A HOUSE DIVIDED SPEECH OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, JUNE 16 1858: SIMPLY MLK-STIC.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. 

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved–I do not expect the house to fall–but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new–North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination–piece of machinery, so to speak–compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by Congressional prohibition. Four days later, commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that Congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an endorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of “squatter sovereignty,” otherwise called “sacred right of self-government,” which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: 

“It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of “Squatter Sovereignty,” and “sacred right of self-government.” But, said opposition members, “let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude slavery.” “Not we,” said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law case involving the question of a Negro’s freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free State and then into a Territory covered by the Congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the U. S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The Negro’s name was “Dred Scott,” which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. 

Before the then next Presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: “That is a question for the Supreme Court.”

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement. The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument. The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming President in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained!

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton Constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. 

I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind–the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision “squatter sovereignty” squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding–like the mould at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand–helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. 

His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point–the right of a people to make their own constitution–upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas’s “care not” policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are: 

First, That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

Secondly, That “subject to the Constitution of the United States,” neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

Thirdly, That whether the holding a Negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the Negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left “perfectly free,” “subject only to the Constitution.” What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. 

Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator’s individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainly enough now: the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President’s felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President’s advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after indorsement of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen–Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance–and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few–not omitting even scaffolding–or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such a piece in–in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the people of a State as well as Territory, were to be left “perfectly free,” “subject only to the Constitution.” Why mention a State? They were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely Territorial law? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same?

While the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State, or the people of a State, to exclude it. Possibly, this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a State to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the Nebraska bill;–I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? 

The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language, too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion, his exact language is, “except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction.”

In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the United States Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the Territories, was left open in the Nebraska act. Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of “care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up,” shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. They do not tell us, nor has he told us, that he wishes any such object to be effected. They wish us to infer all, from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never differed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But “a living dog is better than a dead lion.” Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don’t care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the “public heart” to care nothing about it.

A leading Douglas democratic newspaper thinks Douglas’s superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade–how can he refuse that trade in that “property” shall be “perfectly free”–unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday–that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas’s position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now with us–he does not pretend to be–he does not promise ever to be.

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends–those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work–who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then, to falter now?–now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail–if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN SNAGS UP HIS OWN TERRORISM TROPHY: KILLS ISIS LEADER AL QURAYSHI.

ICHEOKU says while we concede that America's dedication to fighting the scourge of islamist terrorism is absolutely resolute, we beg to differ that the killing of Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al- Qurayshi dealt a "catastrophic blow to ISIS". The Islamist terrorists group are legion and they are resilient too. They have an entrenched hierarchical order of succession and will appoint a new leader as soon as the smoke of the raid settles down and they have mourned their departed leader. Killing of al Qurayshi is definitely a set back no doubt, but it will neither end ISIS nor stop their terrorism. They are fully resolved in prosecuting their nefarious activities and will dust up and soldier on.

We heard the same thing when President Donald John Trump snagged up Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but the terrorist group quickly appointed his replacement in the fella who just blew himself and family up. President Barack Obama before that, also said a similar thing about al Qaeda after he sent Osama bin Laden to his maker, but the terrorist group is silent operating. President George W Bush had a similar thought when he took out Saddam Hussein and many other terrorists in Afghanistan, believing that Islamist terrorism has been kneecapped. 

The fact of the matter is that these Islamists terrorists, unlike President Vladimir Putin, have succession plans that as soon as they are sent to their seventy virgins, the one waiting in the wings springs into action. They do not hold elections nor are they democratic, but they have masterfully figured out how not to leave a vacuum of authority. This is their sustaining attribute,  how they outlast every American president and the reason they have survived to this date and it doesn't look like they are going anywhere any time soon. 

As President Barack Obama once said and he might be right, we may have to just adjust our expectations about eliminating Islamist terrorism and learn how to live our lives with it as an existing constant threat. Two things are working against their elimination: one, they are fanatically committed to their cause and two, they are not afraid to die. Their women are still making babies, some of who will end up joining the terrorism business. It is a fact; there is no need to paper over it or sweet-coat what is. It is akin to draining a body of water with its tributaries still running. 

Any person who would blow his family, wife and children up is batshit crazy and it represents what we are dealing with. A lot of mentally messed up fanatics who are bereft of reason and humanity just because they have some other warped conception of what is the true path. As President Joe Biden rightly articulated, we have to remain vigilant and prepared to nip whatever they are plotting in the bud through a direct action against their leaders any time we secure such an actionable intelligence. 

Taking them off the battlefield, one terrorist leader at a time, is a good attrition method to bleed the Islamists terror organizations. It also sends a strong message to terrorists all over the world that there is no safe haven for them anywhere on this planet. America will pursue them, locate them and take them out as they are all dead men walking with large bullseyes tattooed on their foreheads and painted all over their body. 

It is good that the ISIS leader died as it saved American taxpayers the burden of taking care of him in detention as well as the cost of defense lawyers for him. Instead of wasting further resources on him, for probably the next 20 years or more, it is good that his days of terror ended as it did. It frees up resources for other targets that need to be brought to justice too. There is no greater justice that could have otherwise been served on him than the death penalty and good enough, he did it for us and saved everyone the headache of a life incarceration or later execution.

These terrorists do not care about their women and children, so why should we or demand of our soldiers to take extra risk in saving them during operations. The guy blew up his "women and children" without a whiff, so why should we mind if their "women and children" become collateral damage during any active encounter. Although it is a noble idea to strive for, it should only be encouraged when it is safely feasible, but never at greater risk of loss of lives and limbs to our fighting men and women. 

These women are aiders and abetters of and accomplices to terrorism. They love these men, they marry them, they birth children for them, some who might grow up becoming terrorists themselves. So what exactly is the logic in saving these women if they unduly expose themselves or are they any different from their terrorist husbands and partners in crime.  Let us not forget that Pakistani Dr Saddiki is a woman. They possibly instigate their husbands into terrorism as it was not only Lady Macbeth who could persuade her husband to commit murder. 

