As a kid I got into fights occa­sion­al­ly , it’s prob­a­bly safe to say most if not all kids get into fights now and then, it’s as if fight­ing is a right of passage.
What hap­pened in that Brooklyn McDonalds recent­ly was not a fight. 
It was anoth­er instance of what has been hap­pen­ing all across America late­ly, sheer barbarism.
Aniah Ferguson, 16, and oth­ers pum­meled a  15-year-old girl until she went limp on the floor even then Ferguson con­tin­ued to kick the wound­ed girl while scores of oth­ers howled in delight or par­tic­i­pat­ed in the assault.

This was not white on black, this was black on black, a sce­nario which plays out in black com­mu­ni­ties all across America dai­ly result­ing in death and mas­sive injuries.

In fair­ness, this bar­barism is not con­fined to the slaugh­ter which occur on the streets of Detroit Michigan, Chicago Illinois, Camden New Jersey or any oth­er city for that matter.
It includes packs of young black men and women engag­ing in what are called flash robberies.
This is a kind of Robbery where gangs of young peo­ple run into busi­ness-places and grab what they want, dam­age the busi­ness estab­lish­ment then leave quick­ly before author­i­ties arrive.

It is no won­der then that they turn on each oth­er when they can­not find oth­ers to victimize.
These are truths from which we can­not afford to turn our back.
At a time when we are wit­ness­ing raw and some­times unpro­voked and even unwar­rant­ed aggres­sion from law-enforce­ment, the behav­ior of these young peo­ple does noth­ing to help the case against law-enforce­ment excess.

In fact those with big­ot­ed agen­das point to these occur­rences as rea­son for more law enforce­ment aggression.
We must begin then to look at what is going on with­in the black home that is fuel­ing this kind of behavior.
The moth­er of 16-year-old Aniah Ferguson report­ed­ly said she did not raise her daugh­ter to act in that way. 
Notwithstanding Ferguson is already a moth­er to a one-year-old baby, and a mem­ber of a gang called the young sav­ages, pros­e­cu­tors claim.
How is that for perspective.
Which leaves us to won­der what are the under­ly­ing psy­cho­log­i­cal issues at play which caus­es not just this young lady who by the way has an exten­sive rap sheet to act this way, but the tens of thou­sands of oth­er black teens and young adults who think this is accept­able behavior.

I don’t want to hear that not only black peo­ple act that way.
It does­n’t mat­ter who else acts that way it does not make it right or acceptable.
Secondly it is up to us to fix our house not the oth­er guy’s house.

When some of us with­in the black com­mu­ni­ty dare to speak out at the cri­sis of unwed moth­ers hav­ing babies, some with­in the com­mu­ni­ty take issue with our criticism.
We hear all kinds of kook-like expla­na­tions for the rea­sons why black America is in deep crisis.
Recently CNN’ Don Lemon point­ed to the fact that over 70% of black babies are born out of wedlock.
Lemon was round­ly con­demned for point­ing to what is a fact.
Does run­ning from the num­bers, make them any less true?
“If Lemon real­ly want­ed to help the black com­mu­ni­ty, he could start by adopt­ing a deep­er under­stand­ing of the his­to­ry, soci­ol­o­gy and psy­chol­o­gy of his own peo­ple,” wrote Washington Post blog­ger Rahiel Tesfamariam. “Offering made-for-TV analy­sis about deeply com­plex social issues in the man­ner in which he did is irre­spon­si­ble and lacks intel­lec­tu­al rigor.”
Clearly when you have apol­o­gists like Rahiel Tesfamariam com­ing up with smart sound­ing goobly-gook, it is no won­der many with­in our com­mu­ni­ty take com­fort in victimhood.
Even as Rahiel Tesfamariam accus­es Lemon of a lack of intel­lec­tu­al rig­or, he engages in what could be con­strued to be intel­lec­tu­al dis­hon­esty or at best Intellectual elitism.
Maybe Rahiel Tesfamariam is quite hap­py that there are peo­ple that oth­ers like him­self look down on.
http://​www​.poli​ti​fact​.com/​t​r​u​t​h​-​o​-​m​e​t​e​r​/​s​t​a​t​e​m​e​n​t​s​/​2​0​1​3​/​j​u​l​/​2​9​/​d​o​n​-​l​e​m​o​n​/​c​n​n​s​-​d​o​n​-​l​e​m​o​n​-​s​a​y​s​-​m​o​r​e​-​7​2​-​p​e​r​c​e​n​t​-​a​f​r​i​c​a​n​-​a​m​e​r​i​ca/

Frankly you know you have a prob­lem when even those who hate you tell you what ails you.
We can no longer accept the tran­quil drug of ratio­nal­iz­ing. We can­not con­tin­ue to nuance our response to events which war­rants no spec­u­la­tion ratio­nal­iza­tion or nuancing.

We must take respon­si­bil­i­ty for our children.
We can­not con­tin­ue to believe the lie that hav­ing chil­dren at the ten­der age of 15 is okay . It isn’t.
We can­not con­tin­ue to invent rea­sons why 12, 13, and 15 year-old kids are hav­ing babies.
It is a fail­ure of parenting.
It is a fail­ure of under­stand­ing that each house­hold which con­tributes to this enig­ma of teen birth out of wed­lock is con­tribut­ing to the blight of the entire com­mu­ni­ty and maybe our entire existence.
Who in their right mind expect that when 71% of all babies born in the African-American com­mu­ni­ty are born to unwed moth­ers, that there are not seri­ous con­se­quences for those statistics?

Who does­n’t both­er to rec­og­nize that the epi­dem­ic of unwed birth has become a pro­duc­tion line for the prison indus­tri­al complex.
And no, it does not mat­ter in this con­text that not all end up in prison.
If one does it is one too many.
The fact is that the vast major­i­ty do end up in the crim­i­nal jus­tice system.
Is it dis­re­spect­ful or dis­loy­al to point out that we are direct­ly con­tribut­ing to some of the prob­lems plagu­ing our community?
Is it rea­son­able for us to demand oth­ers show us respect, when we act like rav­en­ous Wolves tear­ing away at the car­cass­es of each other?

We can only tru­ly expect respect when we act respectful.
Not for any­one else but for our own selves.
For our own dignity.
For our own survival.

Forty (47) Republicans Senators attached their sig­na­ture to a Letter which they sent to the Iranian Government.
The gist of the mes­sage to the Iranian Government is that what­ev­er deal President Obama (America’s sit­ting President and com­man­der in chief) strikes with them, can and may be wiped away after the pres­i­dent demit office.
Please take a moment to absorb , and assim­i­late the impact and the pos­si­ble con­se­quences of this unprece­dent­ed move.
Pundits and his­to­ri­ans alike have stat­ed there is no prece­dent for this.
Some argue this bor­ders on treason.
Never before in the his­to­ry of the Republic , his­to­ri­ans lament, has the con­gress or parts of it,ever attempt­ed to usurp the author­i­ty of the President in this way much less on for­eign affairs.

