CELEBRITY APPRENTICE: HIRE OBAMA, TERMINATE THE TERMINATOR.

Icheoku says without a doubt, Arnold Schwarzenegger is definitely not Donald Trump and his "You're terminated" does not carry the same weight nor resonates as Donald's "You're fired" and the people have since tuned off even before it started. It would appear that his "You're Terminated" catch-phrase is not catchy enough and the solution would be to terminate the terminator. The best thing to do before the show becomes unwatchable and goes down the ratings drain is to honorably suspend or even cancel the show; or better still hire someone who could bring back viewers to the show. Icheoku says no other person will be most suited to host the show and be far would be the hottest host of the show than the soon to be former President Barack Obama or even Michelle Obama. 

Icheoku says President Barack Obama should have a go at the Celebrity Apprentice. With his freshness from the White House, many of his supporters will certainly tune in to have something to occupy their minds and keep them away from groaning because of the new occupant of the White House. That way, they can still tune in to television to watch their idol, Barack Obama. But Arnold Schwarzenegger is definitely not the it factor as he is not what the doctor ordered. A show which attracted over 11 million viewers when it debut with Donald Trump but has now plummeted to below 5 million viewers with Arnold Schwarzenegger shows a total rejection of the current host Mr Calu-foo-rnyna. Donald Trump is simply irreplaceable because there can only be one Donald Trump, the 'You're fired guy and now President-elect of the United States of America. If however the producers want to try, it is definitely not with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Donald Trump can be imitated but never duplicated; and if the producers of the show wants a ratings roof, they should hire the soon to be former President Barack Obama as only him currently have what it will take to revamp the show and take its ratings to the stratosphere. 

Icheoku says Arnold Schwarzenegger lost his appeal mojo after knocking up his house girl, leading up to his divorce from his wife Maria-Shriver Kennedy. The people have not forgiven him nor are they ready to warm up to him by tuning into whatever he has going on, either on television or elsewhere. Women who constitutes the majority of television show watching audience have not forgiven Arnold Schwarzenegger for what he did to one of their own favorite person; and until then, ratings of his hosted Celebrity Apprentice will remain where it is, in the cold doldrums and soon will descend further into the abyss. The only solution is to hire a freshman television face like Barack Obama and hope his fans will tune in to continue to see his face somewhere on television. Every other thing will not work and the producers of the show might as well as kill it rather than have the face of Arnold Schwarzenegger appear thereon, with his alien accent, which is now a turn-off to many Americans; especially in this new age of national pride and America First ideology. Icheoku says it is either to do away with Arnold Schwarzenegger or kill off The Celebrity Apprentice entirely. Nothing else will work or operate to save the show.

MERLY STREEP: ANOTHER HOLLYWOOD ELITE GONE OFF THE WAGON.

Icheoku says that the Hollywood elites who bankrolled Hillary Clinton's failed second bid for the White House have not recovered from the shellacking she received on November 8, 2016 once again manifested at the just held Golden Globe Awards 2016. This time the arrowhead was none other that the Devil who wears Prada herself, Mary Louise Streep aka Merly Streep. Still sore and mourning the botched feminist hostile takeover of the White House, the old lady went off on a tirade. She completely lost it and throwing every decorum and decency out the window, pilloried Donald Trump and denigrated millions of world wide Mixed Martial Arts enthusiasts. 

In the usual Hollywood 'am better than anyone else' character, Merly Streep, condemned Mixed Martial Arts as a no Art; holding up only those of them who actually do nothing other than lip through scripts and put up a make-brief facade on screens, as the only purveyors and professionals of the Art. In her very own words, Merly Streep said “Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners, if we kick them all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and Mixed Martial Arts – which are not the arts.” Icheoku says really and who made Merly Streep the sole authority on what constitutes Art and what does not. A tirade she began with taking a jab at President-Elect Donald John Trump, re-litigating an election which was since November 8, 2016 won by Trump and lost by her candidate Hillary Clinton; and rehashing a story of a supposed mocking of a disabled journalist which story has been since debunked. But she played it along and in her natural course of professional endeavor, injected acting into the story telling, inflecting her voices to reflect whatever pretentious pain she felt about it. 

This was a story that was severally and repeatedly presented to the American people during the campaign, which they evaluated and came to the conclusion that the country have to move on. Yet Merly Streep had nothing better to say in thanks and appreciation for the award she received but devoted her time slot disparaging President-Elect Donald John Trump and millions of Mixed Martial Arts loving world-wide audience. That she called into question the judgment and moral uprightness of the over 65 million Americans who voted for President-Elect Donald John Trump by regurgitating this tale of lack of compassion by the president-elect several months after the election tells a lot about her character. That she dismissed a sport engaged in by thousands of people worldwide and   millions of their fans and followers as no Art, says a lot too about her very condescending attitude. Why make so many millions of people mad and in so cavalier a manner that is beyond words or description. Is Merly Streep telling the world that she has is better than everyone else who voted for Trump or who is a lover or Mixed Martial Arts; or that she has never erred or ever did something below par and in other words, that she is infallible? 