On matters arising, if the "mechanically" challenged helicopter during the operation was subsequently "properly disposed", why again were those other several helicopters that were abandoned in Afghanistan not similarly "properly disposed" before the withdrawal? A military that is trained to destroy things and kill, could easily have easily destroyed all the military equipment and weapons that were left in Afghanistan, if they had wanted. 

Anyway, the fight against terrorism is a lifetime commitment and good enough, America has the resolve to stay the course, and will continue hunting them down and eliminating them. We thank the good Lord Almighty that no American soldier was lost during the operation. Congratulations to President Joe Biden for pulling this off and he now joins the list of presidents who got a terrorist honcho. Kudos to the men and women in uniform who successfully executed the  command of their Commander in Chief. It is good. 

CNN'S PRESIDENT JEFF ZUCKER RESIGNS RATHER THAN HEAR, YOU'RE FIRED!

ICHEOKU says when you think that it is only spreading fake news that is CNN's problem, a workplace-incestuous relationship between a boss and his underling has cost the boss his job and is quaking the already weakened foundation of the network. He was the boss and the rule against workplace dating did not apply to him; and how many employees would have risked it all by rejecting such an indecent proposal? 

It is either the rule only exists for the lesser mortals at CNN and the boss is always right and can do whatever the heck he wants, or that he took advantage of the double standards which is always available only to the woke leftist liberal nutjobs, by knowingly breaking the rule, believing that nothing will happen to him. Unfortunately, Jeff Zucker did not know that an incensed Chris Cuomo could be more furious than a woman scorned and hell put together. The privately held information leaked and Jeff Zucker's headship of CNN is now history, as he begged to be allowed to fall on his own sword rather than be killed by another's sword and resigned. 

How would those former President Donald John Trump's famous liner "You're fired" have sounded in his ears? Thankfully, he was spared the bullet of such dishonor and he went out with his golden parachute still intact, unlike Chris Cuomo who was disgracefully fired from the network by Jeff Zucker himself. Chris Cuomo must be laughing himself lame at what happened to the once seemingly untouchable CNN president, who fired him, forgetting that he too held his job at another boss discretion. Why was Allison Gollust not forced out as well, afterall both of them broke the rule. She also has admitted that Jeff did not make her do it and that she is not a victim.

She blames it on coronavirus lockdown and you wonder what the lockdown had to do with it when they were supposed to be observing the nationwide lockdown like the rest of us. Instead they were busy messing around and getting some, unafraid of contracting the contagion and transferring it to each other through bodily fluids. Unlike the other CNN exposed personality, Jeff Toobin, who was caught on a Zoom meeting helping himself with masturbation, this duo felt that there is nothing like the real thing and braved all the risks just to be getting some, while everyone else was quarantining because the CDC ordered it.

Call it the revenge of the Cuomo Brothers of the now defunct CNN Comedy Central. The junior Cuomo who is still smarting that he was fired by Jeff Zucker decided to take his pound of flesh and leaked an insiders-only known CNN's secret that the boss was dating a staffer. It is also possible that his lawyers ran into the information while carrying out a private investigation, preparatory to their client's case against CNN and Jeff Zucker, who refused to pay Chris his severance package after firing him. 

Jeff Zucker was so full of it that he sees himself as the capo de tutti of American politics. He once wondered out aloud how former President Donald John Trump won the presidency without his CNN's approval and support. His fate was sealed by corporate power play as the long knives came out disemboweling everyone who had wronged people in higher places. First, Jeff took out Chris, then Kilar took out Jeff, Zaslav would have taken out Kilar if not that Kilar has, for all intent and purpose, already been taken out as his position will be redundant as soon as the deal reached by CNN's owner Warner's parent company AT&T to let Disney have the failing network is finally in place. 

CNN sucks; FakeNews CNN; Cesspool News Network; LGBTQ's proven ground Network are some of the legacies which Jeff Zucker will be leaving for CNN. His hyper-partisan leadership reduced the once world famous breaking news source into a coven for ultra biased leftist pinheads who regularly offload their idiocy on the public. In fact CNN has become simply unwatchable except if you are part of the tunnel-opinionated woke far left crowd who relish the fantasy they dish out, while stifling true free speech. 

Jeff Zucker(berg) should have been fired a long time ago, and not allowed to resign now, for screwing up CNN so badly. The CNN of Bernard Shaw, Peter Arnett, the then Christiane Amanpour and of course the original Anderson Cooper version 1.0, before he became the too gay and too woke Anderson Cooper 2.0, is the CNN viewers want back but which Jeff Zucker drove into the gutter of acute liberalism that it is very difficult for people to watch now. The network moved away from revolving full 360 degrees to now just swiveling back and forth, like a parking meter, within 180 degrees.

Watching CNN today, who would believe that people like Pat Buchana once had a show on the network. So, CNN's parting ways with Jeff Zucker is not a loss, talkless of it being an "incredible loss"; it is a blessing if only the incoming leadership would harness the provided opportunity to reposition the network. The other loose talk that they are "two consenting adults" is irrelevant because the last time ICHEOKU checked, Monica Lewinsky and President Bill Clinton were also both "consenting adults" when the blue dress happened. The issue is that such workplace philandering is not allowed and they went afoul of the standing policy. The only outstanding  issue now is why Allisia Gollust hasn't been fired since she has refused to resign as well. 

Hopefully, whoever Disney brings in as the new helmsman or woman, will dust up the old play book of CNN and bring the network back to where it used to be, closer to the center, such that every American will once see the network as a news outfit and not a liberal leftist woke, Democratic Party's megaphone. CNN needs drastic changes in their lineup as people are tired of the bullcrap the incumbent talking heads are feeding them which has made many stop tuning in. Better still, if they believe they have evolved into something entirely different and want to stay their present course, they should drop the NEWS in their name and just make it a network. 

Again, it shows that the only safe secret one has is that which no one else knows about. The good Omertà law states that two people can only keep a secret when one of them is dead. The revenge of Chris Cuomo as he used his former close friendship to Jeff Zucker to now disadvantage him, and Jeff must be feeling exactly how Julius Caesar felt many centuries ago about Brutus. If it didn't come out, they would have still kept it under wraps because they knew that what they were doing was wrong and against CNN's workplace policy, but they carried on anyway. They can spare the people all the crappy "regrets" for "not disclosing" that they were in an amorous relationship contrary to the company's standing rule.  