Former Democratic Senator and pres­i­den­tial front run­ner Hillary Clinton said quote<“one has to ask, what was the pur­pose of this let­ter?

“There appear to be two log­i­cal answers,” Clinton said. “Either these sen­a­tors were try­ing to be help­ful to the Iranians or harm­ful to the com­man­der-in-chief in the midst of high-stakes inter­na­tion­al diplo­ma­cy. Either answer does dis­cred­it to the let­ter’s signatories.”

Well Hillary, this is not the first time they have been dis­re­spect­ful or tried to under­mine this President . Remember Joe Wilson’s “You lie”?
Since then it has been inces­sant, just recent­ly Boehner invit­ed Israel’s prime min­is­ter Benjamin Netanyahu to use the US house of Representatives to blast the Iran pol­i­cy of the sit­ting President.
So there is prece­dent for their behavior.
They would rather col­lude with a for­eign pow­er against this President, that try to find com­mon ground toward secur­ing America’s future, and the future of the planet.
Which means they col­lude against their own country.
I am not a Lawyer, and cer­tain­ly not a Constitutional lawyer by any stretch , but if it looks like treason,smells like trea­son behaves like trea­son, oh well.….…..

President Barack Obama slammed the let­ter on Monday, accus­ing the GOP of mak­ing “com­mon cause with the hard-lin­ers in Iran” by attempt­ing to under­cut ongo­ing nego­ti­a­tions that face a first dead­line for a frame­work agree­ment at the end of the month.

The Republican point man on this lat­est affront to Presidential author­i­ty is Arkansas fresh­man sen­a­tor Tom Cotton. The fact that Cotton would be point man on this is even more unprece­dent­ed. According to sen­ate tra­di­tions Cotton who just took the oath has­n’t even fig­ured out his way around the sen­ate build­ing yet, much less to have inject­ed him­self into inter­na­tion­al nego­ti­a­tions, par­tic­u­lar­ly one this del­i­cate and one which real­ly is the purview of the President.

Only Seven Republican Senators did not sign Cotton’s let­ter to the Mullahs. They are Sens. Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, Lamar Alexander, Dan Coats, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins and Bob Corker.
Guaranteed each had their own self serv­ing rea­son not to, which did not include their alle­giance to the Republic.

Under pres­sure to explain his unprece­dent­ed actions Cotton insist­ed there was noth­ing unprece­dent­ed about what they did, argu­ing that the let­ter was not intend­ed as a par­ti­san move and was instead aimed at keep­ing the U.S. from reach­ing a bad and “dan­ger­ous” deal.

“This let­ter is about stop­ping Iran from get­ting a nuclear deal,” Cotton said. “One way that we make sure that we get a bet­ter deal is that we stand strong.”
Here’s the hypocrisy of Cotton and repub­li­cans, if they want­ed to stand strong they would do so stand­ing with the Commander in chief of their coun­try and the oth­er Nuclear armed pow­ers behind the deal being worked out with Iran. They would stand as Democrats did with George Bush after the events of September 11^th 2001.
It is not unusu­al for the Political par­ties in this coun­try to be con­tentious. It is also not out of the ordi­nary that there are grave and seri­ous dif­fer­ences when issues of seri­ous import are being con­sid­ered. Never for­get this coun­try fought a civ­il war to decide its way forward.
What is out of the ordi­nary is that Americans would give aid and com­fort to oth­er pow­ers rather than sup­port their own twice elect­ed leader.

You do not stand strong by telling a for­eign pow­er that you are against your own leader.
That is not patri­o­tism, there are oth­er names for that kind of action, and they are not sim­i­lar in mean­ing to patriotism.
Cotton is a for­mer sol­dier and a Harvard edu­cat­ed lawyer. He is also a right-wing hawk who wants war. Republicans want war with Iran.
Expect that there will be far worse than Netanyahu’s speech and Cotton’s let­ter, they will not stop until they get anoth­er war with anoth­er mid­dle east­ern country.

Their goal is to neu­tral­ize any coun­try in that region that has the gall to stand up to the nuclear armed apartheid bas­tion of white suprema­cy we now know as Israel.
Obama will not insti­gate a war against Iran and that makes Obama dan­ger­ous. Waging war against Iraq using lies and dis­tor­tions was not enough. The con­se­quences of Republican lies and decep­tion result­ed in the cre­ation of ISIS and has rad­i­cal­ized young men across the Globe.
They see America as wag­ing war against Islam. President Obama who thank­ful­ly have seen the World out­side as com­pared to his Republican coun­ter­parts , some of whom have nev­er seen any­one out­side their coun­ty of birth,refuses to fall into that trap of mak­ing it seem that America is wag­ing a chris­t­ian cru­sade against Islam.
And for that the idi­ot­ic and idi­ot­ic repub­li­cans crit­i­cize him.

During the American Civil War Lincoln did not want to free the slaves, con­trary to what you hear today. Lincoln was a slave owner.
Eventually Lincoln had to make the war about some­thing big­ger that him­self, even big­ger than the Union.
There need­ed to be a high­er moral argu­ment for this war…
Lincoln signed the Emancipation declaration.
Not because he was a man of high moral con­vic­tion on the issue of slav­ery as some revi­s­i­tion­ist his­to­ri­an would have you believe.
Lincoln need­ed men to fight, he need­ed a grand idea on which to ral­ly the Union, he also need­ed to pre­vent the French from com­ing in, in defense of it’s Louisiana territory.
It was the moral and right thing for Lincoln to do, the North won the war and the Union survived.
Obama under­stands the con­se­quences of the per­cep­tion of an American cru­sade against Islam, and is doing his lev­el best to avoid that perception.
Unfortunately that lev­el of com­pre­hen­sion can­not be expect­ed from the racist bunch of white suprema­cists which is now the Republican party.

Even those who have seen com­bat, Cotton included,and the car­nage of war, are in no way dis­suad­ed from the fal­la­cy and coun­ter­pro­duc­tive nature of con­stant­ly man­u­fac­tur­ing new enemies.
Instead they con­vince them­selves that brute-force and heavy hand­ed­ness are appro­pri­ate tools in deal­ing with Sovereign powers.
Then they wring their hands and won­der whats behind the think­ing of young peo­ple who head to Syria and Iraq to fight along­side ISIS.