This is exactly what is wrong with some of these elites who condescendingly look down on the rest of the people and think that they are very special simply because they can read and act scripted make-believe stories. Icheoku concedes that Merely Streep is a good actress and confesses too to having watched some of her movies including 'The Devil Wears Prada'; but does her acting ability make her wholesome in every aspect and facet of human life. If only Icheoku knows where to find her gardeners, cleaners, janitors, chauffeurs and other sundry staff of hers to find out from them how saintly in fact she is when they are left alone in the privacy of her fiefdom and utterly to her mercy. But no one actually needs to speak with any of her servants and attendants to know how mean spirited she really is after watching her broad condemnation of Mixed Martial Arts as no Art at all. Icheoku says what an uppity lady of entitlement, who would broad-brush Football and MMA as no arts. How dare she disparage millions of world citizens who participate in this two sports; yet this is the woman who some people listen to as an authority in morality. 

Icheoku is not beguiled by the emotive sentiment Merely Streep tried to whip up with the theater she put up. Every right thinking person knows the real source of the hurt inside her, that her candidate and the prospective first female president did not make it to the White House and peradventure with her advanced age, she might not ever witness the day when an electable female will eventually make it to the White House. Hurting for a lost cause or a departed dear one is an acceptable form of grieving; but Icheoku refuses to accept the subterfuge of holding advocacy for the disabled and illegals which she passed it off as reason for her unprovoked tirade. Nope, all the theatrics she put up on the podium will not be enough to hoodwink the vigilant as it is in their character to feel and see themselves as being all that matters and most important. These people did not have their way with winning the presidency, hence there will be no peace in America because against all odds, a candidate who no one gave the slightest chance of winning won and now the heavens have to be brought down on top of everyone's head. 

Icheoku says please let somebody tell Merly Streep that Americans and the world saw through her charade and that she did not sway any opinion nor got any sympathy from anyone other than the limited coolaid drinkers who were rejected alongside their Hillary Clinton on November 8, 2016. Icheoku did not buy into her rehearsed rendition and neither did millions of thinking Americans as well as the world audience who actually know the underlying reason which prompted her outburst. She was not truthful and she over-dramatized it and as a result lost more respect in the process. She is bitter; she is angry and she is heavily weighted down by the outcome of an election which did not go her way as she and her fellow Hollywood heavies had planned and arrogantly believed. Now what else could be more fiery than a psychologically traumatized old lady, grieving a lost opportunity which will never come again during her lifetime. What an aging old woman who just invited the disrespect of 33 million irredeemable deplorables and 30 million other Trump voters, whose judgment she called into question. She also will have to contend with the wrath and rage of millions of others who consider football and Mixed Martial Arts a germane Art. 

SIX QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RUSSIAN HACKING REPORT - BYRON YORK

Julia Ioffe, a writer for The Atlantic who watches Russia carefully, tweeted this about the intelligence community's unclassified report on Russian hacking released Friday: "It's hard to tell if the thinness of the #hacking report is because the proof is classified, or because the proof doesn't exist."* 

"Thin" is right. The report is brief — the heart of it is just five broadly-spaced pages. It is all conclusions and no evidence. In the introduction, the IC — the collective voice of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA — explains that it cannot supply evidence to the public, because doing so "would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future." 

The problem is, without evidence, it's hard for the public to determine just what happened in the hacking affair. So here are six questions the IC might consider answering in the days ahead:

1) When did the Russian hacking campaign begin? The report says Vladimir Putin "ordered an influence campaign in 2016." It also says Russia's intelligence services gained access to the Democratic National Committee's computer system in July 2015 as part of an effort targeting both Democrats and Republicans, as well as individual campaigns, think tanks, and lobbyists. The IC also notes that some of Russia's "professional trolls…started to advocate for President-elect Trump as early as December 2015." This could be a simple writing problem, or it could be something more significant. Is the report saying Putin ordered the 2016 campaign in 2015? Is it saying Russian activities in 2015 were routine operations to mess with U.S. institutions and then became part of the Putin-ordered campaign in 2016? Is it saying something else? 

2) Was the Russian campaign intended more to help candidate Donald Trump or to undermine President Hillary Clinton? The report says Putin ordered the 2016 campaign "to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." The report goes on to say that at some point Putin "developed a clear preference" for Trump. But it also says that, "Moscow's approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia's understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency." That suggests some sort of shift in the Russian campaign. But when? What does it mean when the report says, "When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win…"? Because if the Russians were following U.S. coverage and commentary, it always appeared that Clinton was likely to win — from the primaries through the Democratic convention through the general election. In other words, during the entire campaign, the consensus of the American commentariat was that Clinton was likely to win. Did the Russians disagree, or did they have a degree of insight into the polls, or simple clairvoyance, that Nate Silver didn't? Or was the Russian campaign overwhelmingly devoted to "undermining [Clinton's] expected presidency"?

3) How much of the Russian campaign was garden-variety propaganda? The IC report says, "Russia's state-run propaganda machine — comprised of its domestic media apparatus, outlets targeting global audiences such as RT and Sputnik, and a network of quasi-government trolls — contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences." Indeed, the report devotes more space to analyzing RT, the Russian TV network, than it does to hacking. It's hard to know how much of the alleged Russian influence the IC attributes to hacking and how much to propaganda.

4) How and when did Russia transmit the hacked information to WikiLeaks? "We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets," the IC report says. "We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks." But when did that happen? Was it during the period when Putin supposedly thought the U.S. presidential race was anyone's game? Or during the time he thought Clinton was likely to win? And if it was the latter, did Russia transmit the information to WikiLeaks as part of an effort to undermine Clinton's "expected presidency"?