Jeff Zucker should also know that Chris Cuomo too, wished that his tenure at CNN had ended differently too. It is called fate and human beings have no ability to foretell their future. When he fired Chris Cuomo he never knew that this day would come when he too would beg his own boss to please not to fire him, but to grant him the decency and honor of resignation. Anyway, the outlook for CNN is already gloomy, but we shall see how it fares under the new Disney take over; hopefully the new owners will do what is needed to resuscitate the comatose former News Network and bring it back to its game. So long Jeff, sayonara! 

WHOOPI GOLDBERG SUSPENDED FROM THE VIEW: JEWS ARE JEWISH, NOT WHITE PEOPLE.

ICHEOKU says Whoopi Goldberg just found out that there are some untouchables in America who she cannot run her wild woke foul mouth against. These people are not President Donald John Trump or members of the Republican Party and other conservatives, who she believes she is at liberty to bad mouth without consequences. They have suspended her from their network for misstating a very crucial important fact of their historical struggles; and lets hope it will be just that two weeks suspension and nothing more. 

Although many people in the black community could relate to Whoopi Goldberg's understanding and interpretation of racism as a skin color based discrimination, with white people dishing it out on black people as in the American context; but Jewish people have now expatiated and explained in lucid detail, that everyone may understand, that racism has nothing to do with the skin pigmentation. Rather, according to this new Jewish theory on race, racism has to do with the feeling of superiority of a people over other people who they see as inferior, regardless of the color of their skin. Hence it is possible for some white people to be racists against other white people and that was their experience under Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler. 

So, the Jews are not emphatically denying that they are white people, only that Adolf Hitler felt that the Aryan white race was superior to every other white race including the Jewish white race. This varies in great detail from a typical black person in America understanding of race as mostly predicated on the color of one's skin, black and white; or as with Asians, their unique body type and the slanting of their eyes. But is this why Whoopi Goldberg is being pilloried just because her understanding of race is narrower than the Jews would like her to appreciate. Like Whoopi, so many people did not know before now that race is broader than the color of the skin.

But if what Adolf Hitler did to the estimated six million Jews was caused by racism, why was what Nigeria did to five million Biafrans not similarly also tinged? Both were genocides or was it the underlying feeling behind them that made their designations to be different. How about slave trade and slavery, afterall so many chained black African slaves were thrown off slave cargo ships into the Atlantic to their watery deaths by drowning. Was that racism too or was the fact that they were drowned at sea, instead of being gassed in gas chambers, make all the difference? How about all the wars in Africa, including the Hutu and Tutsi war, would that also qualify as racism since it was the feeling of superiority that made the Hutus decide to wipe out the Tutsis. 

ICHEOKU is seeking some answers and clarifications here and not that anyone is questioning the Jews on how they prefer to tailor their narrative of the holocaust. Yes, Adolf Hitler was a very bad fella and yes, many Jews were killed by him, admitted the number is still subject to debate; but the bottomline is that what he did to the Jews was man's inhumanity to man. This was the exact point which Whoopi Goldberg was trying to make and for which she has now been descended upon by the powerful Jewish lobby group in America. She was not trying to demean or minimize the horrors of the holocaust; no, she was only trying to put it in the context of the evil which man can do to a fellow man, period; or is anyone debating that the holocaust was not man's inhunanity to man? 

A race is a group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of their supposed physical or genetic traits which is shared by only the group. Things like their common ancestry, common historical affiliation, common culture, common language, common nationality, or common geographic distribution and spread. If this is actually the accepted meaning of race, it means that calling Europeans the white race is a misnomer because there are so many different languages in Europe and many of them do  not share common ancestry or historical background; and in some cases, not even the same culture. So why do we still have the word white race or black race or now Jewish race, when race is broader than the color of the skin. 

With the new Jewish expansion of the word racism, it is now possible for racism to even exist in Africa amongst black Africans, as some black Africans feel that they are superior to other black Africans. Xenophobia for example is such feeling coated in dislike for foreigners. This discourse has nothing to do with semantics or syllogisms or nomenclature or even etymology, just that the meaning of race and racism has henceforth changed dramatically because Whoopi Goldberg thought that Jews are white people. So, the next time Black Lives Matter complains that racism is killing black people in America, they should be more specific and identify which micro group of white people are perpetrating the racism. It is no longer acceptable for BLM to bundle all white people together as racists because the skin color is no longer the controlling authority.  

Now, we have all been reeducated that the holocaust was about racism against the Jews and that Adolf Hitler Nazi saw it that way, as his Nazi Germany carried out a systematic annihilation of the Jewish people across Europe with deliberate and ruthless cruelty. We have also been re-informed that although Jewish people don't fit neatly into the Black and White binary view of race in America, the anti-Semitism which Jewish people have long faced is simply another form of racism. We are also told that Adolf Hitler perceived the Jews as a subhuman race, which means that it was not just about their being inferior to the white Aryan race, but that they are inferior to the entire human race, regardless of their hue.

This begs the question, is this why Jews are not liked and are literally hated by so many people throughout the world, including the Palestines, Iranians, Arabs and Africans, whose African Union just recently refused to admit Israel as an honorary observing member. Do all these various people share Adolf Hitler's feeling about the Jews being beneath them as well? Was the biblical account of the Jews torturous enslavement in Egypt also race tinged? It is a fact that Jewish people have suffered untold hardship throughout their history; they have been marginalized, persecuted, enslaved, slaughtered. But why? 

Is it because they are different or is there more to it, otherwise why is their hatred almost universal? Is there something they are doing which rubs other people the wrong way? Their killing of Jesus Christ cannot be the reason as many of their haters are not even Christians nor do they believe in Jesus; this hatred of the Jews preceded the birth of Christ. Will it be a better approach for the Jewish people to fund research to help find out why people don't like them, instead of this perpetually alarm that they are hated. If this many human-beings hate only one amongst their own kind, don't people think that there must be something, a reason behind it? But there is no justifying what the Jewish people are forced to live with.

