UNDERSTANDING VLADIMIR PUTIN, THE MAN WHO FOOLED THE WORLD - GIDEON RACHMAN.

Vladimir Putin was annoyed – or maybe just bored. The Russian leader had been patiently fielding questions from a small group of international journalists in the restaurant of a modest hotel in Davos. Then one of the queries seemed to irritate him. He stared back at the questioner, an American, and said slowly, through an interpreter: “I’ll answer that question in a minute. But first let me ask you about the extraordinary ring you have on your finger.”

All heads in the room swivelled. “Why is the stone so large?” Putin continued. A few of the audience began to giggle and the journalist looked uncomfortable. Putin took on a tone of mock sympathy and continued: “You surely don’t mind me asking, because you wouldn’t be wearing something like that unless you were trying to draw attention to yourself?” There was more laughter. By now, the original question had been forgotten. It was a masterclass in distraction and bullying. 

The year was 2009, and Putin had already been in power for almost a decade. But this was my first encounter with him in the flesh, during his visit to the World Economic Forum. Putin’s ability to radiate menace, without raising his voice, was striking. But so was the laughter of his audience. Despite the violence of his Russian government – as demonstrated in Chechnya and Georgia – western opinion-formers were still inclined to treat him as a pantomime villain. 

I was reminded of this just before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In a televised meeting at the Kremlin with his closest advisers, Putin toyed with Sergei Naryshkin, the head of his foreign intelligence service – making the feared securocrat look like a stuttering fool. The pleasure he took in humiliating somebody in front of an audience was once again on display. But this time, nobody was laughing. Putin was about to plunge Europe into its biggest land war since 1945. Russian troops launched a full-scale invasion on 24 February. Within a month, more than 10 million Ukrainians had fled their homes, thousands of troops and civilians had been killed and the coastal city of Mariupol had been destroyed. 

Even though western intelligence services had warned for months that Russia was poised to attack, many experienced Putin-watchers, both in Russia and the west, refused to believe it. After more than 20 years of his leadership, they felt that they understood Putin. He was ruthless and violent, no doubt, but he was also believed to be rational, calculating and committed to Russia’s integration into the world economy. Few believed he was capable of such a reckless gamble. 

Looking back, however, it is clear that the outside world has consistently misread him. From the moment he took power, outsiders too often saw what they wanted and played down the darkest sides of Putinism. 

In fact, the outside world’s indulgence of Putin went much further than simply turning a blind eye to his excesses. For a rising generation of strongman leaders and cultural conservatives outside Russia, Putin became something of a hero and a role model. As his admirers saw it, the Russian leader had inherited a country humiliated by the breakup of the Soviet Union. Through strength and cunning, he had restored its status and global power, and even regained some of the territory lost when the USSR broke up. And he had delighted nationalists and populists the world over by successfully defying self-righteous American liberals such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, was not simply spouting propaganda when he said in 2018: “There’s a demand in the world for special, sovereign leaders, for decisive ones … Putin’s Russia was the starting point.” 

The Putin fanclub has had numerous members in the west over the years. Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s close adviser and lawyer, expressed admiration for Putin’s annexation of Crimea, remarking: “He makes a decision and he executes it, quickly. That’s what you call a leader.” Nigel Farage, the former leader of Ukip and the Brexit party, and a friend of Donald Trump, once named Putin the world leader he most admired, adding: “The way he played the whole Syria thing. Brilliant. Not that I approve of him politically.” Matteo Salvini, the leader of the populist right Northern League party and a former deputy prime minister of Italy, flaunted his admiration for the Russian leader by being photographed in a Putin T-shirt in Red Square. Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines, has said, "My favorite hero is Putin."

Most important of all, Xi Jinping is also a confirmed admirer. A week after being appointed as president of China in early 2013, Xi made his first state visit overseas – choosing to visit Putin in Moscow. On 4 February 2022, just 20 days before the invasion of Ukraine. Putin met Xi in Beijing for their 38th summit meeting. Shortly afterwards, Russia and China announced a “no limits” partnership. As the joint Russian-Chinese statement made clear, the two leaders are united in their hostility to American global power and to the pro-democracy "color revolutions"  they accuse Washington of stirring up around the world – from Ukraine to Hong Kong. Putin and Xi are both strongman rulers who have centralised power around themselves and encouraged a cult of personality. They are, as Alexander Gabuev, a Russian academic, puts it, “the tsar and the emperor”. Whether this partnership of strongmen will survive the Russian invasion of Ukraine is now one of the most important questions in international politics. 

Putin was sworn into office as president of Russia on 31 December 1999. But at first it was not obvious that he would last very long in the job, let alone that he would emerge as the most aggressive challenger to the western liberal order and the pioneer of a new model of authoritarian leadership. As the chaotic Yeltsin era of the 1990s drew to a close, Putin’s ascent to the top job was eased by his former colleagues in the KGB. But he also had the approval of Russia’s richest and most powerful people, the oligarchs, who saw him as a capable administrator and “safe pair of hands” who would not threaten established interests. 

Viewed from the west, Putin looked relatively reassuring. In his first televised speech from the Kremlin, given on New Year’s Eve 1999, just a few hours after taking over from Yeltsin, Putin promised to “protect freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of the mass media, ownership rights, these fundamental elements of a civilized society”. In March 2000, he won his first presidential election and proudly asserted: “We have proved that Russia is becoming a modern democratic state.” When Bill Clinton met Putin in the Kremlin for the first time, in June 2000, he declared his Russian counterpart “fully capable of building a prosperous, strong Russia, while preserving freedom and pluralism and the rule of law”. 

Yet while Putin may initially have found it convenient to use the rhetoric of liberal democracy, his early actions as president told a different story. In his first year in office, he moved immediately to rein in independent sources of power, to assert the central authority of the state and to use warfare to bolster his own personal position – all actions that were to become hallmarks of Putinism. The escalation of the war in Chechnya made Putin seem like a nationalist hero, standing up for Russian interests and protecting the ordinary citizen from terrorism. In an early move that alarmed liberals, the new president reinstated the old Soviet national anthem. His promises to protect media freedom turned out to be empty: Russia’s few independent television networks were brought under government control. 

As Putin established himself in office, the image-makers got to work crafting a strongman persona for him. Gleb Pavlovsky, one of Putin’s first spin doctors, later described him as a “quick learner” and a “talented actor”. Key images were placed in the Russian media and around the world: Putin on horseback, Putin practising judo, Putin arm-wrestling or strolling bare-chested by a river in Siberia. These photographs attracted mockery from intellectuals and cynics. But the president’s handlers were clear-eyed. As Pavlovsky later told the Washington Post, the goal was to ensure that “Putin corresponds ideally to the Hollywood image of a savior-hero” 

In any case, Russians were more than ready for a strongman to ride to their rescue. The collapse of the Soviet system in 1991 had allowed for the emergence of democracy and freedom of speech. But as the economy atrophied and then fell apart, many experienced a severe drop in living standards and personal security. By 1999, life expectancy for Russian men had fallen by three and a half years to below 60. A UN report attributed this to a “rise in self-destructive behaviour”, which it linked to “rising poverty rates, unemployment and financial insecurity”. Under those circumstances, a decisive leader who promised to turn back the clock had real appeal. 