5) Just what did the Russians do to target Republicans? The IC report has one sentence devoted to Russian cyber efforts against the GOP: "Russia collected on some Republican-affiliated targets but did not conduct a comparable disclosure campaign." There have been reports that the Russians attempted to hack the Republican National Committee, but that those efforts were unsuccessful. The word "collected" in the IC report suggests some effort against GOP-related targets might have been successful, but what happened is not clear. And the report does not elaborate on the IC assessment that there was a big disparity between efforts targeting Democrats and Republicans.

6) Why can't the IC release more? Intelligence officials have already leaked classified parts of the report. For example, the Washington Post recently reported that U.S. intelligence agencies "intercepted communications in the aftermath of the election in which Russian officials congratulated themselves on the outcome." The Post also reported the intercepted messages "revealed that top officials in Russia anticipated that Clinton would win." There will likely be many more leaks to come. Why not at least release the information that has already been leaked? 

To the degree that there are partisan differences in assessing the Russia hacking affair, it's important that Republicans with access to the classified IC report leak as much as Democrats. A confused public will be trying to get a picture of what the full report says. Better to get both views of what's in there.

MEGAN KELLY'S MOVE TO NBC, WILL FLOP NOT FLOURISH.

Icheoku says the one thing with some people, especially people in the limelight, is that sometimes they forget who made them; and being so full of it, begin to think that they are the reason for the season. Megan Kelly is now thinking in this way and sooner than later she will find out the hard way that she is not the big gun she thinks she is. Rather she is just a product of FoxNews watchers who adopted her as a female face of the Cable Network and accepted her as one of their own. Megan Kelly is not the it factor, admitted she somewhat contributed to it and was catapulted to the premier position because of her face off with then presidential nominee aspirant Donald Trump; when many people tuned in, including Icheoku, to see who exactly is this woman who is feuding with Donald Trump. 

FoxNews gave her the platform and FoxNews is the reason why Megan Kelly morphed into what she possibly is now. The unfortunate thing is that FoxNews viewers will not follow Megan Kelly to NBC and neither will the viewing audience of NBC triple because another blonde bimbo's face has suddenly appeared on the screen. Nope, it will not; as viewers are particularly attracted to a network because of the type of broadcast it carries and the viewpoint it expresses and not necessarily because of the face on television spouting what is on the teleprompter. 

Icheoku never heard of Megan Kelly until that debate of blood flowing from everywhere comment and the subsequent brouhaha that followed in its wake; and has periodically since then tuned in to see what beef she was having and who she was going up against, including her brief spat with Newt Gingrich. She is okay reading her teleprompter and she gets girlie sometimes with her facial expressions and funny girlie jokes; but short of that there is no originality about her which glues viewer to her that will make them want to follow her about to see what next she will say or do. She does not have the gravitas of someone like Rush Limbaugh whose followers and listeners will follow to the deepest sinkhole were he to migrate his broadcast there. Also she does not have the presence of someone like Bill O'Reilly whose audience would tag along assuming he decides to leave FoxNews to somewhere else. 

Megan Kelly is more or less ordinary, a feminine face on television and will not draw any FoxNews viewer over to NBC just because she went over there. She will probably bomb out like Greta Van Susteren whom nobody really knew her whereabout or whatever it was that she did afterwards following her departure from CNN a while ago. That she had a stint at FoxNews and is now rumored to be at MSNBC, notwithstanding, she lost her CNN audience and has never recovered nor grew another audience ever since that her plastic surgery. Whatever happens, FoxNews will survive and thrive and provided they retain their hard charging format and allow presenters to be themselves without much of minders, viewers will always tune in and whoever replaces Megan Kelly will still attract the audience which usually tunes in for her time slot. There is also rumor whirling around that she was fired for her drug addiction and that FoxNews was not going to renew her contract. But who would after her allegation of sexual harassment on the former executive of the Network, Roger Ailes. 

But whatever the true story, fans of the network will remain loyal to the Network and will tune in as always to watch whoever is filling the slot. Icheoku for instance stopped watching MSNBC when crazy Keith Olbermann left the station for Al Gore's Channel Television which later morphed into Al-Jazera which has also now gone defunct. Many FoxNews viewers will not follow Megan Kelly to NBC as she does not have the magnetic star-power to pull them over to her new gig at NBC. FoxNews viewers are loyal to FoxNews and the kind of broadcast it carries as well as viewpoint. NBC is not a like-item station and will have no boost whatsoever with the poaching of Megan Kelly over to their station. Possibly the networks took a gamble by offering Megan Kelly more than FoxNews or CNN was ready to pay her and being who she is she took the bait. Hopefully she will not later down the road claim another sexual harassment or forced attempt to kiss her by the NBC Network boss. Anyway, Icheoku wishes her all the best in her latest endeavor and says only time will tell whether NBC's gamble was worth it afterall. 

ESTEBAN SANTIAGO: FORT LAUDERDALE AIRPORT SHOOTER, WHY IS HE NOT DEAD?

