a nation that the American public is oblivious about. A threat that the American public is blind to. I found this rather interesting because
1) the statement that was made on MSNBC actually made a LOT of sense. The problem in the Middle East- whether its the Sunni-Shiite struggle in the Islamic Republic of Iran, or Hamas, or I'll go as far as to say the ruling party in Iraq, is simply NOT going to matter to John or Jane Smith from across the street. I keep saying this and I will say it again: the U.S. has to put their domestic issues as a priority. So all the hulabaloo about democratizing the East, the U.S. involving itself in Middle East affairs for the "reform of the country" - give it a rest. Americans don't care.
2) Just below the border, Mexico is a main source for many illegal drugs entering the United States, including as much as 90 per cent of the cocaine consumed in the States.
This is a hot button topic among conservative think tanks, I don't know how serious the Obama administration feels about it. However, if this indeed is the case, then, well, yikes.
"In its first version of the annual US survey of global counternarcotics efforts, the Obama State Department painted a grim picture of the situation in Mexico, where government attempts to fight traffickers are hindered by rampant corruption and have ignited a war between authorities and drug cartels that killed more than 6,000 people last year and more than 1,000 so far in 2009."-Sydney Morning Herald Feb. 28, 2009
***UPDATE***
I was quite surprised to hear Obama mention Mexico (quite distinctly and directly) during his National Press Conference Tuesday evening. One, because I blogged about it randomly and, well, I just felt like Lady Cleo with my crystal ball. Secondly, proves the point that MSNBC correspondent mentioned. So as far as Mexico's situation, Here's what "Obs" is doing: has already met with the President of Mexico Felipe Calderon , he is doubling the task force, sent $700 mil to help Mexicans, triple department intelligence analysts there and double criminal alien teams supporting Mexican law enforcement agencies.
"Can't touch this!"
If you think Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir gives a hoot, he doesn't. You can't tell him anything. How did I derive at such a revolutionary thought? Well, within the past week the President will have made two international trips - Eritrea and an upcoming trip to Egypt - despite ICC arrests made several weeks ago. He was also scheduled to attend the Arab Summit in Doha (But was advised against it later by Islamic scholars in Sudan). Watch out, world!
Technically, when ICC issues an indictment on a leader, he is to be arrested as soon as he enters internatoinal airspace. And that's what ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has called for. But neither Eritrea nor Qatar are among the 108 signatories to the Rome treaty which established the ICC and are under no obligation to arrest Bashir. So, try a little harder Ocampo.
Technically, when ICC issues an indictment on a leader, he is to be arrested as soon as he enters internatoinal airspace. And that's what ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has called for. But neither Eritrea nor Qatar are among the 108 signatories to the Rome treaty which established the ICC and are under no obligation to arrest Bashir. So, try a little harder Ocampo.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Sudan's United Polio Eradication
The cynic in me is having a moment to recede. Today marks the second round of National Immunization Days against polio in Sudan, as the country intensifies efforts to tackle the virus.
According to a UNICEF press release this morning:
"Around 9 million children in every state of the country are being targeted in this latest initiative, which commences on Monday in the northern states and one day later in Southern Sudan."
Now I am fully aware that Sudan has not exactly been on the rose colored path for some time, however I have to say that I was (relatively) pleased to know that this initaive is being coordinated by the Government of the National Unity and the Government of the South. Together. Yay.
Eighteen of the 26 States of this vast African country now have confirmed cases of polio since the beginning of the outbreak in May 2004. A three-year period of polio-free status -- from 2001 to 2004 -- led authorities and health agencies to focus limited global resources on other countries. However, with the most recent case on February 6, 2009 and a total of 14 cases to date, nationwide efforts to fight this deadly virus have commenced once again.
All you Sudan government bashers (in whatever capacity), let's try to not to sneer at this initiative - after all, this deadly virus usually attacks children. Any effort to eradicate it gets a thumbs up from me.