Long before Trump promised to “make America great again”, Putin was promising to bring back the stability and pride of the Soviet era to those Russians who had lost out in the 1990s. But his nostalgia was not restricted to the social cohesion of Soviet times. Putin also yearned to restore some of the USSR’s lost international clout. In a speech in 2005, Putin labelled the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century". As the years have passed, he has become increasingly preoccupied by Russian history. In the summer of 2021, he published a long essay entitled "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians" – which, even at the time, some saw as a manifesto for invasion. Delving through centuries of history, Putin attempted to prove that Ukraine was an artificial state and that “Russia was robbed, indeed” when Ukraine gained independence in 1991. 

Fyodor Lukyanov, an academic who is close to the Russian leader, told me in 2019 that one of Putin’s enduring fears was the loss of Russia’s status as one of the world’s great powers for the first time in centuries. His resentment at what he regarded as American slights and betrayals set Putin on a collision course with the west. A landmark moment came with a speech he gave at the Munich Security Conference in 2007.That speech was a direct challenge to the west and an expression of cold fury. He accused the US of an “almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts”. The Putin of 2000, who had expressed pride at Russia’s transformation into a modern democracy, had given way to a man who denounced western talk of freedom and democracy as a hypocritical front for power politics.

The Munich speech was not just an angry reflection on the past. It also pointed the way to the future. The Russian president had put the west on notice that he intended to fight back against the US-led world order. It foreshadowed a lot of what was to come: Russia’s military intervention in Georgia in 2008, its annexation of Crimea in 2014, its dispatch of troops to Syria in 2015, its meddling in the US presidential election of 2016. All of these actions burnished Putin’s reputation as a nationalist and a strong leader. They also made him an icon for strongmen throughout the world who rejected western leadership and the “liberal international order”. 

This indictment of the west goes back to the 1990s. It is argued repeatedly in Moscow that the expansion of Nato to take in countries of the former Soviet empire (including Poland and the Baltic states) was a direct contradiction of promises made after the end of the cold war. Nato’s intervention in the Kosovo war of 1998‑9 added to the list of grievances proving, in the Kremlin’s eyes, both that Nato is an aggressor and that western talk of respecting sovereignty and state borders was nothing but hypocrisy. Russians were not reassured by the western riposte that Nato was acting in response to ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses by Serbia. As one liberal Russian politician put it to me in 2008, in a moment of frankness: “We know we have committed human rights abuses in Chechnya. If Nato can bomb Belgrade for that, why could they not bomb Moscow?” 

Putin’s case against Nato also takes in the Iraq war launched by the US and many of its allies in 2003. For him, the massive bloodshed in Iraq was proof that the west’s self-proclaimed pursuit of “democracy and freedom” only brings instability and suffering in its wake. If you mention the brutal behavior of Russian forces in Chechnya or Syria in Moscow, you will always have the Iraq war thrown back in your face. 

Crucially, the west’s promotion of democracy has posed a direct threat to Putin’s own political and personal survival. From 2003 to 2005, pro-democracy “colour revolutions” broke out in many of the states of the former Soviet Union – including Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. If demonstrators in Independence Square in Kyiv could bring down an autocratic government in Ukraine, what was to stop the same happening in Red Square? In Russia, many believed it was a “fairytale” that these were spontaneous uprisings. As a former intelligence operative whose entire professional career had involved running “black operations”, Putin was particularly inclined to see the CIA as pulling the strings. The goal, as the Kremlin saw it, was to install pro-western puppet regimes. Russia itself could be next. 

The shock of the Iraq war and the colour revolutions were the recent experiences that informed Putin’s Munich speech in 2007. And, as the Kremlin saw it, this pattern of western misdeeds continued. Putin points to the western powers’ 2011 intervention in Libya that resulted in the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi – something he believes they had promised they would not do. 

That episode is a particularly sore spot for Putin, since it took place during the four years from 2008 to 2012 when he was serving in the lesser job of prime minister, having stepped aside as president in favour of his acolyte Dmitry Medvedev. As Putin’s supporters see it, a naive Medvedev was duped into supporting a UN resolution that allowed for a limited intervention, only for western powers to exceed their mandate in order to overthrow and kill Gaddafi. They have no time for the response that the Libyan intervention was made on human rights grounds, but that events then took on a life of their own, as the Libyan rebellion gained steam. 

Medvedev’s alleged naivety in allowing the Libyan intervention proved useful for Putin, however: it established the idea that he was indispensable as Russia’s leader. Any substitute, even one chosen by Putin, would leave the country vulnerable to a scheming and ruthless west. In 2011, Putin announced that he intended to return as president, after the potential presidential term had been extended to two consecutive periods of six years. This announcement provoked rare public demonstrations in Moscow and other cities, which again fanned Putin’s fears about western schemes to undermine his power. I was in Moscow in January 2012 and witnessed the marches and banners, some of which carried pointed references to Gaddafi’s fate. Putin understood the parallels. He commented publicly about how disgusted he had been by the footage of Gaddafi’s murder – which perhaps reflected a certain concern about his own potential fate. The fact that Hillary Clinton, then America’s Secretary of State, expressed public support for the 2012 demonstrations was deeply resented by Putin and may have justified, in his mind, Russia’s efforts to undermine Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016. 

Putin secured his re-election, but his sense that the west remained a threat to Russia was further stoked by events in Ukraine in 2013-14. The prospect of that country signing an association agreement with the European Union was seen as a serious threat in the Kremlin, since it would pull Russia’s most important neighbor – once an integral part of the USSR – into the west’s sphere of influence. Under pressure from Moscow, the Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych reversed course. But this provoked another popular uprising in Kyiv, forcing Yanukovych to flee. The loss of a compliant ally in Kyiv was a major geopolitical reverse for the Kremlin. 

Putin’s response was to dramatically raise the stakes, by crossing the line into the use of military force. In February 2014, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, a region that was part of Ukraine but had belonged to Russia until 1954 and was populated largely by Russian-speakers. It was also, by agreement with the Ukrainians, the home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. In the west, the annexation of Crimea, along with Russian military intervention in eastern Ukraine, was seen as a flagrant violation of international law that many feared could be the prelude to further acts of aggression. 

But in Russia, the annexation was widely greeted as a triumph – it represented the nation’s fightback. Putin’s approval ratings in independent opinion polls soared to over 80%. In the immediate afterglow, he came closer to achieving the ultimate goal of the strongman ruler: the complete identification of the nation with the leader. Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the Russian parliament, exulted: “If there’s Putin, there’s Russia. If there’s no Putin, there’s no Russia.” Putin himself crowed that Crimea had been taken without a shot being fired. 

The west’s response was to slap economic sanctions on Russia. But western indignation did not last long. Four years later, Russia hosted a successful World Cup. At the final, Putin sat with the presidents of France and Croatia, two EU nations, in the VIP box in Moscow. 

The ease with which Putin annexed Crimea – and the swiftness with which the west seemed prepared to forgive – may have laid the ground for an unjustified confidence that led to the invasion of Ukraine. His overreach is also a reminder of the flaws in the strongman model of leadership. Decades in office can cause a leader to succumb to megalomania or paranoia. The elimination of checks and balances, the centralization of power and the promotion of a cult of personality make it more likely that a leader will make a disastrous mistake. For all these reasons, strongman rule is an inherently flawed and dangerous model of government. 