SELMA 50 YEARS LATER

It is inter­est­ing to note that not one of these racist war mon­gers who signed Cotton’s let­ter to Iran both­ered to show up in Selma Alabama to com­mem­o­rate the 50^th Anniversary of the march across the Edmund Pettus bridge.
Black America’s tri­umphant march across that bridge was sym­bol­ic of more them pre­vail­ing against the raw big­otry of Racist oppression.
They braved bil­ly-clubs, dogs and bul­lets know­ing they were writ­ing the indeli­ble sto­ry of America. The America which still, is an evolv­ing saga yet to be completed.
They had their heads bashed in , bones splin­tered ‚flesh gnarled by vis­cous dogs, because they believed in the phrase ” all men are cre­at­ed equal” and that they too deserve to live as equal men on this land blacks occu­pied before Europeans real­ized the world was not flat.
The big­otry and racism of 1965 has not died or gone away , it dwells just below the sur­face, forced there by strong Federal laws which guar­an­teed that peo­ple were not to be imped­ed when they want­ed to vote.
Laws which guar­an­teed that all Americans , regard­less of race, class, or creed, reli­gious or sex­u­al per­sua­sion should be able to study in the same schools.
Yet the very insti­tu­tion charged with the sacred trust of pro­tect­ing the fun­da­men­tal rights of all the peo­ple is the very insti­tu­tion tear­ing away at the fab­ric of the vot­ing rights act and the right for peo­ple to go to school where they please and con­gre­gate where they please.

When our President speak of the America of his dreams with euphor­ic ora­to­ry and bril­liance, I shud­der to think of what America will be under the likes of Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, and others.
We may hide our heads in the sand and pre­tend all is well, or we may con­front the real­i­ty of what those like Cotton and his band of 46 dim-wits mean. These are elect­ed offi­cials who hold high office, yet they sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly missed, or chose to miss that whether they like it or not the African-American sto­ry is the sto­ry of America.
Choosing to stay away makes it clear they do not care to respect, rep­re­sent, or relate the black sto­ry, America’s story.
By so doing they have cast them­selves as incon­se­quen­tial foot­notes in the dust-bin of his­to­ry. Rendering them­selves and their par­ty incon­se­quen­tial to the con­ver­sa­tion going forward.
By turn­ing their backs on black America they turned their backs on America.
By turn­ing to Netanyahu and Iran they declared their das­tard­ly dis­loy­al­ty to America in no uncer­tain terms.
That my friends is what the Republican par­ty has become.
An inter­na­tion­al disgrace.….….

“I deeply regret that some per­ceive my being here as polit­i­cal. That was nev­er my inten­tion,” Netanyahu said in an address before Congress. “I know that no mat­ter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.”
“Don’t be fooled – the bat­tle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend for America; Iran and ISIS are com­pet­ing for the crown of mil­i­tant Islam,” said Netanyahu. The prob­lem with America’s poten­tial deal with Iran is twofold, said the Israeli leader. “The first major con­ces­sion,” he said, is that it “would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infra­struc­ture.” Second, he con­tin­ued, the restric­tions imposed on Iran’s nuclear pro­gram would not effec­tive­ly bar vio­la­tions. “Iran has proven time and again that it can­not be trust­ed,” said Netanyahu. “That’s why this deal is so bad – it doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

President Obama said there was noth­ing new in the speech deliv­ered before the American Congress by the Republican Senator from Israel. President 
Obama, mean­while told reporters lat­er in the day that he read the tran­script of Netanyahu’s speech and found “noth­ing new.” He not­ed that the Israeli leader did not offer any “viable alter­na­tives” to pre­vent­ing Iran from obtain­ing a nuclear weapon, and defend­ed his administration’s pur­suit of a nuclear deal with the Middle Eastern country.
Does it seem strange that a President, any pres­i­dent, would be forced to defend his poli­cies as the duly twice elect­ed head of his coun­try, while a for­eign leader attacks his poli­cies in his coun­try’s high­est leg­isla­tive body, as that leader vis­its, all unbe­knownst to him ?
I digress, maybe it’s just me.….

“[A]s one who val­ues the U.S.-Israel rela­tion­ship, and loves Israel, I was near tears through­out the Prime Minister’s speech – sad­dened by the insult to the intel­li­gence of the United States as part of the P5+1 nations, and sad­dened by the con­de­scen­sion toward our knowl­edge of the threat posed by Iran and our broad­er com­mit­ment to pre­vent­ing nuclear pro­lif­er­a­tion,” said Pelosi in a statement.

No Republican would have sat through a con­tro­ver­sial speech giv­en by a for­eign leader when a Republican President in the White Hose was not noti­fied that that for­eign leader would be invit­ed to address the coun­try and con­gress. On that basis the com­ments of Pelosi is incon­se­quen­tial and has no bear­ing, it should not be con­sid­ered. Any Democrat Jew or not, who attend­ed that speech is dis­loy­al to the President and should hang their heads in shame, they are all a disgrace.

Netanyahu wants war.
As President Obama stat­ed there was noth­ing new in the speech. We have all heard Netanyahu’s drum­beat for war against Iran before. If Netanyahu did not prof­fer any­thing new what is the rea­son for the speech ?
As Pelosi lament­ed qoute,“I was near tears through­out the Prime Minister’s speech – sad­dened by the insult to the intel­li­gence of the United States as part of the P5+1 nations, and sad­dened by the con­de­scen­sion toward our knowl­edge of the threat posed by Iran and our broad­er com­mit­ment to pre­vent­ing nuclear proliferation”.
Well why would he not be condescending? 
He was brought in with­out the knowl­edge of the sit­ting President and Commander-in-chief, to chal­lenge the President and oth­er nation’s lead­ers work toward a peace­ful set­tle­ment to the per­ceived prob­lem of Iran’s nuclear program.

Simply put Netanyahu is a war-mon­ger, if he was to be believed the World would have come to an end years ago based on his pre­dic­tions on Iran’s intentions. 
Netanyahu did not offer any­thing new, because he has noth­ing new. He wants war but he wants America to fight that war with Iran, and he wants American sol­diers to die so he can have hege­mo­ny in the region. 
Republican war-mon­gers do not mind get­ting into a war with Iran , which by the way would be a grave mis­take. Their only prob­lem is that there is only one Commander-in-chief at a time. 
So it seem that the strat­e­gy is to paint Obama as a weak President who is actu­al­ly paving the way for Iran acquir­ing a nuclear bomb, even as he speaks niceties about the pres­i­dent from the cor­ner of his mouth.

ISIS is not a reli­gious group of Muslim fun­da­men­tal­ists, they are a bunch of mur­der­ous sav­ages. Netanyahu does not mind play­ing up the ISIS threat to get what he wants. What Netanyahu and his sup­port­ers will not say is that some sup­posed lead­ers of ISIS have been revealed to be Jewish oper­a­tives pre­tend­ing to be Arabs.
Those who want to bomb oth­er nations must avail them­selves to the duplic­i­tous canard being fed the world by Netanyahu. Ask the Palestinian peo­ple who live under the boot-heels of Israeli occu­pa­tion. However none of that mat­ters, even as the sin­gu­lar largest issue at the cen­ter of most con­flicts in the mid­dle east, is Israel’s occu­pa­tion of Palestine.
The fact is that Netanyahu knows that come what may , America will con­tin­ue to sup­port the nuclear armed Israel. In fact he bragged about it in his speech, quote,” “I deeply regret that some per­ceive my being here as polit­i­cal, that was nev­er my inten­tion, I know that no mat­ter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.” There you have it, no mat­ter what President is in the White House Jewish mon­ey will ensure that he stays in line and do the bid­ding of Israel.