According to a UNICEF press release this morning:
"Around 9 million children in every state of the country are being targeted in this latest initiative, which commences on Monday in the northern states and one day later in Southern Sudan."
Now I am fully aware that Sudan has not exactly been on the rose colored path for some time, however I have to say that I was (relatively) pleased to know that this initaive is being coordinated by the Government of the National Unity and the Government of the South. Together. Yay.
Eighteen of the 26 States of this vast African country now have confirmed cases of polio since the beginning of the outbreak in May 2004. A three-year period of polio-free status -- from 2001 to 2004 -- led authorities and health agencies to focus limited global resources on other countries. However, with the most recent case on February 6, 2009 and a total of 14 cases to date, nationwide efforts to fight this deadly virus have commenced once again.
All you Sudan government bashers (in whatever capacity), let's try to not to sneer at this initiative - after all, this deadly virus usually attacks children. Any effort to eradicate it gets a thumbs up from me.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Who is the U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan?
J. Scott Gration
As a retired U.S. Air Force General, Gration has a diverse background. Grew up in the Congo, fluent in Swahili, more than three decades of experience in military affairs earning him seven rows of ribbons. Additionally, in 2006 he accompanied Obama (then, a Senator) on a trip to Africa as an "Africa expert."
He's been to Congo, Kenya, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, South Africa.
But, wait. Virtually NO experience in Sudan. Let me correct myself: Absolutely no experience in Sudan.
Don't mean to be critical, Mr. Gration, I mean you seem to be a pretty levelheaded man and your idea of a "no nuclear weapons" for ANYONE (including the U.S.), is pleasant. However, a special envoy to Sudan would acutally require you having been to Sudan once.
It just keeps getting getting bleaker and bleaker for Sudan.
P.S. they don't speak Swahili in Sudan, either.
As a retired U.S. Air Force General, Gration has a diverse background. Grew up in the Congo, fluent in Swahili, more than three decades of experience in military affairs earning him seven rows of ribbons. Additionally, in 2006 he accompanied Obama (then, a Senator) on a trip to Africa as an "Africa expert."
He's been to Congo, Kenya, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, South Africa.
But, wait. Virtually NO experience in Sudan. Let me correct myself: Absolutely no experience in Sudan.
Don't mean to be critical, Mr. Gration, I mean you seem to be a pretty levelheaded man and your idea of a "no nuclear weapons" for ANYONE (including the U.S.), is pleasant. However, a special envoy to Sudan would acutally require you having been to Sudan once.
It just keeps getting getting bleaker and bleaker for Sudan.
P.S. they don't speak Swahili in Sudan, either.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Written by the Honorable Mahathir Mohamed (Former Prime Minister of Malaysia)
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
By
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
on March 16, 2009 7:13 PM
1. The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant of arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir, the sitting President of Sudan.
2. The ICC admits that this is the first warrant of arrest ever issued for a sitting Head of State of the ICC.
3. The alleged crime of President Al-Bashir is that he is "suspected" of having co-ordinated the design and implementation of the counter-insurgency campaign or alternatively it is also found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he was in control of all branches of the "apparatus" of the State of Sudan and use such control to secure the implementation of the counter-insurgency campaign.
4. It is also alleged that he was responsible for;
• Five counts of crimes against humanity : murder - article 7(1) (a); extermination - article 7 (1) (b); forcible transfer - article 7 (1) (f) and rape - article 7 (1) (g); (the fifth is not stated)
• Two counts of war crimes; intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as such or against individual civilians not
• taking direct part hostilities - article (2) (e) (i); and pillaging - article 8 (2) (e) (v) (the second crime is not given)
5. Apparently it was found that the President did not commit genocide and this charge could not be brought against him.
6. The world is aware of the hatred of the United States for President Bashir and clearly the US would like to see a regime change. Maybe the fact that Sudan has fairly large oil reserves has nothing to do with wanting to remove a recalcitrant Head of State. But maybe it has. Seems that those who have oil who are not compliant will get into trouble with the United States.