Tragically, that lesson is being learned all over again – in Russia and Ukraine. An invasion that was meant to secure Russia’s place as a great power and Putin’s place in history has clearly gone wrong. Putin is now involved in a brutal war of attrition. Western sanctions will see the Russian economy shrink dramatically this year, and the Russian middle-class is witnessing the disappearance of many of the consumer goods and travel opportunities that emerged with the end of the cold war. 

The unofficial goal of western policy is clearly to force Putin from power. But the endgame may not come as swiftly as we would like. Deeply entrenched in his decades-long mission, Putin is now even less likely to give up power voluntarily, since his successors might repudiate his policies, or even put him on trial. 

The prospects for popular uprising are equally poor, despite the many brave Russians who have indicated their disgust over the war. Any protests are likely to be swiftly crushed with violence and imprisonment, as they were in neighboring Belarus in 2020 and 2021. A third scenario – the possibility of an enlightened group within the elite seizing power – seems out of reach, too. Organising a palace coup against Putin will be very difficult: all dissenters were purged from the Kremlin long ago. Putin also takes his personal security very seriously:several of his former bodyguards have become rich in their own right. While there will be many within Russia who are dismayed by the course that events have taken, orchestrating that diffuse discontent into a coherent plot looks like a formidable challenge. 

The difficult truth is that Putin’s strongman style has defined his rule over Russia – and despite his many crimes and misdemeanours, those same strongman tactics may preserve him in power for years to come.

THE ACADEMY CHOKED ON WOKE: ATTEND FUTURE OSCARS FOR WHAT?

ICHEOKU says the woke-centric Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Science has indeed outdone itself, clearly affirming that the destruction which woke culture has wrought in Hollywood is real. How else would anyone explain or rationalize the implicit condonation by the Academy of the brazen assault on Chris Rock by Will Smith during the Oscars, the so-called punishment which the Academy meted out to the offender considered. A mere ten years ban from physically being present at future Oscars and you wonder who in Will Smith's shoes will not be laughing their head off at the stupidity or lack of seriousness on the part of the Academy. 

A person who the Academy contracted to host the Oscars was publicly assaulted on the stage in front of the live audience in attendance, on a live television being beamed across the world with millions watching, both in the United States and across the world. The academy failed to provide security for the host and watched as Will Smith breached every security protocol and decorum, strode onto the stage, slapped the host and arrogantly, leisurely walked back to his front row seat, sat down, screamed obscenities and enjoyed the remainder of the ceremony. He was given an Oscars and got a standing ovation despite what he just did, and only a ten year "do not attend the Oscars" was all the Academy could come up with as punishment? Really?

The academy couldn't get themselves to punish one of their own as they are all mired in the same Hollywood sleaze that produced the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Phil Spector, Roman Polanski and now the irredeemably damaged Will Smith. Why didn't they do something that will actually impact Will Smith by going after something which he has already earned or have, to in fact make him suffer some real detriment? What if Will Smith was not planning to attend any future Oscars because of the shame he brought on himself? What if no future Oscars ever were held due to some intervening circumstances as was shown possible by the coronavirus pandemic or any other act of God? 

But an incestuous Hollywood wants the world to believe that they have sufficiently punished Will Smith by asking him not to attend the Oscars for the next ten years. Big deal. Will Smith committed such an egregious act of public disrespect to the Academy, the audience in attendance, the worldwide audience who tuned in to watch on their televisions, including millions of Americans, as well as other fellow Oscar winners, he brazenly assaulted Chris Rock and all the Academy could do was to ban him from attending the Oscars for only ten years. Really? What a punishment, indeed. 

Attending the Oscars is no big deal as many do not attend it and many more don't even bother to tune in. It is a mere discretionary privileged pastime, usually accommodated by individuals if their convenience accommodates it. It is not an obligation nor something which adversely impacts a person if they did not attend it. So, where exactly is the punishment for not attending the Oscars, and what will Will Smith suffer or lose by not attending the Oscars for the next ten years? Yet, the Academy wants us to believe that they have punished Will Smith enough for his idiotic brazen act of physical violence on Chris Rock by banning him from attending the Oscars for ten years.

The Academy by not really punishing Will Smith or seriously showing a great disapproval for his thuggish conduct, has by necessary implication, given a tacit approval to acts of violence being perpetrated on their guest and host of the Oscars Chris Rock. How about the ripple effect in the wider society, as a French tennis player recently and following Will Smith's oddity, slapped another tennis player who just beat him in a tournament. Did the Academy not take into advisement such copycat behavior following what Will Smith did and figured how to deter such misbehavior by levying very severe punishment on Will Smith. 

What detriment will Will Smith actually suffer by not attending any future Oscars for the next ten years? What deprivation will Will Smith suffer from not attending any future Oscars for the next ten years, after-all attending the Oscars is by choice and not obligated. A mere privilege, not a right and even if he has the right to attend future Oscars as a member of the Academy, such a "right" has to be first freely exercised; and one cannot exercise a right which has not vested. What forbearance exactly would Will Smith suffer for not attending any future Oscars for the next ten years. How is this "do not attend" a punishment and if, enough and sufficient for what he did?

Punishment connotes a deprivation of something one already has or infliction of hurt or pain to a person. So how exactly is a ten year ban from attending the Oscars satisfied as a punishment as it neither deprived Will Smith of anything he already has nor caused him present pain, hurt or discomfort? There is no guarantee that Will Smith will be impacted by the prescribed punishment. What if Will Smith does not live to see another Oscars? What if Will Smith is imprisoned before another Oscars? What if Will Smith is bedridden or hospitalized during any future Oscars? Any of these is ordinarily capable of preventing Will Smith from attending the Oscars, so how is the Academy's decision to not let Will Smith attend the Oscars, punishing him for the violation of decorum which he committed at the Oscars? 

Can anyone imagine what would have happened had somebody like Kid Rock or any other person for that matter who is not fully down with the woke culture madness, slapped the host of the Oscars. Just think about the tizzy which Hollywood would have gone into, while insistently demanding that the head of such a person be chopped off and served them on a platter, the John the Baptist style. Why did the Academy not take Will Smith's Oscars away? Why was the "best" in his award not downgraded to the "worst" as a "best" person does not exhibit such a thuggish conduct as was fully displayed to the world by Will Smith at the Oscars? Why did the Academy not apologize for the standing ovation which was given to Will Smith and condemn the same as not merited or deserving following his violent conduct?

The Academy knows that they dropped the ball bigly and will be lucky if Chris Rock does not sue them for a negligent failure to provide adequate security for him and at an event which they organized in which he hosted the Oscars on their behalf. That the Academy allowed Will Smith to carry on with the Oscars after what he did and did not summarily bundle him out of the venue is another indication of sloppiness on their part. They were lax and it showed. It is the same arrant nonsense that made the Academy refuse to punish Will Smith as was expected. Their woke sensitivity is alarming. 

Like the Western world which stood aside and watched as Russia pummeled Ukraine into the Stone Age, the Academy stood and watched as WiIl Smith assaulted their guest and host of the Oscars, Chris Rock. They did nothing then to protect and save Chris Rock from the mad Will Smith choler and they did nothing now to punish Will Smith maximumly. They choked on their woke-ism, transfixed and paralyzed by indecisiveness and fear of what their woke lunatics base would do or that punishing Will Smith will bring the anarchists Black Lives Matter back on the streets. Millions of people whose sensibilities were violated by what Will Smith did expected more from the Academy but regretfully, the Academy failed them. It is sad.