Many peo­ple in the state of Israel dis­agrees with Netanyahu’s inces­sant drum-beat for war. A large per­cent­age of Israeli’s also dis­agree with Israel’s treat­ment of the Palestinian peo­ple. So too do they dis­agree with the idea that Israeli should be at war with Iran.
Netanyahu wants war with Iran just on American dime and with American blood.
The war­mon­ger­ing clowns on the right are too stu­pid to fig­ure it out.
Israeli’s going to the polls in two weeks can show Netanyahu the door, that is their best hope for peace.

Despite mas­sive street protest and retal­ia­to­ry vio­lence against Police in 2014 the rash of police killing of unarmed civil­ians con­tin­ue unabated.

Jan.23^rd , 2015 .-An Oklahoma cop wear­ing a body cam record­ed him­self shoot­ing and killing a man who was run­ning from him after the sus­pect stopped to pick up an object he had dropped dur­ing the pur­suit before con­tin­u­ing fleeing.

PASCO, Wash. — Residents angry that police shot and killed an orchard work­er accused of throw­ing rocks at offi­cers are plan­ning more protests in an agri­cul­tur­al area of south­east­ern Washington. Some of the dozens of peo­ple who saw the shoot­ing at a busy inter­sec­tion Tuesday evening video­taped the con­fronta­tion in Pasco, a city of about 68,000 peo­ple where more than half the res­i­dents are Hispanic.

March2nd 2015 .-Three Los Angeles police offi­cers fired at and killed a man on the city’s Skid Row dur­ing a strug­gle over one of the offi­cers’ guns, and author­i­ties said they planned to use video cap­tured by a bystander in their investigation.

The killings hap­pen almost dai­ly, yet Authorities turn a blind eye to what is clear­ly a pan­dem­ic of exces­sive police use of force. In shoot­ing after shoot­ing, police brass declare that the shoot­ings are jus­ti­fied and done with­ing police use of force guidelines.
Politicians jump on the police band-wag­on and declare that they stand with police , even when the actions of police are clear­ly beyond the pale.
Those who do not auto­mat­i­cal­ly default toward the police, remain in duplic­i­tous silence. New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo read­i­ly comes to mind.

So what is behind the con­tin­ued and unabat­ed killing by police, despite nation-wide protest? The answer is sim­ple. They are not being held account­able. In some cas­es the killings don’t even make sense.
A for­mer Florida A&M foot­ball play­er was shot and killed as he approached police offi­cers, look­ing for assis­tance after get­ting into a car accident.
Jonathan Ferrell, 24, crashed his car ear­ly one Saturday morn­ing, and approached a home, look­ing for help. The res­i­dents, unsure of who was out­side, called the police. When the offi­cers arrived, Ferell ran towards them, only to be shot sev­er­al times. Ferell, who might have been bad­ly shak­en up by the acci­dent, died on the scene.
Police said in a state­ment. “Our inves­ti­ga­tion has shown that Officer Kerrick did not have a law­ful right to dis­charge his weapon dur­ing this encounter. ”
How does a man get killed run­ning toward the peo­ple who are paid hand­some­ly to pro­tect and pro­vide help?
As I have said it is becom­ing increas­ing­ly evi­dent that the police have no inter­est in serv­ing cer­tain seg­ments of the pub­lic. In most if not all cas­es where exces­sive lethal force was employed the vic­tim is black or brown and the cop is white.

If as police say when these shoot­ings occur , that “offi­cers fol­lowed pro­ce­dure” then the pub­lic must be told that the police have a right to kill you whether you are armed or not. The cop only need to say he/​she was in fear for his/​her life and that fear is no longer based on rea­son­able­ness , but is total­ly left up to the poten­tial­ly irra­tional mind of the cop.

As a police offi­cer I would nev­er con­tem­plate un-hol­ster­ing my weapon to sub­due a sin­gle unarmed indi­vid­ual if I was in the com­pa­ny of one or more officers.
How four offi­cers end up using lethal force on one unarmed indi­vid­ual is galling , uncon­scionable and frightening.
What is even more fright­en­ing is the cal­lous dis­patch with which peo­ple deal with these wan­ton acts of mur­der because the vic­tims do not look like them nor live like them.
Have the police now become exter­mi­na­tors of those soci­ety deem disposable?
If so who are the dis­pos­able dregs and who decide when they die?
It is incred­i­bly scary that so many cit­i­zens unwit­ting­ly cede their free­doms to the state, through their cold uncar­ing dis­re­gard for oth­ers they deem less than them or other.

Police offi­cers are issued batons, taz­ers, pep­per-spray, hand-cuffs, and yes guns.The Gun was sup­posed to be the last weapon an offi­cer uses.
It’s use has always been con­tin­gent on the life of the offi­cer or that of anoth­er being in immi­nent dan­ger. The threat to life and limb was once sup­posed to be real and rea­son­able. It was nev­er sup­posed to be con­coct­ed or contrived.

Today cops tell cit­i­zens I will F*****g shoot you as they walk up to them, they then make good on their threats and they are not held accountable.
These are the new real­i­ties, the rules have changed and nobody both­ered to tell us.
Welcome to the new world order.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not even mak­ing an attempt to respect American President Obama and his administration.
The New York Daily News report­ed that Sens. Dick Durbin, D‑Ill., and Dianne Feinstein, D‑Calif., on Monday invit­ed Netanyahu to meet in a closed-door ses­sion with Democrats dur­ing his vis­it. He declined the invi­ta­tion on Tuesday and expressed regret about the polit­i­cal­ly fraught tone of his trip.

“I regret that the invi­ta­tion to address the spe­cial joint ses­sion of Congress has been per­ceived by some to be polit­i­cal or par­ti­san,” Netanyahu wrote. “I can assure you that my sole inten­tion in accept­ing it was to voice Israel’s grave con­cerns about a poten­tial nuclear agree­ment with Iran that could threat­en the sur­vival of my country.”

Who are the “some” of whom Netanyahu speak is it the President? The President has said he will not meet with Netanyahu because it would be a break with tra­di­tion of the white house not to meet with for­eign lead­ers who are engaged in elec­tion cam­paign­ing. Netanyahu faces the Israeli elec­torate in just a cou­ple of weeks from his sched­uled March 3^rd address.