7. But the grounds for arrest can also be easily applied to (former President) George W. Bush and (former Prime Minister) Tony Blair. The two are both guilty (proven) of more killings, extermination, forcible transfer and rape by virtue of their having, as Heads of Government, actually co-ordinated the design and implementation of the illegal wars against the Afghanistan and Iraq - countries which cannot be proven to have attacked the US the way the insurgents attacked the Government of Sudan.
8. As Heads of State faced with insurgency the President of Sudan has a duty to act against the insurgents. Of course he must be control. He wouldn't be a responsible Head of State if he left the counter-insurgency measures to others. Since when has it been considered wrong to fight against insurgents? Are Sri Lanka, the Philippines and others also guilty?
9. We are not told what weapons were used by Bashir but Bush and Blair directed the sanctions which killed 500,000 Iraqi children, use of depleted uranium in bombs and shells, instigated a war between Sunni and Shiah Iraqis, killed more than 100,000 "civilian not taking direct part in hostilities," detaining and torturing prisoners outside the law and a host of other crimes against humanity which deserves to get the attention of the ICC; which the ICC should issue warrants of arrest.
10. If President Bashir is considered culpable, then Bush and Blair must be considered even more culpable. Many other Heads of Governments must also be issued warrants of arrests.
11. But the ICC is obviously applying double standards, picking on President Bashir but ignoring the perpetrators of the same crimes by other Heads of Governments. It is the essence of justice that it applies to everyone equally. How can we respect the ICC if it is so obviously biased and openly discriminates between different people?
12. I would warn the Heads of State of other weak countries that they are likely to suffer the same fate as the President of Sudan. It is not necessary that you have done something wrong. If you are a recalcitrant, trumped up charges can be made against you and warrants of arrest issued. You are aware that the United States is bent on effecting regime change everywhere. The ICC will be a good apparatus for this. It will be cheaper than shock and awe invasions.
13. The world must condemn the ICC action because it represents a travesty of justice. If this is allowed to go through, the ICC will become another apparatus of resurgent imperialism of the powerful countries.
14. We are already living in an unjust world. There will be more injustice with the setting up of ICC
By
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
on March 16, 2009 7:13 PM
1. The International Criminal Court has issued a warrant of arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir, the sitting President of Sudan.
2. The ICC admits that this is the first warrant of arrest ever issued for a sitting Head of State of the ICC.
3. The alleged crime of President Al-Bashir is that he is "suspected" of having co-ordinated the design and implementation of the counter-insurgency campaign or alternatively it is also found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he was in control of all branches of the "apparatus" of the State of Sudan and use such control to secure the implementation of the counter-insurgency campaign.
4. It is also alleged that he was responsible for;
• Five counts of crimes against humanity : murder - article 7(1) (a); extermination - article 7 (1) (b); forcible transfer - article 7 (1) (f) and rape - article 7 (1) (g); (the fifth is not stated)
• Two counts of war crimes; intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as such or against individual civilians not
• taking direct part hostilities - article (2) (e) (i); and pillaging - article 8 (2) (e) (v) (the second crime is not given)
5. Apparently it was found that the President did not commit genocide and this charge could not be brought against him.
6. The world is aware of the hatred of the United States for President Bashir and clearly the US would like to see a regime change. Maybe the fact that Sudan has fairly large oil reserves has nothing to do with wanting to remove a recalcitrant Head of State. But maybe it has. Seems that those who have oil who are not compliant will get into trouble with the United States.
7. But the grounds for arrest can also be easily applied to (former President) George W. Bush and (former Prime Minister) Tony Blair. The two are both guilty (proven) of more killings, extermination, forcible transfer and rape by virtue of their having, as Heads of Government, actually co-ordinated the design and implementation of the illegal wars against the Afghanistan and Iraq - countries which cannot be proven to have attacked the US the way the insurgents attacked the Government of Sudan.