GILBERT GOTTFRIED: DEAD AT 67, ADIEU.

ICHEOKU says the man with the guttural voice, whose uniquely sounding voice precedes him, enabling him to star in many voiceovers, has died. He finally succumbed to his long running illness. Gilbert Gottfried was 67 years old. May his soul now rest. Adieu Gil.

PAKISTAN"S PRIME MINISTER OUSTED: SO LONG IMRAN KHAN.

ICHEOKU says he naively thought that his celebrity status in Pakistan could shield him from exposure to international political intrigues; and that he can stand up in the world to open his mouth, say what he likes and do whatever the heck he wants as Pakistan's Prime Minister. He thought that because Pakistan has some nuclear weapons that it gave him the same right as major world powers and that his position as Pakistan's prime minister was securely intact and not open for debate or negotiations. He foolishly dared to walk where other smaller world leaders feared to venture unto and he was severely burnt as a result. 

Former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has been removed from office, effectively immediately by the country's parliament. He was masterfully yanked out of power by forces far greater and mightier than him, from outside Pakistan for crossing the line in international political wheeling and dealing. He failed to know his place as a junior member in the ranking of world political power players and he paid a hefty price with losing his office. He defied Washington DC, opened his mouth loudly against America and to add insult to injury, cavorted with Vladimir Putin and paid him a visit in Moscow despite being advised by America not to do so in order to avoid such a toxic exposure by association. 

Like the stubborn housefly which usually follows the corpse into the grave, he was summarily  retributed with the severest punishment. He was removed from office as Pakistan Prime Minister through a well engineered and masterfully crafted plot, orchestrated through the Pakistan parliament. His indictment for which he was found guilty and removed from office simply read: "economic mismanagement and mishandling of Pakistan’s foreign policy." 

Hopefully, the now former Prime Minister has realized that International politics is more complex than just being the prime minister of a nuclear armed 200 million people Pakistan. He has probably also learnt the tragic lesson that venturing off too far in international politicking from a leader's pay grade could sometimes cost the leader his office. And that smarter leaders of smaller countries do walk the international turf rather tepidly and that openly taking sides against America, speaking against America or directly confronting America is never a smart move as it always ends in a head scratching regret. So long Imran Khan!

JUDGE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON CONFIRMED: CONGRATULATIONS TO HER.

ICHEOKU says she was a sure beneficiary of an impending electoral defeat of the Democratic Party in the forthcoming November 2022 midterm elections. They had to quickly process her through to the Supreme Court now when they still enjoy their paper-thin majority in the Senate before November comes and a most likely new majority Republican Senate does a "Merrick Garland" on her, frustrates her from securing the lifetime job at the highest court in the land by not giving her even a hearing opportunity. 

First, they had to lean heavily on age-implicated Justice Stephen Breyer to give up his seat so that they could fill it with another but much younger Democratic Party's operative in a black robe. As a good party man he took one on the chin for leftism and did exactly as was demanded of him. He announced his retirement, with a caveat that he will serve out his current term, thus paving the way for the quick nomination and confirmation hearing process of his successor. 

Assured of the confirmation, provided the radical left wing of the party supports the candidate, the administration had to field a candidate that had the most backing of the leftists to avoid splitting the Senate Democrats votes or even entirely frustrating her confirmation. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson won the leftists' approval and is today the confirmed successor to retiring Stephen Breyer's seat at the Supreme Court; otherwise Judge Michelle Childs was the preferred choice of many people. 

Anyway, the matter is now moot as Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is the new associate Justice designate of the Supreme Court. Her 53-47 bipartisan votes for the vacant seat was also a very good thing as she anchored her seat at the Supreme Court with support from both political parties. The Judge has a good set of teeth and a smile that is also riveting. ICHEOKU says congratulations to her Honor and wishes her the best throughout her tenure at the apex judicial temple in the land.

VLADIMIR PUTIN IS WEST'S FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER: THEY CREATED HIM.

ICHEOKU sometimes wants to celebrate President Vladimir Putin for being a thorn in the flesh of Western countries. Other times, ICHEOKU wants to say that what goes around comes around as the West finally got what it deserves in a Vladimir Putin gone ballistically anti West. The West thought that once they allowed Putin to keep his Russian people captive and held hostage to his caprices, that his behavior towards the West would be manageably cordial. 

Boy, was the West wrong as President Vladimir Putin turned out to be the cold wounded and hungry poisonous snake which an old woman took home to nurture back to health, which later turned around to bite her, leading to her death from venom poisoning. Instead of reciprocating the "love" which the West showed to him by tolerating him in power for as long as they did, over twenty years in office, he morphed into the West's worst nightmare, a Frankenstein monster of some sort. 

President Vladimir Putin has a deeply entrenched hatred and animosity against the West and  he is venting this out through the vicious war he is waging against Ukraine, destroying Ukraine, one city at a time. In his mind, he is fighting the West by making an example out of their beloved Ukraine and daring the West to do something about it, the embedded atrocities being parceled out by Russian troops in Ukraine. He is thus goading the West to engage in a fight with Russia. He is ready, willing and able to fight the West and wants to fight the West so badly, only that the West is being circuitous and unwilling to fight Russia, no matter how Putin tries to bait them into a fight. 

The United States of America and Europe, for several decades, cuddled President Vladimir Putin. They wined and dined him; did billions of dollars worth of business transactions with Russia; tolerated his excesses, massive abuse and violations of human rights of Russians. They looked the other way while Vladimir Putin smothered democracy in Russia, killed the opposition and imprisoned many of his critics and literally turned Russia into a one man's fiefdom. Yet he was celebrated by the West and allowed to operate freely within international circles as a recognized preeminent world leader. 

It was convenient for the West to let Vladimir Putin be as they did not want him rocking anyone's boat in the West. They assessed that tolerating Vladimir Putin was the surest bet to achieving peace in Europe as that will help keep war out of the European continent. The thought that Africa, the Middle East and some parts of South Asia are the only places where wars should be fought, people killed, maimed and displaced. That those regions of the world are more suitable for wars and they can sell them as many weapons as they want, provided they remain restive, depopulating themselves and destroying their countries. Anything that will keep war out of Europe is good for them. 

They conveniently forgot that Vladimir Putin is a ruthless dictator possibly because his skin color is white and not black or somewhat yellow or tinged by a hue. They refused to brand him a monster who has repressed democracy, imprisoned and killed his opponents, poisoned critics and suppressed freedoms of all kinds, including freedom of the press, in Russia. The West continued to deal with him despite provable acts of egregious violations of things considered sacred to a civilized behavior, leading many to ask, how exactly is Vladimir Putin different from Saddam Hussein, Moummar Gaddafi, Robert Mugabe or even Kim Jong Un? 

These are despots whom the West branded evil and hunted throughout their reign of terror. Except for North Korea's Kim Jung Un, the other three are now deep-six and the West is still gunning for and can't wait to see Kim Jong Un gone as well. If all these former leaders of their respective countries did all the things which the West accused them of doing, and Vladimir Putin also did and is still doing the same things plus more, why then is the Russian strong man still breathing? Why has he not been hunted down, removed from power, summarily tried and executed like the rest of other dictators. 

