Dear Editor,

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence.” Mohandas K Ghandi. It is almost 700 years that our black ancestors were gutted from our ancestral lands. The course of History is very painful to teach and to study. The negro race has barely overcome that traumatic experience – which is manifested in the daily walk of those of African heritage. Neither have we stopped blaming our African ancestors back home (in Africa) for such despicable actions, trading in their own blood.

Were they aware of the disastrous circumstances surrounding their people? Were their leaders forced under pressure, ultimatums or perhaps they were told they were too scattered and were better organized in a body. Since we are their products…we are left with no answers but heartaches for over 700 years.

Today, we, the prodigies of the enslaved in the Eastern Caribbean are caught in that similar trap. Europe is again, deliberately trying to eradicate and deprive us of our cultural heritage.

Here, with our mouths agape and eyes wide open, we are drugged and dragged kicking and screaming in traps in which we are totally ignorant. This appears to be similar to the “triangular trade”. The sellers in Africa, kidnapped, drugged, and tricked by any means and got their cargo. What is the difference now? By any means in the 21st century, the colonial masters’ objectives are accomplishing in their colonies.

Remember, after emancipation, the West Indies were left swimming without life-vests in the turbulent Atlantic ocean and Caribbean sea. All the European businessmen and planters abdicated as the economic climate collapsed. Forgotten by the European nations, our ancestors’ survival modes set in consolidated by our natural creative instincts and built our nations.

Now they are returning in the same manner. Devastated by the greatest recorded hurricane, our aid is tied to conditions. Emergency operation is needed, but they refused to diagnose and operate unless detrimental contracts are signed.

There is no education process – everything is rushed to puzzle and scare the politicians. Just like in Africa, burn up the houses as they run to escape to safety, they were caught. There is no difference. Forced all the bills one time – they will be puzzled, confused, mentally fatigued and paralysed, so the leaders will have no objections.

Remember, it started in Europe. The blacks have progressed too far, so they must round them up – only to their advantage. Where is our leaders’ national pride? The last visionary leaders have all died or been strangled.

The Caribbean basin peoples had longed for “One Nation” evolving from their lions – not imported from Europe who dragged them here kicking and screaming from Africa. So, the Caribbean people have interacted and bonded themselves without the interjections of the Caribbean governments. Namely, the Custom bodies , Immigration, teachers, nurses, police, secretaries, fishermen, Church and voluntary organizations, Boys Brigade, Scouts, Carnivals , and festivals.

Every year there is an endaba on a different Caribbean island: there solid relationships, appreciation, love, tolerance and understanding are exercised. In that environment, a nation is created and built! Only the myopic leaders of the Caribbean refuse and fail to heed the clarion call Unite, Unite, Unite. You ask, why are they so reluctant? The Caribbean leaders are proud to be kings of sand castles.

In reality, the new breed lacks creativity and vision and is most insular. This was detected by the European powers – so they initiated their cancer packages to suck us and to destroy our national pride. What are these? Sanctions, bills, trade embargos, and acts that so grossly will rip us apart – enslaved and demonized us. These financial institutions were slave traders; the enslaved progenies have advanced beyond their expectations, so they must curtail them by any means.                                                                                                

The pages of history will recall that our 21st century Caribbean leaders have sold out and re-enslaved their own black brothers. Their constituents can read and write, and information is deliberately withheld, and we are led like sheep to a slaughter.                                        

Lena A. Gumbs

Anguilla

Dear Editor,

  If you happened to be watching the news the other day, you saw Julian Assange carried out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London by the police. Depending on who you want to believe, his crimes are either an outstanding warrant on a questionable sexual assault charge or his timely (or un-timely if you are a Democrat) release of stolen Hilary Clinton/DNC e-mails or his alleged conspiracy to hack U.S. Government computer systems.

  Now, if we sort of look at this through the squinted eyes of the cynic, you might see that the sexual assault charge turns out to be a scam orchestrated probably during the Bush presidency to finally shut this guy up, so that charge will probably fail, which leaves the whole Hillary/Democrats e-mail deal and the alleged hacking conspiracy.

  Now, all that being said, what I find interesting is the current outrage or actually the complete lack of outrage by the liberal left media over this current prosecution. After all, isn’t Assange a journalist and entitled to the same protections as those enjoyed by the New York Times reporters that published the stolen Pentagon papers in the 60s or the Washington Post reporters that published the stolen classified documents a couple of years ago? No. Apparently not.

  Apparently the current standard for determining whether an individual that publishes stolen information is a journalist is whether that stolen information exposes or embarrasses a Republican or his (or her) administration or whether it embarrass or exposes a Democrat or his (or her) administration. Apparently, If an individual publishes stolen documents or classified information that supports a liberal agenda, then that individual becomes a Pulitzer prize-winning Journalist overnight.