8. As Heads of State faced with insurgency the President of Sudan has a duty to act against the insurgents. Of course he must be control. He wouldn't be a responsible Head of State if he left the counter-insurgency measures to others. Since when has it been considered wrong to fight against insurgents? Are Sri Lanka, the Philippines and others also guilty?
9. We are not told what weapons were used by Bashir but Bush and Blair directed the sanctions which killed 500,000 Iraqi children, use of depleted uranium in bombs and shells, instigated a war between Sunni and Shiah Iraqis, killed more than 100,000 "civilian not taking direct part in hostilities," detaining and torturing prisoners outside the law and a host of other crimes against humanity which deserves to get the attention of the ICC; which the ICC should issue warrants of arrest.
10. If President Bashir is considered culpable, then Bush and Blair must be considered even more culpable. Many other Heads of Governments must also be issued warrants of arrests.
11. But the ICC is obviously applying double standards, picking on President Bashir but ignoring the perpetrators of the same crimes by other Heads of Governments. It is the essence of justice that it applies to everyone equally. How can we respect the ICC if it is so obviously biased and openly discriminates between different people?
12. I would warn the Heads of State of other weak countries that they are likely to suffer the same fate as the President of Sudan. It is not necessary that you have done something wrong. If you are a recalcitrant, trumped up charges can be made against you and warrants of arrest issued. You are aware that the United States is bent on effecting regime change everywhere. The ICC will be a good apparatus for this. It will be cheaper than shock and awe invasions.
13. The world must condemn the ICC action because it represents a travesty of justice. If this is allowed to go through, the ICC will become another apparatus of resurgent imperialism of the powerful countries.
14. We are already living in an unjust world. There will be more injustice with the setting up of ICC
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
International Reactions to Sudan's Current Affairs
U.S. President Obama invited UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to visit the White House to discuss Sudan and the warrant.
The African Union gave a big thumbs up to Bashir for rejecting the ICC decision.
George Clooney is pissed.
And, today:
The African Union gave a big thumbs up to Bashir for rejecting the ICC decision.
George Clooney is pissed.
And, today:
"A bill that would prohibit any state contracts with people who do business in Sudan passed the House on Tuesday. HB436, sponsored by Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake City, is in response to the continuing conflict in Darfur and follows similar federal legislation. "As our state [has] more of a global look in its citizenry," Litvack said, "we have a role and responsibility to make social policy representing our new population." The bill passed unanimously and moves to the Senate."
-Salt Lake City Tribune
Monday, March 9, 2009
Operation Erase Silver Lining
Just when I think Sudan, after putting their foot down on international pressure and criticism, will effectively start working towards positive solutions - THIS happens.
"Sudan revoked the licenses of 13 international aid organizations on Wednesday, after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for atrocities committed in Darfur" - Voice Of America
These humanitarian orgs include: Doctors without Borders, OXFAM, Save the Children, and Mercy Corps.
Thumbs up to you, Mr. President.
My issue is this: you want to ignore international criticism? Fine. You want to fight through U.S. sanctions? Okay. You want to laugh at international court arrests? Go ahead. But when you let your pride cloud your good judgment and potentially sacrifice hundreds and thousands of Sudanese lives - YOUR Sudanese lives - that's when you become less of a leader and more of a brute.
This cannot be good for anyone. This does not prove your point, nor does it make you any stronger, Mr. President. I admired certain qualities in you and your "administration" but this, this is sad.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
And the arrest goes to...
It feels strange to have my President arrested. It's not that I feel he is completely innocent and the indictment was in the wrong. No. And it's not because I feel overjoyed with a sense of triumph and looming victory for the people of Sudan.
I must say, I am a little - on edge.
The ICC made its decision. An arrest was made for President Omar Al Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. No mention of genocide.
Side note: wasn't that why Moreno-Ocampo brought this thing up in the first place?
Anywho. So the charges were made. Al-Bashir, naturally dismissed them. I actually heard around that he may have said something along the lines of: Take that warrant, immerse it in water and drink it? I don't know. I laugh because it's just so Sudanese.