Icheoku says is simply surrendering enough reason for the Fort Lauderdale gunman to live after shooting up a baggage collection carousel area, killing five and wounding eight people? Did he live because he does not fit the right template and narrative of a possible terror suspect? Were he Arab or even black, would the policeman who first accosted or encountered him, have let him live or allowed him to be taken alive? What exactly founded the decision not to summarily waste him as should every terrorist and save the people the cost of putting him through a lengthy and lingering justice system. He did it; he was captured in the act, done; why spare him, one would ask? 

Short of debriefing him and possibly unearth the extent of his possible ties to ISIS or any other terrorist group, there was no other real reason for actually sparing his sorry life. Why he surrendered and did not lodge one bullet inside his own brain is also beyond understanding or may be the coward he is was on the way and he could not find the courage to taste his own bitter pill which he unwittingly and freely dished out to others. Regardless, the question becomes how does anyone protect and guard against people like this Esteban Santiago, assuming he is a disciple or rather soldier of ISIS and acted out their script. Here is a man trained with the United States tax payer's money as a soldier. He does not fit the normal profile of a would be terrorist as he is not Arab; and he is neither the usual suspect, a black; but a Hispanic of Puerto Rico descent. He could have ordinarily in the course of his work as a member of the Alaskan National Guard have been dispatched with full military gear, weapons and ammo to patrol a facility or even an airport and then turn around and unleash a scaled-up terror from the carnage he committed at Fort Lauderdale airport in Florida. 

It is simply a very daunting task for security agents to juggle all these possible scenarios, including worrying about such people as this Esteban Santiago, an enemy within the house with nothing about him to tip off agents or increase suspicion about him. A matter which becomes more complicated because there is no one cap fits all indicator or way of identifying these enemies within our midst. It is quite unfortunate that innocent travelers were so summarily dispatched to the world beyond and it is not an airplane accident, but people who were simply waiting to collect up their luggage following a safe landing from a long Alaskan flight to Florida. That the gunman waited or rather flew all the way across country from Alaska to Florida to commit his heinous crime is also another issue worth investigating; afterall if he could do it in Fort Lauderdale, why not in Fairbanks or Juneau?   Why travel all the way to Fort Lauderdale to do what he could have also done at Alaska or did he think committing the crime in Florida would give him more publicity. Anyway, Icheoku hopes that his being captured alive would get to the root of the matter, otherwise killing him upon sight inside the airport would have been the most appropriate and efficient response as such people do not belong in a civilized society. Indeed very pitiful and painful. May the souls of the deceased rest in peace while speedy recovery to the wounded.

CHICAGO FOUR TORTURING THUGS, THROW THE BOOKS AT THEM.

Icheoku says nothing explains what they did as there is nothing there to try to explain other than that these four animals are wild beasts who do not belong in any civilized society. Short of walking on their fours, they are not better than those wild beasts of Serengeti National Wildlife because what they did to their fellow human being is simply put, despicable and inexplicable. Possibly too, these four animals did not even vote themselves and assuming they did, is America not a free democracy where people freely vote for who they prefer? 

So what if their victim voted for Donald Trump, did they not vote for Hillary Clinton and is anyone holding them hostage for voting for Hillary Clinton; or are they badder and meaner that the nearly 64 million Trump voters, half of which are those of us irredeemable deplorables. Icheoku watched the Facebook Live video and was particularly peeved as the young girl was smoking her weed and making her commentaries, so stupefied to understand the magnitude of her live broadcast and the gravity of the criminal conduct in which she was engaged in and laughingly broadcasting. Icheoku does not know whether she thought it was joke or something funny as she held her smart phone and was puffing her weed smoke, while her compatriots in crime were cutting off hair and scalp from the frightened victim; smacking him and threatening to do him bodily harm.  If anything ever qualifies as dumb criminals, this four thugs definitely are; televising their crime as they committed it. It is indeed pitiful that as young as they are they committed a heinous crime and will be starting their long sojourn in the prison system, so youthful. it reminded anyone who saw the Live Feed what the Deep South used to be back in the fifties with lynchings of black people; but not anymore and no reverse Jim Crow activities will be tolerated, not in this 2017.

Icheoku calls on the Illinois Justice System in Chicago to throw the full weight of the law at these domestic terrorists and send them away for a very very long time. Luckily their victim did not die and there is no death penalty for their offense, otherwise, the lethal injection might have been the most appropriate way to permanently remove these urchins from the society wherein they definitely do not belong. Icheoku says Jordan Hill 18 years old, Tesfaye Cooper 18 years old, Brittany Covington 18 yeas old and Tanisha Covington 24 years old, are all nothing short of four animals walking upright and wearing human faces. Imagine what they did to the victim - they tied him up for upwards of five hours, gagged him and beat him up. They also cut his scalp and forced him to drink toilet water. Definitely they crossed the lines of civilized behavior and deserves to be sent a strong message that such inhuman treatment of another does not belong in a civilized society. It reminds Icheoku of what Amadou Diallo similarly once went through in the hands of New York police detectives. Quite shameful indeed the deterioration of relationship between races in America as these four are but a manifestation of a society whose racial differences is gradually widening . Pitiful indeed.

PRINCE HARRY DATING A BLACK GIRL, WHAT SAYS THE PALACE?