Frankly President Obama should stop beat­ing around the bush and tell the world he refus­es to meet with the dis­re­spect­ful Republican Senator from Israel because he does not like him. Netanyahu all but endorsed Mitt Romney for President dur­ing the last Presidential elec­tions . Who is Netanyahu fool­ing , he does not like Obama and Obama does not like him . 

The report went on to say more than a half dozen House and Senate Democrats have said they will skip the speech, call­ing it an affront to President Barack Obama and the admin­is­tra­tion as they engage in high-lev­el nego­ti­a­tions with Iran over its nuclear pro­gram. Vice President Joe Biden will be trav­el­ing and has no plans to attend the speech.
Well there you have it, half a dozen house and sen­ate democ­rats? What of the rest? Not only is this address a deeply offen­sive breach of pro­to­col, it is an affront to the Nation’s first black pres­i­dent. Democrats who make the deci­sion to sit through this affront will sig­nal that they join repub­li­cans in giv­ing aid and com­fort to the inso­lent Netanyahu over a sit­ting American pres­i­dent who just hap­pens to be black.

Israel is an apartheid state which has pre­cious lit­tle respect for black people.
Netanyahu and his admin­is­tra­tion has led a vicious cam­paign against Ethiopian Jews and and oth­er Africans who ven­ture into the state of Israel. Netanyahu and many in his Government and Country labels blacks who ven­ture into Apartheid Israel “Infiltrators”. They call them can­cers on Israeli society.
Many African Jews,(real decen­dants of bib­li­cal jews) are harassed and round­ed up like cat­tle and herd­ed into a mas­sive prison in the Negev desert. 
Why would a repub­li­can sup­port­ing Netanyahu respect our pres­i­dent, when he sees Africans in Israel as infiltrators? 

The trav­es­ty of the blind sup­port some have for the Apartheid state of Israel, includ­ing some reli­gious lead­ers in the black com­mu­ni­ty, is their igno­rance to the real­i­ties of the Biblical Israel and this char­la­tan Apartheid state.
The tragedy is that even though they hate blacks , they ben­e­fit from black peo­ple’s mon­ey the American Government takes in tax­es and gives to them to the tune of Billions of dol­lars annually.

Durbin said in a state­ment that he regret­ted that Netanyahu could not meet with the Democrats.

“We offered the Prime Minister an oppor­tu­ni­ty to bal­ance the polit­i­cal­ly divi­sive invi­ta­tion from Speaker (John) Boehner with a pri­vate meet­ing with Democrats who are com­mit­ted to keep­ing the bipar­ti­san sup­port of Israel strong,” Durbin said. “His refusal to meet is dis­ap­point­ing to those of us who have stood by Israel for decades.

Well there you have it, Netanyahu is not a diplo­mat, he is not a man who respects pro­to­cols. He is a war-mon­ger­ing hawk who will not rest until America is engaged in a war with Iran over nuclear weapons even as Israel pos­s­eses stock­piles of nuclear weapons of it’s own.
What makes Israel exempt from the same rules oth­er coun­tries are sub­ject to?
Who does Netanyahu think he is that President Obama should bow to his demands for war, fail­ing which he will protest the President’s poli­cies using the con­gress as a polit­i­cal platform?
This is the kind of raw dis­re­spect that we have come to expect from repub­li­cans in the congress. 
Hiding our heads in the sand does not negate the fact that con­gres­sion­al repub­li­cans want war with Iran. Netanyahu also want war with Iran.

This pres­i­den­t’s pol­i­cy of peace through nego­ti­a­tions and mutu­al respect, does not line up with the per­pet­u­al war-mon­ger­ing of repub­li­cans and Netanyahu.
This is the rea­son the weak John Boehner invit­ed Netanyahu to speak .
Never before have we seen such egre­gious dis­play of dis­re­spect to pres­i­den­tial lead­er­ship. We will wait to see which demo­c­rat sit and lis­ten to Netanyahu’s bull.

Rudolph Giuliani the man some dubbed America’s may­or dou­bled down on the inflam­ma­to­ry com­ment he made about the nation’s pres­i­dent not lov­ing America as oth­ers do.
On the face of it, the pub­lic­i­ty-hound Giuliani would have to have some sort of access to the brain of all Americans in order to mea­sure their degree of love of country.
There is no need to guess about the method Giuliani used in arriv­ing at the President’s patri­o­tism lev­els, he spelled it out when he made it clear he was not sor­ry about mak­ing an ass of himself.

“Look, this man was brought up basi­cal­ly in a white fam­i­ly, so what­ev­er he learned or didn’t learn, I attribute this more to the influ­ence of com­mu­nism and social­ism” than to his race, Giuliani told the Daily News. “I don’t (see) this President as being par­tic­u­lar­ly a prod­uct of African-American soci­ety or some­thing like that. He isn’t,” the for­mer may­or added. “Logically, think about his back­ground… The ideas that are trou­bling me and are lead­ing to this come from com­mu­nists with whom he asso­ci­at­ed when he was 9 years old” through fam­i­ly connections.

Okay so now we under­stand the for­mu­la for Obama’s com­mu­nism, the rea­son for Giuliani’s igno­rance is made clear­er. his father had been arrest­ed in 1934 for rob­bing a milk­man at gun­point and had spent a year and a half in jail. This hap­pened when young Rudolph was about 7 years.
So if a 9‑year-old Obama is a com­mu­nist for being intro­duced to Communist, then it nat­u­ral­ly fol­lows that Giuliani is indeed a gun-tot­ing-stick up felon for his time spent with and being his father’s son.
It is a fair analy­sis to make using Giuliani’s logic.

I must admit I am no fan of El Deuce, that much must be clear by now. Why? Because he is a hyp­o­crit­i­cal racist.
He is nar­cis­sis­tic glo­ry hound.
There are ample exam­ples of Giuliani’s glo­ry hunting.
As a U.S. Attorney Giuliani devel­oped the rep­u­ta­tion as some­thing of a pub­lic­i­ty seek­er, some­times pub­licly hand-cuff­ing mob boss­es and busi­ness lead­ers on trumped up charges only to qui­et­ly drop the charges later.

The façade he pre­sent­ed as some kind of great American Mayor fed by the swoon­ing New York Press and a Nation look­ing for heroes after September 11^th 2001 could nev­er stand the smell test, or with­stand scruti­ny when the scab is peeled back.
It is laugh­able when tele­vi­sion talk­ing heads tell us Giuliani is sul­ly­ing his image as America’s Mayor with this far right rhetoric.
The truth is Giuliani had no record to sul­ly, he made the deci­sion to place the city’s com­mand cen­ter in the world trade cen­ter build­ing after the build­ing had already expe­rienxced one ter­ror­ists attack in 1993.
If incom­pe­tence and bad judge­ment qual­i­fies one as a good American Mayor then Obama’s sol­id lead­er­ship since he took the reins of America’s col­lapsed econ­o­my cer­tain­ly makes him a can­di­date for sainthood.
Giuliani’s hor­ri­ble judge­ment and arro­gance far exceeds the deci­sion to house the con­trol cen­ter in the world trade center.
President Bush tapped Kerik, as his nom­i­nee for home­land secu­ri­ty sec­re­tary, but Kerik abrupt­ly with­drew his name after reveal­ing that he had not paid all required tax­es for a fam­i­ly nan­ny-house­keep­er and that the woman may have been in the coun­try illegally.