What exactly does black people everywhere have against the Jewish people? Africans in the motherland loathe them and blacks in America are not any different and Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan have no love lost for the Jews. The other time it was NIck Cannon who was suspended by Viacom and later fired for his anti Jewish views, admitted he has since been recalled. Now, it is Whoopi Goldberg that is on their chopping block for an honest mistake which she made, sincerely believing, like many people, that race is all about the color of the skin. 

As things stand now, not even her Jewish last name seems to be coming to her aid, and the two weeks suspension might end up becoming a permanent termination. The junior Cuomo of the now defunct Cuomo Brothers CNN Comedy Central was initially suspended before it was converted to You're Fired and he was let go, despite being the best rating host on the fake news network. Whoopi should pray that the powerful Jewish lobby group will be satisfied with the two weeks suspension handed to her and determine it as good enough, otherwise she is toast as nobody messes with Jewish people in America. 

But did Whoopi not even remember the people who own ABC and Disney, the parent of the network? Why did she not get the message when her co-hosts on the View were telegraphing to her to stop, in order not to offend the people who write and sign her paychecks? But Whoopi was convinced in the rightness of her argument that the skins of both Germans and Jews are of the same white color, and went on to make her point that they were just two white people, with one visiting man's inhumanity on the other, a fellow man. Now, she has been reeducated through a series of reprimanding private telephone calls, which forced her to hurriedly apologize and make a mea culpa for her "wrong and hurtful" comments. 

Is it already too late for her and will they make an example out of Whoopi Goldberg to send a message that not even being woke will spare anyone who transgresses against the Jewish people. Will this lead to Whoopi changing her last name for an African themed name? As a matter or fact, Whoopi should immediately contact Nick Cannon for a referral to the Rabbi who made him kosher-whole again following his own anti semitic convulsion Jesus moment. Whoopi did not intend to hurt anyone, but since the Jews have determined that her words were hurtful comments and have suspended her from their network, in order to appease their people, colleagues, friends, families, community and owners, she should remain contrite and use every opportunity to express remorse and ask for their forgiveness.  

But the fact of the matter is that the fundamental of what Adolf Hitler did to the estimated six million Jews during the holocaust was very reprehensble man's inhumanity to man, regardless of the prism through which anyone views it. It does not matter the tag, and provided we all agree that it was abominable and condemn it, that is what really counts. But since the Jewish people want everyone to understand that what took place was racism, racism it therefore was, case closed. Everyone should take note of the correction and not make Jewish people mad any more or in any other way, attempt to diminsh or deconstruct the horrific holocaust which their people experienced under Nazi Germany. And of course yes, Whoopi is down with Jewish people and so much so, that she bears their last name, Goldberg. Please Jewish people, forgive Whoopi as that was an honest mistake.

SEAN PENN SPOKE ON BEHALF OF MILLIONS OF LANGUISHING AMERICAN MEN: IT IS TRUE.

ICHEOKU says it is true that millions of American men are dying in silence, afraid of the emasculating feminism which is gradually overrunning the land. It manifests in their wives, daughters, girlfriends, female colleagues and even their mothers. It is everywhere, parading as activists, women defenders and protectors, seeking equal rights for women. 

Millions of American men understand the issue of inequality and the need to make necessary compromises to remedy it. But many of these men also are not ready nor willing to sacrifice their manhood or pony it up as a trade off, just to satisfy, pacify and placate these crazed out, wild eyed, nutjobs feminists who are using gender blackmail to force American men into a total submission and complete subjugation. 

When the late radio phenomena, Guru Maharaji Rush Limbaugh, may his soul continue to rest, talked about testicles lockbox, accusing Queen Crooked Hillary Clinton of "castrating President Bill Clinton and locking his testicles in her lockbox", many American men were dismissive of him, believing that Rush Limbaugh was merely doing a show. 

Later, convicted Harvey Weinstein warned American men that he was only being made the first example and that American women are up in arms to neuter American men, using accusations and regeneration of things which men do not understand as their choice weapon of mass destruction. He also emphasized that men are confused about what is going on and happening to them, calling the #MeToo movement a crisis of the present in our country. 

Some men have since severally complained and have tried to push back against these outlandish feminists but not in the very large numbers that would make a difference. These men are always outnumbered by the more vociferous gangbusters masquerading as women equal rights activists. More men therefore need to join this push back fight for survival of the male species in America, otherwise they are doomed. 

Until recently, the majority of the men who were standing up against these extremist females have been conservatives and some other people on the right of issues in America. It is therefore a breathe of fresh air to see some men from the left of the political divide begin to add their own voice to this conflagrating emasculation; and condemning the dark feminism cloud which is rapidly enveloping America. 

The first was Bill Maher and now Sean Pean too have also added his voice; and hopefully, many more leftist liberal males will also join the fight to stop the threatening complete destruction of masculinity in America, because if it succeeds, there would be no one left to remove the spider in the house? 

ICHEOKU agrees that men do not have to first cut off their phalluses before women will understand and appreciate the fact that men love and care for them. Penal appendage is not the problem, because if it were, real women will be getting along very well among themselves. Real women do not have penises, yet they end up regularly being their own worst enemies. 

If women do not enjoy cordial relationships among themselves, why then do these fringed women want American men to become women, completely neutered and totally feminized? Why are these women trying to subdue and subjugate men and who will they call when they find "spider" in their closet? Are these women not questioning the wisdom of God Almighty who made human beings, male and female; or should Adam not have been created?

So, yes, it is true that American culture has become widely feminized and one does not have to first belong to any "club" or school of thought to know this. It is evident in literally every aspect of life in America today as men are gradually being forced to accept a genderless society, where any baritone voice is looked at as a vice and any expression of masculinity is frowned at and shunned as overbearing. 

Such a negative disposition is wrong as men can express their masculinity without being brutish or insensitive or disrespectful to women. It is akin to saying that a person cannot appreciate the grief of a bereaved family unless they have experienced a death in their own family; or that a man cannot understand the pain women go through during childbirth just because they have never themselves been pregnant or ever pushed. 