There are a few things I want to explore here. First off, one thing and only ONE thing is important and cannot be overlooked. The good of the country, of our people. This ruling, is not in the good. The Sudanese people are a patriotic bunch. Regardless of their personal view of their leader, the thought of having an international body dictate the fate of one of their own is, for the most part, not going to fly.
Side note: Deja vu...Iraq?
As I digress. Sudan needs stability. They need justice. They need independence. They need direction. Granted there is a lot going on, Darfur (among other regions in Sudan that have long been overlooked), is an issue one cannot ignore. As I said earlier, President al-Bashir is responsible for the 300,000, as well as the thousands more in the South, Kordofan, and other regions in Sudan that are under siege in whatever capacity. You're President of ALL of Sudan, not just one part, therefore you're responsible.
Which brings me to point number 2. The ICC. *Sigh* Their role in this situation is not benefiting very many people. Okay, let's say the President steps down. Then what? I don't think they are grasping the full gravity of this situation - if he leaves there will be UTTER AND COMPLETE chaos in this country. The people cannot and will not survive this.
Side note: If the ICC's prime objective is to "help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community," why have we not heard of ICC putting their foot down with Iraq? Guantanamo? PALESTINE?! Crimes were happening a-plenty there. Believe me.
Now, you're not going to catch me with an I heart al-Bashir shirt anytime soon, BUT I have to say that this is big problem, a big SUDANESE problem. Call me overly optimistic or naive, but this is something the international community needs to back up off of. And something the Sudanese government needs to take care of. ASAP.
I must say, I am a little - on edge.
The ICC made its decision. An arrest was made for President Omar Al Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. No mention of genocide.
Side note: wasn't that why Moreno-Ocampo brought this thing up in the first place?
Anywho. So the charges were made. Al-Bashir, naturally dismissed them. I actually heard around that he may have said something along the lines of: Take that warrant, immerse it in water and drink it? I don't know. I laugh because it's just so Sudanese.
There are a few things I want to explore here. First off, one thing and only ONE thing is important and cannot be overlooked. The good of the country, of our people. This ruling, is not in the good. The Sudanese people are a patriotic bunch. Regardless of their personal view of their leader, the thought of having an international body dictate the fate of one of their own is, for the most part, not going to fly.
Side note: Deja vu...Iraq?
As I digress. Sudan needs stability. They need justice. They need independence. They need direction. Granted there is a lot going on, Darfur (among other regions in Sudan that have long been overlooked), is an issue one cannot ignore. As I said earlier, President al-Bashir is responsible for the 300,000, as well as the thousands more in the South, Kordofan, and other regions in Sudan that are under siege in whatever capacity. You're President of ALL of Sudan, not just one part, therefore you're responsible.
Which brings me to point number 2. The ICC. *Sigh* Their role in this situation is not benefiting very many people. Okay, let's say the President steps down. Then what? I don't think they are grasping the full gravity of this situation - if he leaves there will be UTTER AND COMPLETE chaos in this country. The people cannot and will not survive this.
Side note: If the ICC's prime objective is to "help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community," why have we not heard of ICC putting their foot down with Iraq? Guantanamo? PALESTINE?! Crimes were happening a-plenty there. Believe me.
Now, you're not going to catch me with an I heart al-Bashir shirt anytime soon, BUT I have to say that this is big problem, a big SUDANESE problem. Call me overly optimistic or naive, but this is something the international community needs to back up off of. And something the Sudanese government needs to take care of. ASAP.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Remember the Gazans
It's been months since the horrific exchange of fire between the people of Palestine and Israel in Gaza. There was a significant response from the international community; dollars were raised, petitions were signed, people rallied, flags burned.
And then, it just, phased away.
What happened? Why does we go through such phases of passion and phase to indifference? Why do burnt homes, broken families and dead children make us weep one day and switch the channel the next?
Gaza is still hurting.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Sudan's (growing) to-do list
We're about 24 hours away from the ICC's ruling of charges of war crimes against Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir.