Kerik a for­mer NYPD com­mis­sion­er appoint­ed by Giuliani and lat­er his busi­ness part­ner was rec­om­mend­ed to Bush by none oth­er than Giuliani.
Bernard Kerik was lat­er to do time in a fed­er­al prison.
Giuliani’s abuse of his office through police pro­tec­tion he received as he trekked to Long Island to see his mis­tress Judith Nathan at the cost of tens of thou­sands of dol­lars to the city’s tax-pay­ers is well documented.

These are just a few of the trans­gres­sions we know of the hyp­o­crit­i­cal glo­ry-hound Giuliani. We also know that he gets paid hand­some­ly as a con­sul­tant and speak­er com­mand­ing up to 80K per speak­ing engage­ment where he pro­vides strate­gic coun­sel in emer­gency preparedness. 
If ever there was an irony.
Giuliani needs to be in the news, that’s how the mon­ey keep rolling in. He is pre­pared to say and do any­thing to be in the news and he is doing just that.

This guy is not run­ning for dog-catch­er yet every­one is talk­ing about him and that’s exact­ly what he craves.

No one expects any par­tic­u­lar Democrat to defend our President from the vile dis­gust­ing and con­cert­ed rhetoric com­ing from his ene­mies on the right,but blacks must remem­ber the likes of Hillary Clinton and prob­a­bly most impor­tant­ly Andrew Coumo.

Coumo New’s York Governor, gave a long mean­der­ing speech at the funer­al for his late father Mario Coumo a for­mer Governor whom some viewed as a lib­er­al lion and a cham­pi­on for those with­out mon­ey and pow­er. As I lis­tened to the speech, I thought to myself the

speech made one thing clear Andrew Coumo was no Mario Coumo.
Real lead­ers lead from the front , not hide behind and do what is polit­i­cal­ly expe­di­ent. Cuomo hid while Mayor deBlasio stood and took heat for his stance on Police abuse.
As the state’s Governor, Cuomo did not have to defend the state’s black cit­i­zens, God for­bid, but he could have stood with deBlasio anoth­er white man who did the right thing.
Andrew Cuomo chose to remain silent.

Unfortunately though Cuomo ben­e­fit­ed immense­ly from black votes in the last elec­tions he could not muster up the balls or the char­ac­ter to stand with them in their moment of travail. 

Though Cuomo won the last elec­tions beat­ing Republican rival Rob Astorino by 13 per­cent­age points, the National review report­ed that Astorino col­lect­ed 1.3 mil­lion votes — or 49 per­cent — com­pared to Cuomo’s 1.2 mil­lion, or 46 per­cent, in a low-turnout elec­tion. Three third-par­ty can­di­dates were also on the bal­lot. Cuomo’s 13-per­cent­age-point win over Republican chal­lenger Rob Astorino on Nov. 4 was fueled by a large mar­gin of vic­to­ry in New York City, where he took home 77 per­cent of the near­ly 1 mil­lion bal­lots cast, accord­ing to the state Board of Election’s unof­fi­cial results.

He did not do well in white Democratic lib­er­al strong­holds ‚gen­er­al­ly speak­ing Cuomo did best in the

ADs that are pre­dom­i­nant­ly black.”
 Democrats have tak­en the black vote for grant­ed for decades. They prob­a­bly will for decades more, unless blacks cease vot­ing, or avail them­selves to the real­i­ties they face. The fact is that Democrats know that blacks can­not run to the Republican par­ty, so they do not have to earn the votes of their most loy­al vot­ers, nei­ther do they have to stand with them.
So Cuomo did not feel the need to stand up for black peo­ple in New York City.
nei­ther does he feel the need to repu­di­ate the vile crea­ture Rudolph Giuliani on his bot­tom feed­ing gut­ter attack on our President.

Chances are Andrew Cuomo is not will­ing to ruf­fle the feath­ers of anoth­er Italian, a repub­li­can who crossed par­ty line and endorsed his father when he ran for a fourth term in 1994.

On the occa­sion of cross­ing par­ty lines to endorse the elder Cuomo, Guiliani said. “George Pataki’s only essen­tial char­ac­ter­is­tic is that he offers an alter­na­tive. “Strangely, how­ev­er, after lengthy analy­sis and a lot of soul-search­ing, I’ve come to the con­clu­sion that it is George Pataki who best per­son­i­fies the sta­tus quo of New York pol­i­tics — a can­di­date tak­ing as few posi­tions as pos­si­ble, all of them as gen­er­al as pos­si­ble, tak­ing no risks and being guid­ed and script­ed by oth­ers. He has sim­ply not made the case that he is the agent of change.”
This is the very first time I con­cur with any­thing Giuliani has to say, only this time the very words

Giuliani used to described George Pataki as he bat­tled Mario Cuomo, are now total­ly appro­pri­ate in describ­ing Andrew Cuomo.
New York’s black vot­ers should nev­er for­get the cow­ardice of Andrew Cuomo when they need­ed their Governor to stand with them.
They should nev­er for­get the cow­ardice of Andrew Cuomo when he refused to stand against the vile naked big­otry of his fel­low Italian, Rudolph Giuliani in his inces­sant attacks against the Nation’s first black chief-executive.
But I will not hold my breath that this will hap­pen, chances are many of the state’s black vot­ers don’t even both­er to hold Coumo account­able, or know they should.
Given the chance they will once again go into vot­ing booths and vote for Andrew Cuomo again and again, and again.