Why was Saddam Hussein's noose not good enough for Vladimir Putin's neck? Why was hunting down Moummar Gaddafi and killing him like a common thief not a good measure for Vladimir Putin? Why was sanctioning Zimbabweans to starvation and abject deprivation, in an attempt to discredit and remove Robert Mugabe from power, not also a good strategic pressure to be similarly put on Russians? It only reaffirms the thinking in some quarters that the West's pretentious righteous indignation is usually selectively applied and according to who they determined has fallen out of line and out of their "do what we tell you" orbit. It is a control joystick and they use it as they pleases, not as merited or warranted, simply subjective. 

It is either the West is afraid of Russia and scared of invoking the ire of Vladimir Putin, or they do not want to pick on a fellow white man or show him in a light not so favorable for the image which they usually portray of themselves. Can anyone please tell ICHEOKU what Saddam Hussein was accused of doing which Vladimir Putin has not done ten times over and is still doing? Can somebody in the West please explain to ICHEOKU how Vladimir Putin is different from Moummar Gaddafi or Robert Mugabe. But as with everything the West does, it is always tailored to suit their particular narrative at a particular time, and they protect their own while vilifying others who do not conform to their dictates. 

The Russian strongman has fallen out of favor of the West because he fell out of line and is no longer controllable, so the West decided to use the proxy war in Ukraine to humble and humiliate him. They want to diminish him and show the Russian army as not worth its hype. But how the crisis in Ukraine between the West and Vladimir Putin eventually resolves remains to be seen, as there is no current reasonable roadmap anywhere in sight. For 22 years the West cuddled Putin and now they are crying foul because their Frankenstein monster has become uncontrollable. The West knew, but chose to pretend that the longer a person stays in power the more the person becomes conflicted, power drunk and with the feeling of invincibility, begins to do terrible things. 

This is the case which the West is belatedly now making against Putin. Why did they not make the case much earlier when it could have easily resolved Putin's question. Why did the West not know that one man remaining in power for 22 years is a recipe for a disaster. Why were they forcing other countries to democratize and other leaders to conduct elections and discouraging sit tight leaderships in other places, but allowed Vladimir Putin to remain in power for as long as he has been in office since 1999? President Vladimir Putin's metastasizing problem would have since been proactively nipped in the bud had the West done the same needful with Russia as they frequently do in some other countries; and discouraged a sit-tight leader from clinging onto power in Russia for far too long. It is sad they did but hopefully, President Vladimir Putin's era in Russia will end with the Ukraine war, one way or the other. 

WILL SMITH'S RESIGNATION NOT ENOUGH: TAKE AWAY HIS OSCAR.

ICHEOKU says he should have consulted a lawyer, a public relations expert and a psychoanalyst to formulate an excuse for what he did and thereafter, worded his apology statement accordingly. He should have claimed that his action was deprived of the necessary intent; that he did not even know how he walked from his seat to the stage and that could have only been possible by a hypnotic force. Such story would have been a more acceptable explanation of what he did, as more people would have cut him some slacks due to an apparent mental breakdown.

Many people could relate to a mental challenge-triggered action and what Will Smith did could only be described and explained as one. It was out of character for the Will Smith we all know, spanning from his Prince of Belair years to his Men in Black and continuing until his Oscars meltdown. It is possible that he was triggered by his overbearing wife, whose constant taunting, questioning his manliness, made him want to prove himself to her that yes, he is a real man. He wanted to show her that he is a  brave-heart, only that it involved a tiny 140 pounds comedian named Chris Rock. 

What umbrage has he ever taken against the many men whom his wife has allegedly been messing around with? Did he smack their son's friend whom his wife was allegedly messing around with? Why did he suddenly feel it is at the Oscars that he must prove himself to his unhappy and ever nagging wife by slapping Chris Rock, thinking that he was humiliating Chris Rock but ended up humiliating himself. If Chris Rock were Shaquille O'Neal or Dwanye Rock Johnson or Francis Ngannou or Jon Jones or even Dave Chapelle, would Will Smith have dared slap any one of them? He is a bully and bullies only bully those they can impose their will on and usually take flight when faced with a real challenger. 

Anyway, below is the resignation statement from Will Smith, which passes as an apology too, but which nobody accepts nor is it sufficient for the egregious act he committed at the Oscars. He violated Chris Rock's right not to be assaulted or battered and committed a crime of battery doing it. Will Smith is a bully and bullies are detestable and scorned. He cursed like a drunken sailor, used profanities severally and you ask yourself, what is even special in his wife's name that it must be kept out of Chris Rock's fucking mouth? Will Smith is a pitiful clown, a thug who is not deserving of an Oscar. His Oscar award should be taken away from him. 

The resignation statement:

“I have directly responded to the Academy’s disciplinary hearing notice, and I will fully accept any and all consequences for my conduct. My actions at the 94th Academy Awards presentation were shocking, painful, and inexcusable.

The list of those I have hurt is long and includes Chris, his family, many of my dear friends and loved ones, all those in attendance, and global audiences at home. I betrayed the trust of the Academy. I deprived other nominees and winners of their opportunity to celebrate and be celebrated for their extraordinary work. I am heartbroken.

I want to put the focus back on those who deserve attention for their achievements and allow the Academy to get back to the incredible work it does to support creativity and artistry in film. So, I am resigning from membership in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and will accept any further consequences the Board deems appropriate. 

Change takes time and I am committed to doing the work to ensure that I never again allow violence to overtake reason.” - Will Smith.

REGIME CHANGE IN MOSCOW: THE ONLY LASTING SOLUTION TO THE PUTIN PROBLEM.

ICHEOKU says does not know who in the White House is undermining President Joe Biden or trying to diminish him and his presidency by always cutting him down at the knees. Each time the president correctly articulates a position on an issue, which ordinarily would be the proper magic silver bullet to solve the problem, someone in the White House often steps in as a spoiler. Who this person is and when the American people outsourced the policy-making decision of America to the person is yet to be determined. The person is again meddling with the president's effort to solve President Vladimir Putin's recurring problem as a thorn in the flesh of the world.

The president not too long ago called the Russian strong man a war criminal only for a pinhead in the White House to counter him. The person rushed out a statement "re-explaining" the president's statement, his true intent, in order to pacify President Vladimir Putin just because the Kremlin protested that the comment threatens diplomatic relations between Moscow and WashingtonDC. The president also called President Vladimir Putin a butcher and again the same person came out to "re-interpret" the president's remark. Further, in Warsaw the president said that President Vladimir Putin cannot remain in power and the same person recanted the statement, stating that President Joe Biden was not calling for regime change in Russia. 

In each of these instances, the president correctly articulated the prevailing line of thought but the White House rebuked him by countering him, leaving millions of American people and the world at large wondering who again is in charge in the White House. Who again is the president of America and commander in chief of the United States Armed Forces when an elected President Joe Biden is frequently countered and his statement treated as irrelevant and of no weighty value? 

Who again in an American government has the final say on any major issue involving America's foreign policy initiatives and decisions if not the president? Who again in the White House is acting as the supervising authority over an elected American president, when American people did not vote for that person nor want their elected president to be placed under an unelected supervisory authority, lording it over their elected president. 