As we say in Sudan, "wob alena"
(a.k.a. "oh goodness, let's brace ourselves!")
Now, several steps have been taken by the Sudanese government leading up to this date. (Sugaring the ICC perhaps?)
Al Bashir, on several occasions, publicly denounced any war crimes occurring in Darfur. Last November the President called for a ceasefire in Darfur. Al-Bashir said he was looking forward to having "free elections in the future"(I'm curious to see how that turns out). More recently, peace talks were held in Doha, Qatar between the Sudanese government and the JEM rebel movement in which a "declaration of intent" was signed.
The declaration touched on issues such as the release of some JEM war prisoners and security and safety of the IDPs and civilians.
So, with the hours counting down for the fate of my president to be stated (more or less), I can't help but wonder what Al-Bashir have planned? If indicted and an arrest is issued, will the Sudanese government unleash a hurricane of rebellion on UN and humanitarian workers in Khartoum? Will he bow down gracefully and wave a white flag? I can't help but laugh at the preposterous questions, neither of which will probably be done. I know Sudanese. They're not stupid enough to do the former and well, the latter is just out of the question!
I don't know where I stand on this issue, quite honestly. I don't want to see my President indicted, I only feel it will bring about more political instability and create a turbulence that Sudan will probably not overcome. But I also don't want him to get off the hook that easily. Whether or not he is responsible for what is happening in Eastern and South Sudan, a President's role and duty is to ensure the safety and security of his people - all of them. And if 300,000 Sudanese have died during your presidency in your country, then that's a problem you have to deal with. Minus international interference. (But don't get me started on that).
Let's not forget a key player here though - China. Good ol' China.
Somehow I feel like they won't let anything happen to Sudan. We're buds, you see. We strive on each other, economically. Bonnie and Clyde.
I'll be back tomorrow for an update of Sudan's fate, and its to-do list, because it definitely is going to have some cleaning up to do.
As we say in Sudan, "wob alena"
(a.k.a. "oh goodness, let's brace ourselves!")
Now, several steps have been taken by the Sudanese government leading up to this date. (Sugaring the ICC perhaps?)
Al Bashir, on several occasions, publicly denounced any war crimes occurring in Darfur. Last November the President called for a ceasefire in Darfur. Al-Bashir said he was looking forward to having "free elections in the future"(I'm curious to see how that turns out). More recently, peace talks were held in Doha, Qatar between the Sudanese government and the JEM rebel movement in which a "declaration of intent" was signed.
The declaration touched on issues such as the release of some JEM war prisoners and security and safety of the IDPs and civilians.
So, with the hours counting down for the fate of my president to be stated (more or less), I can't help but wonder what Al-Bashir have planned? If indicted and an arrest is issued, will the Sudanese government unleash a hurricane of rebellion on UN and humanitarian workers in Khartoum? Will he bow down gracefully and wave a white flag? I can't help but laugh at the preposterous questions, neither of which will probably be done. I know Sudanese. They're not stupid enough to do the former and well, the latter is just out of the question!
I don't know where I stand on this issue, quite honestly. I don't want to see my President indicted, I only feel it will bring about more political instability and create a turbulence that Sudan will probably not overcome. But I also don't want him to get off the hook that easily. Whether or not he is responsible for what is happening in Eastern and South Sudan, a President's role and duty is to ensure the safety and security of his people - all of them. And if 300,000 Sudanese have died during your presidency in your country, then that's a problem you have to deal with. Minus international interference. (But don't get me started on that).
Let's not forget a key player here though - China. Good ol' China.
Somehow I feel like they won't let anything happen to Sudan. We're buds, you see. We strive on each other, economically. Bonnie and Clyde.
I'll be back tomorrow for an update of Sudan's fate, and its to-do list, because it definitely is going to have some cleaning up to do.
Rush to Steele the GOP
Rush Limbaugh has done it again.