Icheoku says it is no longer a secret or something spoken in hush hush tone that the free-spirited Prince of Wales, Harry, is dating Meghan Markle, a black model from Hollywood California USA. So the question that now remains is how far does he intend their relationship to go? As a prince of Britain and assuming he wants to go all the way, would the ever judgmental British media as well as the stoic Queen Elizabeth who is steeped in tradition ever permit it. Would they permit their prince and a grandson crossing the color lines to marry a black girl who would become a princess and possibly give birth to colored prince or princess? 

That Prince Harry is more of his mother Princess Di in having a streak that is unconventional and outside the expected norms of a British Royalty is obvious; but is he taking it too far by reaching outside the racial divide and color barriers to fall in love. Icheoku and so many other realistic critical thinkers are not as delusional in thinking that it is now Uhuru with regards to race relations in the world. Racism is still active, alive and well and impacts everything in the society including who we date and eventually marry. Being a royalty, the expectation gets even higher; and stories abound that Princess Di was murdered for trying to marry outside the stork to an Egyptian Dodi Fayed and the palace would not have any of that, that the mother of the future King of England would be married to an Arab African and possibly bear colored step children to their future King. Although no conclusive evidence of this has been established but strong suspicion abound that it was the sole reason she had to go, eliminated in a staged accident in a Paris tunnel. 

It is a fact that in things of the heart that the brain and reasoning sometimes go into sleep mode and no longer functioning; and such might be probably the case with Prince Harry's latest adventure into a crossover relationship. But how far he can have his way in this his latest adventure remains to be seen. Yes, it is true that Prince Harry likes mixing things up and is always the one breaking every known royal norms, but an interracial marriage or the ever possibility of introducing a biracial prince or princess within the monarchy will simply not be tolerated nor allowed by the palace; and even if they try, the British people will not condone it. The British media will so pillory them that they would become  pigeonholed into a more confining space than his mother Princess Di found herself before she was eventually killed. It is a hate or love relationship and the Brits will never love a colored woman princess within their monarchy. Put in another more blunt way, Prince Harry will never be allowed to marry a black girl as the British monarchy would neither  accept nor welcome or embrace a black princess into their fold. 

Even commoner Kate Middleton was resisted for not being a true blood, but being white made it easier for her to be eventually accepted. then imagine the vehement resistance a black colored person will face trying to breach the gates of the British monarchy. In other words, a black or other colored person will not be tolerated in the palace, not by the palace and not by the British people and their media. Although as one commentator said, it is about time for the ancient royal establishment to dust itself off and keep in step with its modern public; but as a society, we are not there just yet. Racism is alive and well and such interracial marriage or breeding will not be allowed by or in the British monarchy. The British monarchy will not and is not ready nor prepared to welcome a woman of color in their midst nor would they agree to have a colored prince or princess. One writer captured the racial ambivalence thus, "Until now. Never before has a royal dated a Black person in the public eye. Though Suits actress Meghan Markle may look ethnically ambiguous, she is proudly biracial, the daughter of a Black mother and white father. In an essay for Elle U.K. last year, she wrote about struggling with her identity growing up in Los Angeles' mostly white San Fernando Valley and how it feels when she sees unknowing Suits fans tweet their disappointment when they discover that she's actually Black." Icheoku says if she thinks she had it rough in San Fernando, she should wait until the British press descends on her to chase her out of their British monarchy or its inkling. 

Another writer espoused the racial chasm which will be utterly difficult for Meghan Markle to bridge thus: "The queen, her family, and her circle are completely, 100% white. It's a fact that is as true and old as time. And while they've welcomed the Obamas and dignitaries of many backgrounds into their home, the family itself pulses with pure, lily white British blood. The unspoken truth for me has always been that while I can love the royals from afar, someone who looks like me cannot be one of them — or even get close to them." Icheoku says the truth about the Harry meet Meghan experiment could not have been spoken any better; yes they may be in love, but yes, their love can only take them so far; but definitely not to make her a princess or to have her bring forth colored princes or princesses in the British monarchy. 

Icheoku say it is simply too optimistic for one writer to say, "Yes, not only do I believe that it is conceivable that Harry will marry a black girl but I shall also extend it to every other ethnicity under the sun. This is the 21st century after all and we all need to get a grip on reality, of course the British monarchy would accept it. Naturally, Harry is a well-travelled, modern young man and when that special lady, or even man, catches his eye, it won’t matter what ethnicity they are, as it shouldn’t matter for anyone else." Icheoku says please give me a break that Princess Diana was not killed simply because she was straying into a forbidden territory from the permissible relationship a mother of the future king of England could involve herself in. Hopefully Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are just having youthful fun, aware of their permissible limitation. The world of British monarchy is not just there, not yet and until then, let their fun be just fun and remain fun.

SOMETHING ABOUT THIS RUSSIAN STORY STINKS - MATT TAIBBI

Nearly a decade and a half after the Iraq-WMD faceplant, the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment

In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. 

These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.

Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll find. 

This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all.

Many reporters I know are quietly freaking out about having to go through that again. We all remember the WMD fiasco.

"It's déjà vu all over again" is how one friend put it. 

You can see awkwardness reflected in the headlines that flew around the Internet Thursday. Some news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using "Obama says" formulations. 

The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats.

This report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.

At one point we learn that the code name the U.S. intelligence community has given to Russian cyber shenanigans is GRIZZLY STEPPE, a sexy enough detail.

But we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now. 