President Vladimir Putin ordered his Russian army into battle in Ukraine and they are committing untoward war crimes in Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin has refused to do something about it, to reel them in and call them to order. Their action is attributable to the man who ordered them into battle as there is an apparent agency relationship between the president and his army, to make the president vicariously responsible for the war crimes. Therefore calling the Russian president a war criminal is not out of place, it is quite in order. 

Where then did President Joe Biden misspoke when he correctly referenced President Vladimir Putin as a war criminal? Yet the White House supervisor of the president once again rebuked the president for the statement by countering him with a supposed "clarification" despite the fact that the president is the boss in the White House. Which corporate America would tolerate, accommodate or condone any overbearing staff, who had the audacity to publicly constantly overrule their CEO or president? But with the current White House it is becoming a matter of routine, as they now have the habit of constantly "re-interpreting" nearly everything which the president says. 

The president called President Vladimir Putin a butcher and he was again "re-interpreted". ICHEOKU says any president and commander in chief of any country, who is so cold-blood hearted as to permit his army to bomb hospitals and maternity hospitals, killing innocent pregnant women and their unborn babies; whose army deliberately trains their machine guns and fires them on innocent civilians; whose armored tanks' ferrets aims and fires at residential abodes and perpetrates such other hideous acts forbidden in wars by the Geneva convention,  has rightly earned the moniker the butcher. 

Like Saddam Hussein was the butcher of Baghdad, Klaus Barbie was the butcher of Lyons, Reinhard Heydrich was the butcher of Prague, Andrei Chikatilo was the butcher of Rostov, Ratio Madic was the butcher of Bosnia and Ivan the Terrible John Demjandjuk was the butcher of Treblinka, the world has now added to this list of infamy, courtesy of President Joe Biden, another butcher, the butcher of Moscow, President Vladimir Putin. 

Where and how President Joe Biden possibly went wrong with this, properly pinning the moniker of a butcher on President Vladimir Putin that made his clearly enunciated words subject to another White House's  interpretation for context, is not clear. It is another clear indication that somebody in the White House is acting out of sync, far and above his pay grade, by constantly making an American president the laughing stock and butt of global joke as not being really in power and not driving America's foreign position decisions. 

A regime change in Russia is the only natural and rightful outcome of President Vladimir Putin's blatant defiance of the world in waging a premeditated and unjustifiable war of attrition against Ukraine. It is the only solution that is capable of solving Putin's problem for good; a recurring pain in the butt of the civilized world, particularly those within the European continent that has been yelping for a solution. If he could do it in Ukraine, he will definitely most likely do it again in some other country. It is a pattern of (mis)behavior for him as he has developed an unquenchable and insatiable appetite for invading Russia's neighboring countries. He has shed so much blood that even vampires have unfriended him for oversupplying and flooding every space with blood and thus making it difficult for them to drink all the blood being shed. 

Ukraine will not be his last victim country if he survives the current ordeal and remains in power.  Just like wild animals are put down when they attack human-beings, for developing a taste for humans, President Vladimir Putin needs to be put down (figuratively speaking), removed from power, for he has developed a penchant for invading countries. The world needs peace but the world cannot have peace when such a maniac is busily, constantly, running roughshod on countries bordering his Russia. He needs to go because there is no way in hell the civilized world can easily carry on with Putin after this war or continue to deal with Russia in a renewed global friendship with President Vladimir Putin still in power. 

President Joe Biden was right when he made that off the cuff remark in Warsaw that this man cannot remain in power. It is the right call and the only most effective way to solve Putin's problem. The world must therefore come together in unison and demand that Putin be gone from power. His problem should be solved now by removing him from power, either willingly or unwillingly. The urgency of the now demands it as removing him from power is akin to separating a fire from its fuel source. 

By removing President Vladimir Putin from power, the source of his recurring war mongering intransigence would be completely extirpated, rendering him impotent and completely defanged and castrated with no ability or capacity to ever cause trouble for his neighboring countries. If he cannot command and order an army into battle, how else could he threaten or attack Russia's neighbors or the greater world's peace. It is the solution, in fact, the only solution to Putin's problem. The opportunity has arisen with the Ukrainian invasion to solve the problem and it should be solved now. 

There should be no further ado or needless delays or fidgeting around about such an action possibly escalating the crisis or forcing President Vladimir Putin to dig in or become more savagery. Enough of the indecisiveness in effectively ending the Putin's regime in Moscow; other dictators were confronted, why not Putin? Lastly, whoever it is that is undercutting and undermining President Joe Biden'e effectiveness as an elected president of the United States of America with the final say on all America's foreign policy decisions, should stop henceforth or be fired immediately. #RemovePutinFromPower.

ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURES ARTS AND SCIENCE: COVERING UP FOR WILL SMITH?

ICHEOKU says when did the police start seeking the consent of a victim before making an arrest of a person who committed a crime? Is the practice not to first arrest and take into custodial detention of such a person before any prosecutorial decision is made, based on the victim's willingness to press charges and testify against the offender during prosecution. So what exactly is the academy telling us, that the police sought Chris Rock's approval to do their job and  that it was not given, following which they did not arrest Will Smith.

A crime of battery was committed and the police whose duty is to "protect and serve" should have summarily arrested the perpetrator of the crime Will Smith. They did not need anyone's consent, including that of Chris Rock, to do what their job demands of them. The academy is so full of it as their ineptitude was glaringly obvious that evening as they choked when they should have manned up as expected and squarely faced down a joker who took the shine out of the Oscars while pretending to be a toughie. Why did the academy allow Will Smith to get away with murdering the Oscars and did not show him instant retribution by bundling him out of the event center.

That the academy allowed a person who committed such egregious disrespect to the academy, disregarded the solemnity of the occasion and perpetrated a great act of violence on a host of the Oscars hired by the academy is the height of willful indifference to the safety and security of those present at the Oscars. If their host could be so easily smacked in the mouth by Will Smith, how did they know that Will Smith has not lost his marbles and could tee off on other persons at the venue. Why did they allow him to remain in the venue following what he did, and not bundle him out, hogtied if need be. 

When did the decision to protect people from a potential harm and injury become so subjective that the decision or lack thereof to remove Will Smith from the event center has to even be debated? Who do these people think that we are, a bunch of dumbos who cannot fathom a thing, right? This is an academy which parades itself as anti violence and does not condone violence of any type. Yet they are telling us that Will Smith was asked to leave but he refused.When did a guest assume such a power of refusal to a host's wishes and demand that he left, that his will triumphs over the law? 

When he refused to leave, what other measures did the academy deploy to counter his refusal? Did the academy effectively communicate their demand that he left the venue and if yes, why did they not impose their will on him by asking the security detail to physically remove him as is done on every mischief maker who tried to rock the boat of any event. Why did they proceed with giving him an Oscars award; tolerated a thundering standing up ovation for him and allowed the world audience to listen through his painful and pitiful apology of no apology? Their tale by the moonlight is that they told him to leave and he refused, case closed. What a very interesting hogwash of a narrative.

Will Smith has now resigned his membership of the academy but that alone is not enough. He should also renounce his Oscars award as unmerited and undeserving, and return the same to the academy with immediate effect. He has lost his role-model status and with it, the respect of his peers as well as detractors. Will Smith is now a salt which has lost its taste and should be thrown away as bland sand. The academy should stop insulting everyone's intelligence with all these lame excuses they are making for why Will Smith was not removed from the venue and his Oscars award not taken away from him. 