But it is the battle of the sexes which has been going on for too long, which made Eve not to first check with Adam concerning what God forbade them to do before she ate the fruit. It is the streak of defiance which morphed into total disruptive disobedience and it is destroying many families worldwide. In America, it has metastasized, with women confusing everyone including themselves and the society is at its receiving end. 

Ever wondered how peaceful a coexistence it would have been between men and women, if each sex had maintained their own lanes of responsibilities, without the frequent forced use of the same lane. which ends up with too many casualties in the form of broken homes, unsatisfied and unhappy life, and pills and alcohol dependent living. Even therapy has become overwhelmed that it has become practically ineffective.

 

Many men have powerful and strong women bosses who are wonderful people. Some men have also lived under powerful and strong women, including mothers who easily held the forte in the absence of the man of the house, who became unavailable due to work or death. But it does not mean that these powerful and strong women do not sometimes express wishes that such increased and stressful responsibility be gone. They show emotions when no one is watching or cry themselves to sleep in the dead of the night, wishing that the cup be taken away from them. 

These women, particularly widows, only stepped up to fill a missing gap, a void of some sort, and not that they desired it. There is a division of labor in life, which Ndigbo Biafra of Southeastern Nigeria calls "eke lu olu eke". Men and women are meant to complement each other but not to supplant themselves or have themselves fused together into one. It is as simple as the inviolable truth that no real man can ever get pregnant nor have a child, period. 

What is going on in America has nothing to do with "cowardly genes" because American men were not born that way. They are victims of feminism on steroids which has permeated the entire substructure of the American society, with their vicious army of enforcers everywhere, in our homes, work places, streets, social media and just any other place you can think of. 

They are ruthless and unforgiving; and like the Merchant of Venice they show no mercy when they want their pound of flesh. If left for American men, they would not surrender their good old rugged jeans for fancy flowery skirts, but the cost of standing their ground is often too much for them to bear, including losing their families, homes and jobs.

It is not just careers that these extremist feminists are destroying; they are literally destroying peoples lives, families and the right to free speech and expression. Many people now strongly believe that America is no longer the land of the free and home of the brave as we once knew it. How can a person in America not be free to say what they are thinking and you still call it the land of the free? 

How can an American person be too afraid to say or act in a certain manner because they might be fired from their jobs or canceled by the woke cancel culture and you still think the person is brave? How again is what Kim Jong Un, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are doing in their respective countries any different from the will of the woke leftist feminist extremists which they have successfully imposed on America? 

What needs to change in America is indoctrination as nobody was born that way nor as Sean Penn put it, their "hard wiring to correct". There is the need to start a forceful push back and not allow the tiny but vociferous minority to force their warped ideology on the rest of the society. Although American men did not answer the call when Harvey Weinstein sent out his clarion call, it is still not too late to begin the fight to take back manhood and retrieve seized testicles from the testicular lockbox. 

As a people, we must begin to resist by saying no to cancel culture; and also reject their calls to cancel anyone who disagrees with them who they put in their crosshair, regardless of how the person looks or their politics. The #MeToo movement should also be checked completely;  and although women should be believed, we must always first investigate their accusations just like Reagan's trust but first verify. 

Enough of the rampaging canceling and displacement, as there is room for both sexes to live and thrive. Let women learn to be proud of their womanhood and stay in their own lovely lane; and allow men to thrive in their foreskin, and if circumcised, it is still all good. Like Rodney King said, can't we all just get along together without killing each other. If only Mars and Venus existed then all these problems would have never arisen, but God knows best and he will keep us all alive and soldiering forward IJN.

SUPER BOWL LVI: LOS ANGELES RAMS OR CINCINNATI BENGALS, WHO WILL IT BE?

ICHEOKU says it was good playoff games as both AFC teams and NFC teams competitively represented themselves very well, admitted only two teams will go to the Super Bowl championship on February 13th, 2022 at Rams SoFi Stadium in Inglewood California. At the end of the thrilling championship finals, Cincinnati Bengals beat Kansas City Chiefs 27 to 24 to clinch the Eastern NFC championship title; while Los Angeles Rams, the host team of the February 13th Super Bowl, finals beat San Francisco 49ers 20 to 17 to clinch the Western AFC championship title. Both were close games, which shows the level of competitiveness among the teams this year; and it also shows the strength of the two teams which are going to the Super Bowl finals. 

ICHEOKU says congratulations to both KC Chiefs and LA Rams for emerging champions of their respective leagues and hopefully they will play their hearts out on February 13, showing the same skills and dexterity which made it possible for them to reach the Super Bowl. May the better side win the Lombardi trophy as ICHEOKU has no dog in the fight and will not bet on either of them. It will be a nice Super Bowl championship as the roads traveled by both teams to get to Inglewood was tough, but they still worked it and made it there. #SuperBowlLVI.

MILITARY COUPS IN WEST AFRICA: AN INDICTMENT ON PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI.

ICHEOKU says for a supposedly acclaimed leader of the West Africa sub saharan region, it is regrettable that President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria does not wield much influence on the countries in the sub region, to effectively influence events therein. This further questions Nigeria's tall tale of being the leader of West Africa or as Nigerians often delude themselves, the giant of Africa. If a giant cannot persuade a lilliputian to conform to order and not to carry out illegal acts, what use then is having such a giant anyway? 

The military in countries of West Africa has been carrying out coups, one country after another, such that today about four democratically elected governments have been forcibly removed from office without any retribution from Nigeria. Chad, Sudan, Mali, Guinea and Burkina Faso have had military coups as of late and President Muhammadu Buhari did nothing to either prevent these coups or counter them, why? That these countries, except for Sudan, are former French colonies and Paris was expected to take the lead on countering these disruptions of democracy, is an argument somewhat in favor of Nigeria's passivity, but it should not entirely exculpate Nigeria for tolerating these many military coups in the West African sub saharan region. 