At a passionate speech at CPAC vocal conservative talk show host adamantly told fellow Republicans "What is so wrong if I want Barack Obama to fail?"
Well, Mr. Limbaugh, I can think of a few answers to that question. But I have a more significant question is Rush the de facto leader of the GOP?
Additionally, his whole shpeel got me thinking about the future of U.S. political parties and this whole talk about bi-partisanship, and more importantly, how silly this is becoming. RNC Chairman Michael Steele shot back at Rush's comments saying:
"Rush Limbaugh's an entertainer his whole thing is entertainment" calling Rush Limbaugh incendiary, ugly. Nice, Mr. Steele. Rush, bearing his teeth responded: "Michael Steele you are NOT head of the republican party...It's time, Mr. Steele for you to go behind the scene and do the work YOU were elected to do. I hope you learn how to run a primary system."
Oh boo hoo! Mr. Steele, Mr. Limbaugh, shame on both of you.
Firstly, as an AMERICAN, Mr. Limbaugh is in the wrong. No matter what your political affiliation is, no matter what ideals you stand by, you should not wish failure upon your commander in chief. There is way too much going on with the crumbling economy, failing health care, looming struggles overseas (a.k.a Afghanistan) for you to point fingers, rile up people (for no good reason), and bring down your president. I'm not even American and I think that was ridiculously unnecessary. Collect your thoughts, think them through and get it together. This is not 4th grade playground. Instead of using the platform of CPAC to stir up such negative emotions among your loyal listeners, why not create a more constructive environment in which you focus on the problems that matter to each and every one of those people (and YOU oh-loyal Rush fans, wake up).
And, I know, so maybe Rush was talking about Barack's ideas that he wants to fail (so HIS can take the forefront), but still a very destructive ideology and again, quite childish.
Mr. Steele, you're not any better. During CNN's D.L. Hughley Breaks the News, Michael Steele pumped his chest and gallantly responded to the question of whether Rush was the de facto GOP leader: "No he's not. I'm the de facto leader of the Republican party."
Um, thanks Mr. Steele. We know that, we saw the headlines last month.
Then the next day, he apologized to Rush.
Hmmph.
Nevertheless, these two grown men, primary faces of the GOP are creating a tumultuous scenario, going back and forth about a topic that just seems to be going nowhere.
The GOP is desperate to gain leverage, to regain their seat back and run the show. Understood. It's all politics. But THIS is not the way to go about it, and again there are more important things going on around us. Carry on this way, and the GOP will have NO face. NO voice. Just useless back and forth banter.
At a passionate speech at CPAC vocal conservative talk show host adamantly told fellow Republicans "What is so wrong if I want Barack Obama to fail?"
Well, Mr. Limbaugh, I can think of a few answers to that question. But I have a more significant question is Rush the de facto leader of the GOP?
Additionally, his whole shpeel got me thinking about the future of U.S. political parties and this whole talk about bi-partisanship, and more importantly, how silly this is becoming. RNC Chairman Michael Steele shot back at Rush's comments saying:
"Rush Limbaugh's an entertainer his whole thing is entertainment" calling Rush Limbaugh incendiary, ugly. Nice, Mr. Steele. Rush, bearing his teeth responded: "Michael Steele you are NOT head of the republican party...It's time, Mr. Steele for you to go behind the scene and do the work YOU were elected to do. I hope you learn how to run a primary system."
Oh boo hoo! Mr. Steele, Mr. Limbaugh, shame on both of you.
Firstly, as an AMERICAN, Mr. Limbaugh is in the wrong. No matter what your political affiliation is, no matter what ideals you stand by, you should not wish failure upon your commander in chief. There is way too much going on with the crumbling economy, failing health care, looming struggles overseas (a.k.a Afghanistan) for you to point fingers, rile up people (for no good reason), and bring down your president. I'm not even American and I think that was ridiculously unnecessary. Collect your thoughts, think them through and get it together. This is not 4th grade playground. Instead of using the platform of CPAC to stir up such negative emotions among your loyal listeners, why not create a more constructive environment in which you focus on the problems that matter to each and every one of those people (and YOU oh-loyal Rush fans, wake up).