These excuses are lame and it is even lamer for the academy to think that we bought into their excuses for why they handled Will Smith's battery on Chris Rock so tepidly. We are no fools to believe such tales because according to Tupac, "our mothers didn't raise no fools"; and we are not fools. Will Smith definitely crossed the redline and his crime was unpardonable. He should have been fired from the academy but he has instead chosen to resign. It is a welcome development which should be applauded because it is the right thing to do. Now, the revocation of his Oscar, arrest and prosecution should follow immediately. #TakeTheDamnOscarsAway.

WILL SMITH IS A THUG: A PERSONIFICATION OF STEREOTYPICAL ANGRY AND VIOLENT BLACK MAN.

ICHEOKU says what Will Smith did at the Oscars damaged the entire black people in America, particularly black males. A people who are often held out as being violent, angry and vicious; and who have no compunction about meting out physical violence on each other and sometimes the general public. A people who holds nothing sacred or sacrosanct or solemn and who can easily defecate on the altar and shake it as no big deal.

Will Smith confirmed all these: he was angry; he was violent and he viciously attacked an innocent comedian hosting the Oscars. He thought it up, deliberated it, strode to the stage and slapped Chris Rock, evidence that he had no compunction about committing acts of violence on another person. He had absolute disregard for the sanctity of the event and the fact that the whole world was tuned in watching and desecrated the event and took the shine out of the Oscars as people instead of celebrating the Oscars success stories are now occupied with Will Smith's slap of Chris Rock.

He is a disgrace to everything held high and a shame of humanity for civility. He unmasked himself as a great pretender whose life is just like the acting he does for a living, different from the reality. He has been pretending all these years, passing himself off as a responsible black man in America only to have it all come crashing down on him because of a very silly and stupid decision he made in a supposed "defense of his wife's honor." If a man who was previously regarded as a role model and an outlier who beat the odds to become successful, civilized, well mannered and well behaved could get so thuggish before a global television audience, what other evidence does anyone need to find that black males in America are who they are made out to be, violent and angry. 

Will Smith disappointed millions of people world wide, both his fans and other passive admirers; including black males in America whom he has now further stigmatized by confirming that black males in America are angry and violent, serving himself as an example. There is no way he possibly recovers from the self-inflicted damage to his reputation and what he once stood for, a shining example. It is finished for him as far as ICHEOKU is concerned as his image is now forever tarnished and gone with the wind of his thuggish attack on an innocent comedian, who was doing his gig, jiving his mouth, while hosting the Oscars. It was the lowest of the low for him as he has sunk into the deep sewer where he will be hibernating for a long time, if not forever. 

Black activists in America protested for a long time that the Oscars were too white. It led to Jada Pickett Smith boycotting the Oscars and continued until white the Oscars management finally decided to open the Oscars for blacks and other minorities. Now, see how they are being repaid for their benevolent heart which led to throwing open the Oscars. Will Smith spat on their faces. Will Smith told them to taste his black ass. Will Smith told them to lick his black balls. Will Smith told them to go to hell and remain there until it freezes over. Will Smith told them that their fear which made them keep the Oscars white for a long time was indeed well founded. Will Smith threw a black paint on the hitherto Snow White Oscars and forever scarred the Oscars. 

Imagine the musings going on among white people's circles: in white people's homes, in white peoples board rooms, in white people's meetings, in white peoples gatherings, white peoples drinking bars, pubs and restaurants and such other places where white peoples are by themselves and there is no black person around to listening or eavesdropping on their conversation. Imagine the regrets being expressed in some of these white peoples quarters about throwing open the Oscars and wishing they had not succumbed to the pressure of black activists to dilute the Oscars by throwing it open to black people. 

ICHEOKU does not blame them for expressing a "buyer's remorse" following the rascality and stupidity of Will Smith at the Oscars. Will Smith showed that he has lost his mind and should therefore be canceled outright, shunned and boycotted as an untouchable leper, worse than a an Indian Dalit. 

To slap a comedian because of a hair joke in front of a worldwide audience is the action of a man bereft of his faculties. It is possible he was drunk or very high on some other mind altering substances such as the white powdery stuff which goes up into the nostrils. He was in fact separated from his faculties for him to do what he did. What is comedy without joking about people? Why do people go to comedy shows if not to be entertained with jokes about other people? What is so special about a woman who freely sleeps around and also allegedly once slept with her own son's friend that should make her "joke-proof" such that anyone who jokes about her hair style is  automatically slapped? 

Only a dire consequential punishment will suffice. Will Smith should be punished maximally for what he did in order to help deter any such future copycat attacks on comedians. He should be stripped of the Oscars award which he was given as he never merited it in the first place and currently does not deserve it, following the slap of shame. He should not get any future roles in movies and all his movies should be boycotted going forward. The world is waiting to see these punishments handed out to him and very soon; otherwise the people in charge of the Oscars will be seen as condoning physical violence and going light on their fellow Hollywood woke-centric thug who finally revealed the streets inside of him. #CancelWillSmith.

THE SLAP AT THE OSCARS IS BLACK ON BLACK VIOLENCE: CANCEL WILL SMITH.

ICHEOKU says if he was that tough he should have volunteered to travel to Ukraine to go help them defend their country from the Russians. If it was a white host, would he have dared? But no, it was a fellow black man and Will Smith felt that it was ok to arrogantly strode onto the stage and brazenly deliver a dirty slap on the face of Chris Rock. Chris Rock apparently thought that Will Smith was coming to whisper something into his ears and extended his cheek to him only to be bewildered by Will Smith's dirty hot slap. 

ICHEOKU tuned-off from everything Hollywood a long time ago due to their woke idiocy gone amok and did not watch the Oscars. ICHEOKU saw the perfidy later in the news and initially thought that it was a staged act, part of a well rehearsed script added for maximum effect and to improve Oscars ratings, only to learn that it was a malicious act. A deliberate act of aggression and violence, an assault and battery, perpetrated by one black man against another black man, two Hollywood high profile personalities. Will Smith should be punished for what he did. He thought about it, stood up and left his seat, walked several feet to the stage, approached Chris Rock, leaned backward to make it count and then delivered the dirty slap. 

It is condemnable and it is here condemned without any reservations whatsoever; and should be condemned by every right thinking sane person, whether in Hollywood or outside the sleazy circle of great pretenders who think that they are the oxygen which society breathes. The assault and battery by Will Smith on Chris Rock should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and prison term handed to Will Smith so that he could have some quiet moment to himself to reminisce and think through his action. Such a public display of actual violence, in real time, is not acceptable and cannot be excused and no amount of apologies will be enough to atone for what he did. He did the crime and should therefore do the time. 

Will Smith was too full of it to think that he could just take matters into his own hand, defied every protocol and respectability, disrespected and disregarded the venue, the event and reason for the evening's gathering, had no regard for the host and did what he did. Like Russia's President Vladimir Putin who defied the world to invade Ukraine, Will Smith defied the host of Oscars and millions of viewers world wide who tuned in to watch the Oscars and did what he did. The only commensurate punishment for what he did is to treat him in kind, by defying every pretentious apology and fake cry of his and visit him with the harshest punishment ever, including taking his Oscars away. He does not deserve the honor, following what he did, period.