What message does it then send to the military in other countries, that it is now alright for them to forcibly change their governments and the heavens will not come tumbling down on them. So, ECOWAS makes empty threats and issues sanctions, and then what? Those military juntas are still pushing ahead with governance and waxing stronger without even blinking or sincerely negotiating for a return to democracy in these countries. What use then are these ECOWAS threats and sanctions when they have no teeth nor meaningful force behind them, to bring about a change of mind in the military and make them stipulate to a definite short time period within which to return their countries back to democracy. 

A time it was in the past when Nigeria had capable leaders who commanded respect and influence in West Africa and Africa in general. These leaders of yore would not have tolerated such upturns of governments by the military; and if they couldn't persuade the military to back down from such coups, they would put various pressures to bear on them to force them to yield power, including a threat of use of force to topple such juntas. The July 16, 2003 military coup in Sao Tome and Principe is one such example when Nigeria had a leadership that asserted itself in the region. The then President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria ordered the military coup leaders to stand down and personally led President Fradique de Menezes, who was visiting Nigeria when the coup that toppled his government took place, back to Sao Tome and ended the military putsch. 

But with President Muhammadu Buhari, it appears that he has too much on his plate already to want to add more to it: Boko Haram insurgency, the bandits, Fulani terrorists, worsening insecurity, IPOB freedom agitators as well as other small groups including the Yoruba Nation agitators. He is also old and weak to be effective; and like President Joe Biden, he does not appear to be in control of even his own personal affairs, talk-less of being fully cognizant of what is going on in West Africa. It is a sad state of affairs and the fact that Paris is not even batting an eyelid over these military coups in its former colonial countries is also very disturbing, to say the least. May be it is the outcome desired and tacitly approved by Elysee Palace to keep Africa, going and coming.

Who knows for which country the military coup's bell shall toll next, whether Nigeria or Ghana or Senegal. But anyone placing a bet on it should put it on Nigeria as the military might strike before the year's end to prevent a power shift to the south. It is the game which the north dominated military often plays, stage a palace coup against a fellow northerner towards the end of their term just to prevent a southern from ascending to power. But whether the south will accept it this time around will be seen when and if a military coup eventually takes place. Now, President Muhammadu Buhari's ineffectiveness is not only being felt in Nigeria but throughout the West African sub region and by extension, the entire Africa continent. With no leader to give direction, the region and Africa is gradually falling apart and the Ethiopian civil war is still raging on. 

JUSTICE BREYER TOOK ONE FOR THE TEAM: SACRIFICED HIS SEAT IN FEAR OF MIDTERMS.

ICHEOKU says they swore never again will what happened with late Justice Ruth Ginsburg be allowed or tolerated, to lose their seat on the Supreme Court because of her stubborn refusal to retire so that a Democratic Party President Barack Obama could appoint her replacement. The result is today's Supreme Court which is heavily tilted 6 - 4 towards conservatism, as late Justice Ruth Ginsberg was eventually replaced with a conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. A fact which was not helped because then President Barack Obama was, by deft political maneuver, prevented from replacing late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal justice. 

Although President Joe Biden has three more years in office and some school of thought would say why the rush, especially for a Justice Stephen Breyer who is still very sound, physically and mentally, his 83 years age notwithstanding, the fear is that Republicans might take over the control of the Senate. The midterm election is just ten months away and the president is not in a good place with millions of American voters; many of whom are having buyers remorse over the choice they made in the last election. With such an abysmally low approval rating of the president, going into the midterm election, with every aspect of America people's life in turmoil, will be a big disaster for the Democratic Party as American people might use their votes in November to register their displeasure and disapproval of the situation.

The presidency and the Democratic Party fearing that they might lose their 50-50 balance of power in the Senate and that Republicans regaining control of the Senate in November might see any opening in the Supreme Court stalled again, just like it did with late Justice Antonin Scalia's vacancy. It is a risk which they do not want to take nor even contemplate, hence hedging their bet on losing seats in the Senate in the midterm, they decided to get whatever they possibly can now. The Supreme Court is very important to them as so many life changing decisions in America are being made at the apex court; so they had to secure Justice Breyer's seat and persuaded him to make way now so that Joe Biden would fill his seat with a much younger liberal Justice. 

The judge, being a good team player, saw the merit in the argument in favor of his retirement now and decided to give up his seat in the interest of liberalism. Watching Justice Stephen Breyer speak during the White House event announcing his retirement, everyone can see that he could go on even for the next ten years, still doing what he does best. But political and ideological interests weighed more than whatever number of years the judge could have effectively remained on the bench and the lesser yielded way. He has been on the bench for a long time and could have remained on the bench for even another decade, but they did not want to take the chances they took with late Justice Ruth Ginsburg and had to pull him out now.

His replacement will easily pass the Senate confirmation process as the two "renegade" Democratic Party's Senators who are standing in the way of President Joe Biden's Build Back Better, will not have any reason to stand in the way of their party getting another liberal Justice on the Supreme Court. The only little fight which might be witnessed in the process, will be intra-party; as various interests within the party will struggle to have their own black woman candidate appointed to the seat. Vice President Kamala Harris might ask that President Joe Biden give her the honor of making the choice. The APC led anarchist Squad and their ultra liberal wing of the party might throw their hats in the ring, to pick the black woman candidate. 

But President Joe Biden owes South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn bigly and is most likely to go with whichever black woman he picks for the appointment as a return favor for electing him president. As everyone knows, without Jim Clyburn's endorsement, Joe Biden's presidential quest would have ended in South Carolina, following his consecutive abysmal losses in Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont. So, will Federal Judge Michelle Childs of United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia be Justice Stephen Breyer's replacement. She is a black woman, very young at 55 years old and will have many decades on the bench if confirmed; she also serves in Washington DC and she is the candidate of Jim Clyburn. 

Were ICHEOKU to place a bet on the black woman candidate, the odds are strongly in favor of Judge Michelle Childs, unless Kamala Harris throws a fit and puts her leg down against her selection and in preference of some other black woman judge, may be from her State of California. But we shall see who the black woman nominee eventually becomes, although Justice Stephen Breyer did not tell us in whose laboratory the experiment of America is being conducted; and who the chemists and chemistry students really are. All the best to the retiring Justice, but he is not tired nor out of contributions to the law yet and we might see him teaching a law class in some law school somewhere in the not distant future. 