And, I know, so maybe Rush was talking about Barack's ideas that he wants to fail (so HIS can take the forefront), but still a very destructive ideology and again, quite childish.
Mr. Steele, you're not any better. During CNN's D.L. Hughley Breaks the News, Michael Steele pumped his chest and gallantly responded to the question of whether Rush was the de facto GOP leader: "No he's not. I'm the de facto leader of the Republican party."
Um, thanks Mr. Steele. We know that, we saw the headlines last month.
Then the next day, he apologized to Rush.
Hmmph.
Nevertheless, these two grown men, primary faces of the GOP are creating a tumultuous scenario, going back and forth about a topic that just seems to be going nowhere.
The GOP is desperate to gain leverage, to regain their seat back and run the show. Understood. It's all politics. But THIS is not the way to go about it, and again there are more important things going on around us. Carry on this way, and the GOP will have NO face. NO voice. Just useless back and forth banter.
140 pages of knowledge: New Gallup Poll Revealed
The curtains were pulled today to introduce the first ever Gallup poll on Muslim Americans revealing that this group of people are the most racially diverse religious group in the United States of America.
Maybe I am a bit bias but I absolutely believe that this report should be broadcast widely; the knowledge disseminated across the nation. The survey reveals interesting statistics such as the fact that Muslim American women are one of the most highly educated female religious groups in the United States, second only to Jewish American women.
The report shed light on numerous findings that are vital to the role of Muslim Americans in the U.S. today as well as the rest of America, in regards to breaking the barrier of misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
Additionally, statistics such as these: only 51% of young Muslim Americans are registered to vote, which is one of the lowest percentages among young Americans surveyed, can be quite important to future political candidates in pulling their voters. After all these Muslim Americans are a part of the fabric of America, their votes weighing an enormous difference.
In an essay for the Gallup report, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. — the first Muslim elected to Congress — urged Muslim Americans to "step out of the shadows of your own world, and step forthrightly into a participatory America."
I totally agree with Mr. Ellison. America needs these Muslim Americans to step up to the forefront and make a name of themselves. President Barack Obama declared in his inaugural address, "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Yes, and the Muslim world seeks a new constructive way to have our voices heard, our image repaired, and our individuality respected.
I strongly urge those with peaked interests, those who are aware and those who aren't, to take a look at this report, found here:
http://www.muslimwestfacts.com/mwf/116074/Muslim-Americans-National-Portrait.aspx
Yay Gallup! :)
Maybe I am a bit bias but I absolutely believe that this report should be broadcast widely; the knowledge disseminated across the nation. The survey reveals interesting statistics such as the fact that Muslim American women are one of the most highly educated female religious groups in the United States, second only to Jewish American women.
The report shed light on numerous findings that are vital to the role of Muslim Americans in the U.S. today as well as the rest of America, in regards to breaking the barrier of misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
Additionally, statistics such as these: only 51% of young Muslim Americans are registered to vote, which is one of the lowest percentages among young Americans surveyed, can be quite important to future political candidates in pulling their voters. After all these Muslim Americans are a part of the fabric of America, their votes weighing an enormous difference.
In an essay for the Gallup report, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. — the first Muslim elected to Congress — urged Muslim Americans to "step out of the shadows of your own world, and step forthrightly into a participatory America."
I totally agree with Mr. Ellison. America needs these Muslim Americans to step up to the forefront and make a name of themselves. President Barack Obama declared in his inaugural address, "To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Yes, and the Muslim world seeks a new constructive way to have our voices heard, our image repaired, and our individuality respected.
I strongly urge those with peaked interests, those who are aware and those who aren't, to take a look at this report, found here:
http://www.muslimwestfacts.com/mwf/116074/Muslim-Americans-National-Portrait.aspx
Yay Gallup! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)