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is "insufficient" as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser. Also, like the WMD story, there's an element of salesmanship the government is using to push the hacking narrative that should make reporters nervous. Take this line in Obama's statement about mistreatment of American diplomats in Moscow:

"Moreover, our diplomats have experienced an unacceptable level of harassment in Moscow by Russian security services and police over the last year."

This appears to refer to an incident this summer in which an American diplomat was beaten outside the diplomatic compound in Moscow. That followed a 2013 case in which a U.S. diplomat named Ryan Fogle was arrested in similar fashion.

Fogle was unequivocally described as a CIA agent in many Russian reports. Photos of Fogle's shpionsky rekvisit, or spy kit – including wigs and a city map that were allegedly on his person – became the source of many jokes in the Russian press and social media. Similar to this hacking story here in the states, ordinary Russians seemed split on what to believe.

If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive response – miles worse than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes. Obama mentioning these humdrum tradecraft skirmishes feels like he's throwing something in to bolster an otherwise thin case.

Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the election."

This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence).

As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.

This number is nearly as disturbing as the 62 percent of Trump voters who believe the preposterous, un-sourced Trump/Alex Jones contention that "millions" of undocumented immigrants voted in the election.

Then there was the episode in which the Washington Post ran that breathless story about Russians aiding the spread of "fake news." That irresponsible story turned out to have been largely based on one highly dubious source called "PropOrNot" that identified 200 different American alternative media organizations as "useful idiots" of the Russian state.

The Post eventually distanced itself from the story, saying it "does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings." This was a very strange thing to say in a statement that isn't an outright retraction. The idea that it's OK to publish an allegation when you yourself are not confident in what your source is saying is a major departure from what was previously thought to be the norm in a paper like the Post.

There have been other excesses. An interview with Julian Assange by an Italian newspaper has been bastardized in Western re-writes, with papers like The Guardian crediting Assange with "praise" of Trump and seemingly flattering comments about Russia that are not supported by the actual text. (The Guardian has now "amended" a number of the passages in the report in question). 

And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed security sources.

Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration.

Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. Plowing ahead with credulous accounts is problematic because so many different feasible scenarios are in play. 

On one end of the spectrum, America could have just been the victim of a virtual coup d'etat engineered by a combination of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which would be among the most serious things to ever happen to our democracy.

But this could also just be a cynical ass-covering campaign, by a Democratic Party that has seemed keen to deflect attention from its own electoral failures.

The outgoing Democrats could just be using an over-interpreted intelligence "assessment" to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration and force Trump into an embarrassing political situation: Does he ease up on Russia and look like a patsy, or escalate even further with a nuclear-armed power?

It could also be something in between. Perhaps the FSB didn't commission the hack, but merely enabled it somehow. Or maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here.

We just don't know, which is the problem.

We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across.

I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election. He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything. And Donald Trump, too, was swine enough during the campaign to publicly hope the Russians would disclose Hillary Clinton's emails. So a lot of this is very believable.

But we've been burned before in stories like this, to disastrous effect. Which makes it surprising we're not trying harder to avoid getting fooled again.

J.LO LATEST TRYST WITH DRAKE, SIMPLY ANGLING FOR P.DIDDY?

Icheoku said it before and is saying it here again that Jennifer Lopez has only been in love and been loved once and can never find another true love, regardless of how many men she sleeps with or is seen with. She can outdo Liz Taylor and other Hollywood infamous 'pick and drop men' for all she wants and can, but until she resolves the monster inside her, the need to seek utopia, she can never truly be happy nor ever find the  loving man which she craves for. Icheoku is emphatic that all these her sleeping around and picking and dropping men is but a cry for help by a woman who could not find true love and is acting out in desperation. It is nothing else and it is not the fault of these many men who are now numbering in their tens. Jennifer Lopez is the reason Jennifer Lopez is sleeping around and cannot find a heart's delight. 

An alpha female who wants to be in charge and always in control, once had an opportunity to have a man who truly complimented her. A man who was both successful and confident in himself, but her immaturity forced her to hightail because of an incident in a New York nightclub. That man is Sean Combs aka P. Diddy and there will never be another perfect man for Jennifer Lopez like him. Women like and admire a man they can respect and who is not afraid to be a real man before them; not a man they can easily toss around and who is as good as any of their girlfriends. Women wants something different and which gives them reason to always be in the now, working him as a work in progress which they have to get done. P.Diddy was what the doctor Cupid prescribed for Jennifer Lopez; he was her only true love. So until she summons up the courage to damn the world and make peace with P.Diddy, she will keep on searching for that other elusive Mr Right which is not anywhere out there, because P.Diddy is it and P.Diddy is still very much a bachelor. ICHEOKU says yes, P. Diddy and J.Lo were made for each other and their hearts still beat for each other and they both need to swallow whatever ego and pride that is on the way and get back together. 