HONDURAS SWEARS IN THEIR FIRST FEMALE PRESIDENT: LESSON LEARNED FOR HILLARY CLINTON?

ICHEOKU says another woman has just done what Hillary Clinton could not do, win a country's presidential election. It once again proves Hillary Clinton wrong that winning the presidency of a country has nothing to do with genitalia nor is it gender biased. It is all about likability and having a resonating campaign message of hope, that everything will be alright with the person manning the tiller of state. 

But when even her dour look telegraphs a message of despair, doom and gloom; and that she was running for president just for the heck of setting a female record, and going about it as if she is entitled to be "crowned" president as a matter of right, she turns so many voters off, thus making it  an insurmountable task, cracking the proverbial marble ceiling of the White House. 

Hillary Clinton's rejection by the American people as unelectable in a nationwide election is something which will haunt her till death. She will go to her grave, sad, unhappy and unfulfilled, regardless of the many other blessings which life bequeathed her, just because her single most important ambition to become the first female president of the United States of America was denied her. American people severally rejected her, both in party primaries and in the general election, the last being 2016 which she is still sulking about. A very humiliating defeat because she lost to a political newbie real estate billionaire from New York named Donald John Trump She is still having nightmares and sometimes experiences being president in her dream, only to wake up to the reality of what is, a presidential reject of America.

Anyway, Hillary Clinton is not the reason for this piece, although she is an integral part of it as this article disproves her warped narrative that she lost several bids for the White House because American men are misogynists who do not want to see a female president in their White House. But Vice President Kamala Harris is in the White House and some American men voted for her; and the last time ICHEOKU checked, she was still a female and married to one Jewish guy. Hillary Clinton was only rejected because she is not the right type of female, period. 

President Xiomara Carlos has pulled the feat in Honduras and was sworn in as the country's first female president. She has now joined the retinue of other world female leaders and increasing the numbers of females who are leading their countries. She also entered the history book of first female presidents and females who are leading and/or have led their countries; including Golda Meir of Israel, Margaret Thatcher of Britain, Germany's Angela Merkel,  Sirleaf Johnson of Liberia, Isabel Perón and Cristina Kirchner of Argentina, Dilma Rousseff of Brazil, Michelle Bachelet of Chile, Samia Suluhu of Tanzania, Salomie Zurabishvili of Georgia,  Paula Mae Weekes of Trinidad and Tobago, Laura Chinchilla of Costa Rica and Ekaterini Sakellaropoulou of Greece, just to name a few. 

This shows that America too can elect a female president of the United States; but it will take the right and correct woman to get it done; but definitely not one who is not comfortable in her own female body and who attacks men as if God made a horrible mistake by creating Adam. She must be a real-deal female who American men can relate to as either a mother, girlfriend, wife, sister or aunt. Any American woman who wants to succeed where Hillary Clinton failed, break the marble ceiling of the White House, must imbibe the lessons of Hillary Clinton's rejection and approach the quest differently. 

Such a female candidate must understand that there is nothing wrong with being a woman and that American men do not hate women and that they like women enough to elect them president. All such a candidate needs to do is to appeal to men as a mother, sister, wife and aunt would do, and wallah, America will elect their first female president. But any crazed out, wild-eyed feminist on steroid, who thinks that she can get into the White House by disparaging men and acting as if she does not squat or sit down to pee, will meet the same cruel fate which denied Hillary Clinton her lifetime ambition. 

ICHEOKU says congratulations to President Xiomara Carlos for a hard fought election, victory and being  sworn in as the first president of Honduras. Hopefully, she will deliver on her election promises and by then, would have rightfully earned the trust which Honduras people placed in her with their votes; by improving their fortunes through improved jobs creation and the overall wellness of the economy and security of the Central America country. Hillary Clinton must have called her to congratulate her and also pick her brains on how she pulled it off, as hush talks have it that she is thinking about 2024. Felicidades Madam Presidente Xiomara Carlos.

RUSSIA'S BELLIGERENCE: MAKES NATO IMPERATIVE AND MORE RELEVANT NOW THAN EVER.

ICHEOKU says some school of thought would say why not just disband NATO and end all the crisis between the West and Russia, as that would assure Russia that the West has no bad intentions towards Moscow. And yes, while there may be some argument in favor, since the primary reason for setting up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was to provide one canopy security for all its members, such that an attack on one will be deemed as an attack on all, triggering a collective response, but Russia is not making such an option feasible. 

It is a fact that disbanding NATO would be the quickest and best way to end the constant threats and face-offs between the West and Russia, but it is not going to be possible because Russia has refused to create a conducive environment for it. Russia's near permanent bellicose disposition towards its neighbors, particularly the former Soviet Union countries, is a factor militating against disbanding NATO. These countries are in constant fear that their found freedom will be taken away by a Russian invasion.

This explains their frantic clamor for the membership of NATO to provide them the much needed security guarantees and protection that Moscow will never swallow them up again. Russia will do it if allowed as there is no country in the world, except for maybe China in relation to Taiwan, whose neighbors are constantly on edge about what their big brother neighbor might do to them as Russia. Russia's neighboring countries are frightened and worried sick over the ever threatening Russian invasion. 

Georgia is under the dark cloud of a possible Russian invasion and has suffered such before when it lost its two cities of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Ukraine too, which is still suffering from a Russia proxy war in Eastern Donetsk region of Donbas. It also lost its city of Crimea from a Russian military skirmish and is currently under the threat of another Russian invasion. If Russia could be this hostile to its neighbors, imagine what they would have since done to them as well as other smaller countries in Europe, if not for America and/or NATO deterrence. 

It does not make any sense whatsoever that President Vladimir Putin is screaming his lungs out against NATO and protesting that former Soviet Union countries should not be allowed to join NATO, when he is the reason for the season. He is the provocateur of both NATO and these countries' pursuit of their respective objectives. If he did not scare these countries away and still threaten them, with fear of invasion and forcible annexation hovering over them, NATO will not be triggered and neither would these countries be desperately seeking refuge in NATO. 