“I do not believe, and I know this is a hor­ri­ble thing to say, but I do not believe that the pres­i­dent loves America,” Giuliani said dur­ing the din­ner at the 21 Club, a for­mer Prohibition-era speakeasy in mid­town Manhattan. “He does­n’t love you. And he does­n’t love me. He was­n’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”

Anyone who thought the war against President Obama was any­thing but racial is liv­ing a delud­ed exis­tence. President Barack Obama can­not run for anoth­er elect­ed office in America. He has rough­ly two years left in office. So one would have thought that even at fund-rais­ers oppo­nents would have sought to talk about poten­tial adver­saries , not the guy who can non longer beat them.
So what moti­vates the oppo­si­tion to Obama you ask?
Race does.
For a sick dement­ed swath of the Republican right, President Obama rep­re­sents a gross depar­ture from the foun­da­tion tenets and teach­ings of white suprema­cy and could only have attained the office through fraud, or evil des­ig­na­tion such as their charge he is an impos­tor from Kenya and worse, a dev­il Manchurian candidate.
Whether you assign cre­dence to the pub­lic­i­ty whore Rudolph Giuliani, or you believe as the National Review’s Kevin D Williamson does that,“Barack Obama spent years in the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church as the church­man ful­mi­nat­ed: “God Damn America!” The Reverend Wright’s infa­mous “God Damn America!” ser­mon charges the coun­try with a litany of abus­es: slav­ery, mis­treat­ment of the Indians, “treat­ing cit­i­zens as less than human,” etc. A less rav­ing ver­sion of the same indict­ment can be found in the president’s own speech­es and books. His social cir­cle includes such fig­ures as Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, who expressed their love of coun­try by par­tic­i­pat­ing in a mur­der­ous ter­ror­ist cam­paign against it”.
You must divorce your­self from the facts of those atroc­i­ties, suck up the abuse and nev­er men­tion it but be grate­ful that they live in the utopia of American exceptional-ism.
nev­er mind the inde­fen­si­ble atroc­i­ties met­ed out to peo­ple of col­or, the issue is not the abuse is that you dare ques­tion the method­ol­o­gy used on the path to American exceptionalism.

As loathe as I am to acknowl­edge Giuliani’s exis­tence, I do so to high­light the fact that even though they know they lie they can­not resist the lure to lie to fur­ther their agenda.
“I do not believe, and I know this is a hor­ri­ble thing to say, but I do not believe that the pres­i­dent loves America,”.
It is a hor­ri­ble thing to say because it’s a lie. The truth demands no apol­o­gy. It is hor­ri­ble that even though the despi­ca­ble Giuliani knows he was lying he could not tame his vile tongue. He knew it was the thing that would play well in that room of equal­ly vile crea­tures of hate and lies.
They gath­er using lies and deceit as they eat the meat of con­tra­dic­tion. Because on the right, right is what’s right for them. Truth is a dis­pens­able option used for expe­di­en­cy. The ide­o­log­i­cal fight around Immigration , Voting Rights and Budget allo­ca­tions are not fights they wage on right­eous prin­ci­ples. They are ide­o­log­i­cal fights waged around the con­cept of white suprema­cy and white entitlements.

In two years they will not have Obama to kick around any more,but their hate­ful rhetoric will con­tin­ue on bud­get, vot­ing, immi­gra­tion, and on police abuse so the next demo­c­ra­t­ic pres­i­dent will be no less a bogey-man/­woman, just not the Kenyan-born, Manchurian can­di­date sent to destroy their repub­lic.

A very seri­ous breach of diplo­mat­ic pro­to­col is about to be com­mit­ted by

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu .
The Israeli Prime Minister was invit­ed by the United States Speaker of the House John Boehner to address the American Congress. 
Netanyahu is sched­uled to address the con­gress on the talks between the Obama Administration and oth­er pow­ers, includ­ing Britain, Germany, France,China, Russia and Iran , on Iran’s nuclear program.
Initially Netanyahu was slat­ed to address the House in February but the speech has been pushed back to March 3^rd.

The prob­lem with the speech is that no one in the speak­er’s office both­ered to noti­fy the White House that Netanyahu was sched­uled to address the con­gress just two weeks pri­or to that coun­try’s elec­tions to pick a new leader.
The White House insists that the Israeli Ambassador recent­ly met with Secretary of state John Kerry for two hours but did not both­er to men­tion that Netanyahu was com­ing to address congress.
In fact Boehner made it clear that his invite to Netanyahu was intend­ed to be a dis­re­spect­ful ges­ture to President Obama.
Boehner said quote: The Republicans are inter­est­ed in send­ing a “clear mes­sage to the White House — and the world — about our com­mit­ment to Israel and our allies,”.
Boehner who did not even both­er to tell mem­bers of the demo­c­ra­t­ic cau­cus in

the house of his deci­sion to invite Netanyahu,sees noth­ing wrong with usurp­ing nor­mal pro­to­cols to make anoth­er polit­i­cal statement.
Netantahu a right wing hawk who crave war with Iran, is anx­ious to use the American Congress two weeks before a tight elec­tion in Israel to lift his own profile.
Most of all how­ev­er, Netanyahu no fan of Obama, seem to rel­ish the oppor­tu­ni­ty to poke a fin­ger into Obama’s eye as the American pres­i­dent enters the fourth quar­ter of his presidency.
Republicans for their part are not con­cerned about any dis­re­spect to Obama, in fact that seem to be exact­ly their intention.
President Obama has inti­mat­ed he will not meet with Netanyahu.
There is a long stand­ing pro­to­col not to meet with for­eign lead­ers that close to elec­tions in their own coun­tries, the pres­i­dent said.
No one believes those are the rea­sons the pres­i­dent will not meet with Netanyahu however.
The office of Vice pres­i­dent Biden said, Biden will not be attend­ing the speech either.
Members of the con­gres­sion­al black cau­cus have also indi­cat­ed they will not be attend­ing the speech.
In Israel there is very lit­tle sup­port for the speech, the Times of Israel pub­lished a poll which shows In response to the ques­tion, “Do you think Prime Minister Netanyahu should trav­el to speak before the US Congress?” a major­i­ty of 52% said no, com­pared to 36% in favor. A fur­ther 12% said that they didn’t know whether Netanyahu should go.

Set aside the breach of diplo­mat­ic pro­to­col for a sec­ond then ask yourselves

why would Netanyahu do some­thing so poten­tial­ly dam­ag­ing to American Israeli relations?
Never mind the actions of Republicans, any­one still doubt­ful that their actions toward pres­i­dent Obama are any­thing but racial need to have their heads examined.
Netanyahu must have cal­cu­lat­ed that his vis­it will give him a boost in polls at home. He prob­a­bly sees this as an oppor­tune time to stick it to Obama, whom he clear­ly has very lit­tle love for.
Netanyahu does not believe there are any dan­gers to the bi-lat­er­al rela­tions between the two coun­tries. Why would he ?America has pledged unequiv­o­cal sup­port to the Zionist state, that will not change because he is dis­re­spect­ful to it’s first black pres­i­dent, if any­thing it will bol­ster that relationship.