This is the cure to her sleeping around with so many men and her supposedly being unlucky in love syndrome. If she likes she can sleep with all the men in this world; if she likes she can marry more men than the duo of Liz Taylor and Zsa Zsa Gabor put together, married; but until her heart once again finds rest in the arms of P. Diddy, her search and sleeping around or laying in men's arms will continue indefinitely. The latest of this her cry for help, unlucky in love, men in her life saga, is the Canadian Hip Hop artist Drake, who was pictured in a cuddly pose with the Jenny from the block, her tenth man on record. ICHEOKU says her Drake encounter will also be as short lived as her other past many men, if not shorter. Drake is not the one and Drake does not possess the personality of one who who would be a Jennifer Lopez's keeper or someone she would last long with. She needs a man molded in the personality of P.Diddy, somewhat crazy and somewhat a ladies man with the means to back things up. P.Diddy is still around, so why try to settle for something like something, an imitation, when the original is still much around. There can only be one P.Diddy and that is the person Jennifer Lopez has a beating heart for, but is being held back by a society that is too judgmental and which likes to butt into other people's private and personal matters. 

So very soon Drake will also go down in history as one of the men Jennifer Lopez once screwed and dumped. And the list is long enough, from David Cruz to Wesley Snipes to Ojani Noa to Tommy Mottola to Puff Daddy to Chris Judd to Ben Affleck to Marc Anthony to Casper Smart and to now her latest fling, Drake. To say that Drake is equally lost in the wilderness of unlucky in love and not finding his heart's delight us far is also a true statement. He tried Rihana but came out short; then he was seen around Taylor Swift but that one also did not pan out well as it also went south and now Jennifer Lopez is his latest fill-up woman. Put in another way, both parties are forlorn in love troubled hearts, who are seeking for true love but unfortunately are not lucky thus far in finding it. Some school of thought even suggested that their latest cuddly picture was a mere show, possibly put up to get the attention of or annoy someone or towards some prospective business venture. But regardless, they are living a lie and deceiving each other doing this lovey-dovey cuddling in the arms of each other because they are both other people's woman and man respectively.  Drake is not the right type for Jennifer Lopez and Jennifer Lopez is not the right type for Drake either. They both belong to some other people; they need partners that will compliment them and not ones who will be in competition with them as they have similar qualities. 

Unfortunately for Jennifer Lopez, she has refused to grow up as she still attaches so much importance to her girlfriends instead of realizing the transition which parties to a marriage make when they get married. Girlfriends and boyfriends for the guy, becomes a thing of the past and merely secondary, but never allowed to retain or occupy the premier position which they did in the past single life. So it is rather foolish and ignorant for Jennifer Lopez to suggest in a December 2015 magazine interview that her girlfriends were as important as her husband. In her own words, "I think I realized they were as important — if not more important — when I divorced Marc. I just realized that I had been through that a couple of times and there they still were. Like they say, 'Men come and go, but my girlfriends are always there for me." Icheoku says here lies her problem for not realizing that she sacrificed her girlfriends when she got married. If she continues with this her misplaced priority, settling down or finding any man good enough to nurture a permanent long lasting relationship with will prove an unattainable goal.  Girlfriends will always remain who they are - they tell you what you want to hear and strive to be allowed around and not saying or doing anything to rock the boat, regardless of how irrational the circumstance or skewed a position which Jennifer took. 

Their only interest is to maintain the relationship and nothing more, hence even if Jennifer was wrong, they will always tell her that she was right, regardless. Therefore, it was a huge mistake for her to continue to keep those girlfriends around when she got married, especially because some of them who are not married might even be jealous of her and were bent on screwing things up for her. From a personal experience, a friend of a friend once wanted to move in after successfully engineering her friend to act in irresponsible manner that led to her being evicted. When asked why she did what she did, her only answer was that her friend was foolish and stupid to have acted as she acted and queried if someone told you to jump into an active volcano, would you? So it was her problem which she brought unto herself by heeding advice from her unmarried girlfriends. Such may be Jennifer Lopez's albatross and she is not realizing that as all these men could not be all monsters and she is the only one who is a Mother Theresa therein. Icheoku disagrees too and refuses to accept her off the cuff explanation that she is "more the good girl who was falling in love as opposed to the naughty girl who was running around." 

As far as Icheoku is concerned Jennifer Lopez is the problem because after ten men, it is safe to vouchsafe that something is wrong somewhere short of those ten men. She has to do some introspection and have a conversation with herself to actually find out where her problem is coming from. At best, it might be another case of a Hillary Clinton who lost an election because of Hillary Clinton; but instead of looking in the mirror is busy searching the entire wide world for the reason she lost the last presidential election. Admitted that women find it extremely difficult to own up or take responsibility for their actions or any other thing that went wrong, because it is never their fault, but the present 'catch and release' being practiced by Jennifer Lopez is entirely her fault, whether or not she is grown-up enough to accept it. Icheoku says as long as she remains in denial and lying to herself, that long will her being unlucky in love continue; as only her can help herself and do the needful to stay put with one man. Her honor is on the line; so is her pride, dignity and self respect; all of which she seems to have thrown away in a nonchalant way, all in the name of liberty and women emancipation. But decent men will stay away and not want to be stewed in a nearly public sewer, just like another man.