Having a peaceful neighbor is the reason there is no Russian or Chinese military base anywhere in Mexico or Canada because both countries do not feel threatened by America nor are they living in constant fear of being invaded and their territories seized or annexed by their more powerful neighbor, America. There is also no tension in the North American region or within their respective borders; and except for illegal immigration and drug smuggling, the three North American countries are enjoying a very peaceful co-existence as any good neighbors would ever expect. 

President Vladimir Putin has no clean hands in the current crisis, in fact, he caused it by amassing thousands of troops on the Ukrainian border. He can end the crisis today by withdrawing those troops, but he chose not; and would rather flex his military muscle to extort concessions from the West. His demands that NATO cease and desist from its eastward advance and that the former Soviet Union countries seeking membership of NATO must not be allowed to join NATO, is simply an extortion. The West must therefore not give in to them nor even negotiate with him, with his  loaded gun still pointed on Ukraine's head. 

He is demanding security guarantees from NATO but he is not willing to give similar security guarantees to his neighbors, in order to assure them that he will never attack or invade them or forcibly seize their cities and annex their territories. How about Putin practicing what he is  preaching by showing examples of it, by giving security guarantees to these countries so that his "Russia will not invade Ukraine" words will have some weight to it. And for a man who has invaded both Ukraine and Georgia before, his word that Russia is not planning an invasion of Ukraine falls flat and is not even worth the airtime given to it. 

To trust President Vladimir Putin on this issue of Russia not invading Ukraine is too risky a proposition, and relying on it is a bad platform for anyone to be on now. Rather, preparation for a full blown out war is the right strategy for the West and NATO to be taking now, simultaneously as the Russians are doing. It is about time the forever looming war is finally fought and got over with for good. The Cold War lasted for far too long and any resulting Hot War will not last as long. Both sides have been  spending trillions of dollars developing and manufacturing weapons; and now might be time to infact use them and fight and kill each other.

Africa, the Middle-east and Latin America have seen their fair share of carnage from these Western and Russian made weapons; so can the brewers now taste their potion? It cannot just be these other places which neither develop nor manufacture weapons that are constantly suffering the destruction caused by these weapons. Moreso, a war in Europe is almost long overdue and it will also be a good means to expend the stockpiled weapons on both sides, as their armies know best how to effectively use them to cause maximum casualty and destruction. So, if Putin wants war, let him have war. It will be the real mother of all wars, unlike the Saddam Hussein bogus one; and it will also end the incessant threats coming out of Moscow. 

MORE INFLATION IS GREAT, YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH - PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN.

ICHEOKU says why was the outburst not extensively condemned by the liberal woke media as beneath the office of the president; and that it is not good for American children to hear their president using profanity on national television. Instead, they are providing him cover, with one media outfit even reporting it as "President Joe Biden "appeared" to say.....", despite video evidence of what the president said. Why should what the president said still be foggy in the mind of some media if not that they are giving him a "protected person" special coverage. This is unlike the scorched earth harshness with which they visited every affair of former President Donald John Trump. 

It is not as if the president is not human and susceptible to periodic anger bursts just like any of us; but the media should have roundly held him accountable and severally called him out for using such words on national television. When former Vice President Dick Cheney told Senator Patrick Leahy to go fuck himself, at least it was within the confines of the Capitol. It would have remained there if not for some gotcha members of Congress who wanted to hurt Dick Cheney and make him out as vulgar and uncouth, and relayed what he said to the public. And yes, there are such other hot-mic moments by past presidents including President Barack Obama and of course President Donald John Trump, but the level of condemnation the media gave them was  politics tinged.

Just a simple question which he was not even under any obligation to answer or respond to, and which he could have easily ignored. But not President Joe Biden, as his signature anger got the better part of him and he went off. What is wrong in a reporter seeking to know from the president what he thinks about the impact the rising inflation will have on the forthcoming midterm election? Although the answer is quite obvious and Peter Doocy rightly articulated that it will be a liability for the president and his party, the president should have still maintained his cool and not show his hand, revealing his hurt-feeling about the negative impact of an untamed inflation. 

There are times when silence trump sarcasm no matter how framed or delivered. The revelation by the president has now placed the inflation problem on the center burner, as more Americans are now more conscious of it; and worried sick about their future, as well as their overall living standards. These Americans are wondering why the president would be so irritated by the question as to make him call the journalist who asked it, a son of bitch. A more measured answer would have been, that the government will do everything within its power to bring the inflation under control and make sure that American people do not suffer or struggle too much because of the rising prices.

Anyway, what is done is done and cannot be undone. We heard what the president said, he called a journalist a son of bitch for asking a simple question which is bothering millions of American families, admitted it was framed in the context of partisan midterm election. The president must therefore not ever deny saying what he said. It must not be another one of his memory lapse episodes, or another one of this Martin Luther King Jr speech in Atlanta's moment, when he later denied calling people who have issues with his approach to voting rights legislation, Bull Conner-like and Jim Crow-istic.

Whether inflation is a political liability or a great asset going into the midterms is actually yet to be determined as so many other things could happen before November that would subsume whatever inflation there is in America. President Vladimir Putin may decide that he has nothing more to lose and launch nuclear bombs attack on Europe and America? What if it is Kim Jong Un who decides to take the spotlight off Putin by attacking Japan or South Korea. President Xi Jinping might also decide to pull the plug first by overrunning Taiwan. So, who will still be talking about inflation under any of these circumstances.

The midterm is a long way out, so President Joe Biden should calm down and not fret too much about the impact of the inflation on it, while seriously exploring and exploiting ways to rein it in, before American people completely loses their patience with him. The president should not apologize either for using such words to describe Peter Doocy or that American children heard it; he should just strive to guard against such outbursts in the future. But as uncle Joey, he can do whatever the heck he likes and as always, it will be excused as "old Joe doing what old Joe does" and not be seriously chastised by his ringside woke liberal media. Did anyone even ask Peter Doocy's mom whether she took offense by what the president said or felt defamed by the president?