In an Observer Article dat­ed Feb 3^rd 2015, retired Jamaica Defense Force Colonel Allan Douglas wrote an Article which could only be con­strued to be in defense of Garrisons. In his Article Douglas said this.
Regrettably, through­out my mil­i­tary career, I have often heard from civil­ians the solu­tion of “flat­ten­ing” areas over and over; ‘Just flat­ten Rema, Tivoli, etc, and the crime prob­lem would be solved!’ they say. So, I have become very sus­pi­cious with pro­posed solu­tions like “dis­man­tling polit­i­cal gar­risons”. What exact­ly do peo­ple mean when they speak of dis­man­tling garrisons?
Clearly Douglas miss­es the feel­ing of exas­per­a­tion of cit­i­zens who make those state­ments. It appears that despite a car­rear in the JDF and hav­ing attained the rank of Colonel, Douglas has very lit­tle under­stand­ing of what obtains on the streets of Jamaica’s Garrisons, or what are often referred to as zones of polit­i­cal exclusions. 
It could be either that Douglas did not spend enough time out­side Duppy Gate, or that he is once again act­ing as a de-fac­to defend­er of the People’s National Party’s failures.
See Article here. http://​www​.jamaicaob​serv​er​.com/​c​o​l​u​m​n​s​/​W​e​-​c​a​n​-​t​-​j​ust – flat­ten – garrisons_18340450
Colonel Douglas in what could eas­i­ly be mis­in­ter­pret­ed as a stout defense of the poor, unwit­ting­ly showed his Orange col­ors ‚Quote:  I have become very sus­pi­cious with pro­posed solu­tions like “dis­man­tling polit­i­cal gar­risons”. What exact­ly do peo­ple mean when they speak of dis­man­tling garrisons?

Technically only the rul­ing peo­ple’s National Party has true gar­risons remain­ing . Having held state pow­er for most of the time since inde­pen­dence, the PNP is the sole par­ty with scarce resources to dole out. This has allowed the par­ty to increase and con­sol­i­date it’s hold on state pow­er because of it’s abil­i­ty to dish out scarce resources. This means that in actu­al­i­ty each elec­tion cycle less and less seats are actu­al­ly in play. 

Incredibly after a car­rear in the Nation’s secu­ri­ty forces, Allan Douglas could speak on the issue of Garrisons as if in defense of them. If the good­ly Colonel had spent some time out­side of the Banana Republic type con­fines of Up-Park Camp, where sub­or­di­nates cater to his demands, he would cer­tain­ly have rec­og­nized that the prob­lem of Jamaica’s Garrisons was nev­er the func­tion of the young sol­diers and police offi­cers who police and die in these gar­risons , but are well designed strate­gies aimed at divid­ing and con­quer­ing so that the archi­tects may hold state power.
Just maybe if Colonel Douglas had a sin­gle mod­icum of real empa­thy for those con­demned to a life­time of incar­cer­a­tion with­in the imag­i­nary walls of Jamaica’s gar­risons, he would be using his voice and posi­tion to trum­pet.….….. yes the dis­man­tling process of all garrisons.

They are not gar­risons in the strict mil­i­tary dic­tio­nary mean­ing of the word. The com­mu­ni­ties can’t be “flat­tened” as if one was strik­ing a mil­i­tary tent­ed camp or shut­ting down a mil­i­tary strong­hold and reduc­ing the build­ings to rub­ble. So just how is this dis­man­tling exer­cise to be done?I sus­pect that there are many who would still advo­cate and have imple­ment­ed some sort of “eth­nic cleans­ing” type of oper­a­tion. I also sus­pect that those advo­cat­ing dis­man­tling of gar­risons haven’t the slight­est clue as to how they are going to go about doing so. What are the fac­tors to be con­sid­ered in this dis­man­tling exer­cise? If the social, polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic fac­tors of this dis­man­tling exer­cise have been thor­ough­ly thought out, it cer­tain­ly must be one of Jamaica’s best-kept secrets. It is my opin­ion that, for far too long we have treat­ed these com­mu­ni­ties and the peo­ple who live there­in with scorn and deri­sion. We have tram­pled all over their rights, mur­dered their inno­cent young­sters, and so often com­fort­ed our­selves with the thought that they are all just a bunch of crim­i­nals and are deserv­ing of death by any means. And, if by chance a baby in a crib is slaugh­tered — and these things do hap­pen — col­lat­er­al death is accept­able. If the bod­ies of young­sters shot by our secu­ri­ty forces are left to rot on the road for dogs and crows to take their pick, then so be it, because they are all a bunch of hor­ri­ble crim­i­nals and deserve it. Their voic­es are very rarely lis­tened to when they cry out for jus­tice, and their lead­ers and defend­ers of their rights are demonised. Despite all of that, they sur­vive and are real, and out of what we regard as the cesspit of our coun­try, they have pro­duced many who have gone on to bring fame and glo­ry to Jamaica — and, oh, how we love them then!

My point is, if we are anx­ious, as Jamaicans, to stop the obvi­ous rot from with­in our soci­ety, we must be more car­ing of each oth­er, regard­less of our sta­tions in life. Our laws must be just and admin­is­tered fair­ly. If one inno­cent Jamaican is killed, it must be the busi­ness of all Jamaicans. If we “flat­ten” with­out a con­science, the back-blast is bound to hurt all Jamaicans in the long run, not just the criminals.

“They are not gar­risons in the strict mil­i­tary dic­tio­nary mean­ing of the word so they can’t be flat­tened” . Well Colonel they can be , but no one, no sane per­son at least, is sug­gest­ing that they be lit­er­al­ly flat­tened. Not because it is a bad idea to flat­ten them phys­i­cal­ly, does not mean they should not be dismantled.
The mind­set of depen­den­cy and enti­tle­ment which fer­til­izes and nur­tures the gar­ri­son cul­ture, does noth­ing to advance the pros­per­i­ty and well being of those who reside with­in those con­fines . Voting with una­nim­i­ty for one par­ty or the oth­er, believ­ing that scarce resources will come flow­ing is nev­er a sus­tain­able path to true inde­pen­dence and pros­per­i­ty. The prob­lem is that there is nev­er enough to go around after the prin­ci­pal play­ers have gouged them­selves with the slop

stolen from the pub­lic trough.
On that basis ‚the only true option for the poor and dis­pos­sessed is the utter dis­man­tling of all gar­risons and a return to the true entre­pre­neur­ial spir­it of the free and unencumbered.. 
You see Colonel as you stat­ed, Jamaica’s gar­risons are cer­tain­ly not Garrisons in the mil­i­tary sense. So no ‚flat­ten­ing them would be ill-advised. However, it is evi­dent that you suf­fer from the same type of blind­ness which struck Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller. After all she famous­ly stat­ed that her par­ty has no gar­risons because she does­n’t not see any walls. 
Yes Colonel, the walls are not lit­er­al they are men­tal, so yes, we must begin the slow painstak­ing process of dis­man­tling the mind­set of Garrison dwellers.
Then and only then, will all Jamaicans have an oppor­tu­ni­ty to live out the full promise of their lives, free and unshack­led from the promise of state fund­ed largess. In the end the only true bene­fac­tors are those with polit­i­cal pow­er and those who exert mus­cle on their behalf.