What point she is trying to prove is beyond Icheoku as her conduct thus far is not anything better than a glorified prostitute who is just hawking her body for whatever gratification that comes with it. How many men does she actually have to go through or are indeed enough for her to sample before she settle down; especially for a mother of two twins, one of which is a female and you wonder how delighted she will be watching her daughter grow up to be a man-changing nymph like her. What type of morality is she impacting on her female fans and what type of an ambassador is she to the family that raised her or does she really think what her mother and aunties are happy and not thinking negatively about her philandering ways. The most laughable part of the whole thing is her constant passing of the buck and blaming others for her foibles. Just listen to her: "Everybody has seen that I make mistakes. Every single album I have ever made is about love. But I am not going to give up. I have to look at what I do wrong. I rush in, I get swept up, I ignore the signs. But so many of us are guilty of these things. Each time it goes wrong it’s hard. I get really hurt but I have to let myself go: ‘What did I do? What can I learn?’ And as hard and as hurtful as things get, I want to believe I will be able to go one step higher. I’ve got to hope that if I keep going I will eventually get it right. I still believe in love; the nirvana man, he’s out there somewhere. But you just have to work at it. You have to work at everything." 

Jennifer Lopez or J.LO, Icheoku says the problem lies squarely with you and only you can resolve it because any willing woman can make her marriage or any other romantic relationship work. It requires hardwork and it requires her putting her man above every other thing including her girlfriends. In Mayor of Casterbridge, Michael's wife told him that a mistake is a mistake but once too often and thats exactly the case with Jennifer Lopez with men and it is about time all these her excuses stopped. The choice is hers to make and she at liberty to so do - either to want to settle down or not to settle down. She has to decide what exactly it is that she wants and seeks in a man, understanding that there is no complete or perfect man out there; and then prioritize what is important to her and then pull the lever accordingly. Marriage is not akin to playing blackjack in Las Vegas; it is not shopping for shoes either, where one keeps on trying shoes until one find a perfect fit. If she actually believes in love and not simply infatuated with her childhood Cinderella story, then she must curb her expectations and help mold her next catch into the man she wants him to be; or better still run back to P.Diddy which Icheoku highly recommends as the most partner appropriate man to her which she has ever dated. Goodluck J.LO and may the new year help you find that man you are looking for.

OBAMA'S FULL-BLOWN, YEAR-END TEMPER TANTRUM - an article by LIZ PEEK.

Let’s be honest: President Obama is throwing a good old-fashioned foot-stomping world class temper tantrum. He is just beside himself that the stupid American voter elected Donald Trump. How could the country willfully dismiss the erudite recommendation of nearly every news organization in the nation – as well as Obama’s personal plea that not electing Hillary would be a personal insult to him? How could young people not respond to Obama’s call to “bend the arc of history in a better direction?” It is beyond comprehension.

But it happened, and Obama is having an extremely difficult time dealing with what may be his first-ever serious setback. This is a man described by his closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, as “just too talented to do what ordinary people do.” More flattering, Jarrett noted that “I think Barack knew that he had God-given talents that were extraordinary. He knows exactly how smart he is. …” He is so smart, said Jarrett, that “he’s been bored to death his whole life.”

Very few people surround themselves with people capable of such uncompromising adoration. It isn’t healthy. But Obama is different. He has been told over and over – even by the Nobel Committee that awarded him their coveted Peace Prize on spec– that he is extraordinary. So when a man like The Donald bests him, a man Obama clearly considers a joke, he is undone.

That is certainly the way he is behaving. Not for Obama the normal gracious withdrawal into political stasis; no, he wants to prove in these waning weeks of his presidency that he was right all along. That his agenda is what The People want, even if they don’t know it. That putting America’s valuable natural resources permanently off limits is the correct thing to do, because only Obama can see the future. That taking over vast swatches of the west is in the best interests of the reluctant residents there, because only Obama will protect our environment. That publicly confronting Russia for cyber misbehavior after years of looking the other way is called for, even if it complicates diplomacy in a number of theaters. Because Obama knows best.

He also knows what is best for Israelis. Upending long-standing tradition, he has allowed our only true ally – and the only democracy -- in the Middle East to be further isolated and compromised, in the interests, we are told, of seeking a meaningful peace. The reality is that Obama fully expected that by dint of his winning personality, superior insight and sympathy for the Muslim people, to conquer the divides in that region. 

He was shocked that his Cairo speech did not cause the waters to part, and the wounds to heal. And he is angry that, in his mind, Bibi Netanyahu has stood between him and fulfilling this key legacy achievement. As he revealed in 2010 to an interviewer with Time magazine, “[Getting peace in the Middle East] is just really hard”; notably, this came as a surprise.

Make no mistake: we do need to rein in Russian misbehavior. Putin is a dangerous adversary and should never have been allowed out of the penalty box inflicted by drooping oil prices. But, Obama gave him running room by putting him in charge of the Syrian debacle and making him a key figure in the Iran nuke deal. So important were those quests to Obama that our president chose to ignore Moscow’s serial aggressions and misbehavior. Indeed, after the conclusion of the Iran accord, Obama called Putin to thank him for his help. Is it any wonder that an emboldened Putin felt he could act out his hostility to Hillary Clinton?

Obama is having a difficult time passing the baton, because he thinks the baton should be his in perpetuity. Unlike most of his predecessors, Obama intends to stay involved in his party’s politics, and to continue living in the nation’s capital, better to keep his finger on the pulse. Whether Democrats want him involved, since after eight years of his leadership the party’s pulse is barely discernible, remains to be seen.  

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has once again outfoxed President Obama. His response to Obama’s eviction of 35 diplomats and other grave-sounding but ultimately unimportant retaliatory measures? Instead of engaging in traditional diplomatic tit for tat, the Russian leader has invited the children of U.S. diplomats to the Kremlin for a holiday party. Who looks like the adult in the room?