He disrespected the Oscars. What he did is not good for the image of the Oscars. It was an affront on everyone who tuned in to watch the Oscars, including children who heard his profane-laced diatribe. Some of his fans might now be thinking that it is ok to commit flagrant acts of violence on people simply because their favorite star did the same. As a society, we should collectively say no to violence, which becomes more egregious when a public figure commits it and so brazenly, with millions of television viewers watching. Will Smith should be punished for what he did and severely too, as to make an example out of him. 

It was a career-killing slap and the career of Will Smith should be ended forthwith. His movies should be boycotted and yanked from theaters showing them. Will Smith should be canceled as nothing justifies what he did. So what, if Chris Rock did not keep Will Smith's wife's name out of his "fucking" mouth? What is so incendiary about joking about a person's hair cut or hair loss that should attract a slap by the person's putative husband? What is so atrocious in suggesting that Jada Picket's hair resembles Demi Moore's haircut in the movie 'GI Jane' that Will Smith should take matters into his own hands and commit such an assault on Chris Rock? 

What is wrong with some of these black Hollywood people that think they rule the world and therefore untouchable and above the law; and decide which laws to follow and which laws to freely break. Will Smith has now morphed into a Jussie Smollett 2.0 and can never recover from what he did no matter how much he pretends to be contrite about it. He overreached himself, crossed the proverbial redline and therefore must be held accountable for what he did. The law should take its course in order to repudiate such thuggish behavior as unacceptable from anyone, no matter how highly placed or regarded. The conduct belongs in the street and not at the Oscars in front of millions of global television audiences. 

When you think that it was only Kanye Ye West that is on the bend, here comes Will Smith emphatically hollering, me too, deal me in. When Kanye Ye West went on stage and yanked the microphone away from Taylor Swift, at least he neither slapped her nor used profanity on her. Will Smith not only went to the stage, he slapped a host of the Oscars and by necessary implication, slapped the entire Oscars organizers as well as millions of television audiences who tuned in to share the evening event. He must be made to pay for his action, it was unwarranted and it is a very arrogant behavior, the feeling of he can do whatever the heck he wants and get away with it. It is sad that he slapped Chris Rock and sadder that he also repeatedly used foul language, profanity, in addressing the slap.

ICHEOKU commends Chris Rock for not escalating the situation by slapping Will Smith back or engaging him in a fight. Someone like Dave Chapelle would have reacted differently, admitted Will Smith would not have dared if Dave was emceeing the event. Will Smith has damaged himself beyond repair as he will, going forward, be seen as a thug. It is not as if that will be the first time a person, particularly a comedian, ever made a joke about a person's wife. Roasting is part of our pop culture as Americans and a joke never a person killed. Will Smith ignored every decency and respectability and took such umbrage to walk to the stage and slap a comedian who was hosting the Oscars, just because he joked about his wife's hair. Really? Still wondering why the Oscars was "so white" for a long time, now you know. #CancelWillSmith. #BoycottWillSmithMovies.

UKRAINIAN WAR REFUGEES: MAKE AMERICA WHITER AGAIN, A GOOD POLICY OBJECTIVE.

ICHEOKU says what the woke lunatic leftists once accused former President Donald John Trump of trying to do is exactly what President Biden just did: the president just made America whiter again. By announcing that America will take in hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees, the president just widened the racial gap in America as the majority of those Ukrainians will never go back to Ukraine. They will simply disappear inside the illegal immigrants labyrinth in America, never to be seen or heard from again until they regularize their stay with the help of shrewd immigration lawyers. 

A visa-free, open border admission immigration policy for all Ukrainians fleeing the Russia imposed war on Ukraine will encourage even those Ukrainians with no previous plans of leaving their country to now find an excuse to move to America. How would anyone know who is genuinely fleeing a war from those economic migrants who might just slip through the new policy to establish a new root in America. With a first "down payment" (batch) of 100,000 white Ukrainians being allowed into America, which could be scaled up later with no set limit, depending on the progress of the war, America's racial imbalance is bound for a system boost. 

Such a blank check of open immigration handed to Ukrainians will certainly do an additional number on the already exacerbated racial imbalance in America which is heavily tilted in favor of white caucasians. Bringing that many white people from Ukraine into America will definitely lead to a rise in white Americans' numerical strength, thus further widening an already existing racial gap between the majority white people and other minority groups in America. 

Using the Ukrainian war refugees to increase the number of caucasians in America is quite a work of a genius' creative political play. Will the woke leftist anarchist now similarly accuse President Joe Biden of and pillory him for making America whiter again? ICHEOKU asks this pertinent question because there have been so many wars and several civil unrests in so many other parts of the world including in America's Southern Hemisphere including Haiti of late, but in none of these countries did a sitting president of the United States of America commit to permit such a large number of immigration of their refugees. Why is Ukraine now being treated specially and specifically different; or is it a crime to be a non-white person in this world? 

Before Ukraine there was Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Myanmar, Haiti, Ethiopia, Yemen and such other war torn and rife stricken regions of the world including in Latin America, with resulting byproduct of streaming refugees. How many of these refugees from these other countries and regions did America and the West admit into their countries? In some cases, active military forces were deployed at their borders to checkmate these refugees and to the extent of physically preventing them from entering their countries. Did the color of their skin and/or their different religious beliefs and practices play any role in the treatment they were given; or did these governments choose to now look the other way simply because white people have become war refugees. 

ICHEOKU says he has nothing against Ukrainians or the need to give their war refugees succor and refuge in America; only that fairness demands that everyone, including war refugees from everywhere, be treated fairly. The same open admission into America treatment being shown to Ukrainians should be a policy of general application which should be extended to every war refugee from any part of the world, regardless of the color of their skin, religion or belief. Paraphrasing Al Gore, the only "controlling authority" should be that they are escaping from the ravages of war. But from the experiences garnered from other war refugees, the war refugees from Ukraine are being specially treated; and it is most likely because the color of their skin and religious belief are different. 

Anyway, provided that only their child-bearing age women, children, the infirm and the aged are allowed this privilege, it is a good humanitarian gesture by America which should be welcomed by everyone without reservation. White people in America must be particularly pleased at the development, a glaring opportunity for them to radically increase their political and economic power base and overall numerical strength. The thought of this happening might be what in fact peeved Vice President Kamala Harris so much that she bungled her two recent overseas trips to that part of the world. Let's wait and see if she will now push for Ethiopian, Somali and Sudanese war refugees to be equally given a freeload on our immigration in their hundreds of thousands. 

ICHEOKU stands for improving the odds of a lasting white majority in America and if bringing in hundreds of thousands and even millions of white Ukrainian war refugees into America will help firm the hold, so be it. The government can bring them in plane loads and resettle them in Georgia, Nevada and Arizona to help shore up the dwindling white population in these States and also help serve as a buffer to the threatening minority dominance being witnessed. Anyone who has never been a minority cannot sufficiently understand the ample  benefits that come with being a majority. It is a good policy objective to sustain the white majority in America, so let's repopulate America in the way most beneficial to white interests, to ensure that the river never runs dry. So, hello, let's welcome Ukrainian war refugees, even in their millions, if possible.

NUMBER OF AMERICANS KIILED BY THE WUHAN SCOURGE.

 1,003,425