  On the other hand, if that individual publishes something stolen that attacks the liberal agenda, then that individual certainly is not a journalist but is a criminal worthy of the full weight of prosecution. If that all seems odd to you or even hypocritical, welcome to modern mainstream journalism.

  My father was the City Editor of a major daily newspaper for the better part of 60 years. I grew up reading accurate reporting and good writing on a daily basis. His standard was rigid. “Get it right before anything else.” Not any longer. Formerly-great papers like The Washington Post and The New York Times have stopped being sources of objective information and reporting but have become political operatives for the Democratic Party and that is a great tragedy.

  When The Washington Post announces that they are dedicating 50 reporters to do nothing but generate negative stories about the Trump administration regardless of truth or accuracy and no one bats an eyelash, things have gone too far. When their headlines are questions, e.g. “Did Trump hire illegals at Mar a Lago?” yet when you read the story it turns out to be some thirdhand gossip that some reporter heard from some guy he doesn’t know in a trench coat behind a bar in Georgetown at 3:00am, then clearly, journalism as the world has understood it for a century or more is surely dead.

  The Post, along with other news outlets, is currently being sued for their false reporting of an encounter that a young man had during a demonstration at the White House. In their reporting they maligned this young man, falsely accused him and, essentially destroyed his character for an incident in which he was completely innocent. Was this an accident? A simple mistake? No. They were in possession of the very video tape that proved conclusively that their reporting and characterizations were not simple mistakes at all but willful lies. It will be an interesting case when it gets to court.

  Usually newspapers are held to a couple of simple legal standards. If a person is a public figure, he or she is generally fair game and can be attacked at will and even if the newspaper is wrong about something that damages an individual, they have to be proven to have acted with willful malice. That is, they knew what they wrote was wrong when they wrote it and they did it intentionally with the intent to injure or defame. Those are usually tough cases to make in court which is why you don’t see liability cases succeed very often.

  In this case, though, I think The Post and CNN and others may well be in trouble. The young man in question is clearly not a public figure . The Post and all the rest knew the reporting was a lie because they had the video, and, most importantly, they have a two-year history of publishing any bit of nonsense and conjecture they could find to make Trump look bad. Why is that important? Because the young man was wearing a Trump hat at the time.

  That will be the nexus that the lawyers will use to get the settlements that they will buy their new Gulfstreams with. They will be able to make the obvious and compelling case that The Post et al used this young man as a prop and destroyed his reputation for the simple reason that they saw an opportunity to make Trump and his supporters look bad. This time they got caught red-handed and it’s going to cost them.

  Which brings us back to Assange. Is Assange a journalist ? Absolutely. You may not like him and he may be a slimeball but for sure, by any objective standard, he publishes exactly the same type of information that The Times and The Post do in the same public domain, so if they are journalists then so is he.

  As such, I suggest that if the case against him succeeds and he goes to trial or even ends up in jail for publishing the Clinton and DNC e-mails then the New York Times reporters that published the Pentagon Papers and the Washington Post reporters that published the classified documents a year ago and everybody that published the Panama Papers better lawyer up right now because you guys may well end up in the cells next to his and deservedly so.

  Honestly, in hopes of restoring the reputation and integrity of a great institution and of all honest old school journalists everywhere, I hope that actually happens. Where is Charles Krauthammer when you need him?

Steven Johnson

Dear Editor,

  It is confusing. On the one hand the Dutch government offers a very, very considerable sum of money for reconstruction post hurricane,  but at the same time the delivery of the benefits is so complex that much unnecessary suffering takes place. It leads to accusations of all sorts, including the claim that the funds are really intended to manipulate local politics.

  In order to understand some parts of this enigma, it is necessary to understand the long history of development aid given by the Dutch. This history in many parts of the world has proven that aid funds generally do not achieve their targets. A significant community with a long experience and some retained traumas is employed to try to improve this and improve effectiveness. This community is guided by the political pressures in the Netherlands, where past development aid has been heavily criticized (often for good reasons).

   St. Maarten has not been successful in painting a good picture of itself in the Netherlands and extensive press material relating to administrative missteps (corruption?) has got substantial attention.

  The result has been the choice of a specialized third party to administer the funds. The World Bank covers a wide range of services that are supported by 189 member countries. Its typical activities involve trying to ensure that development efforts are more effective than they would be. In many cases this results in them making recommendations that are not in the interests of parties in power or with popular movements. In many cases, criticism has been justified and improvements made. In many cases, criticism of the World Bank has been made by parties resisting transparency and democratization. There is a general consensus that increased bureaucratization is one of the greatest downsides of the World Bank.

  When the choice was made to have the World Bank manage the disbursement of recovery funds in St. Maarten, the simple analysis will have been that this was a carefully-considered approach that got wide political backing in the Netherlands.

  The particular circumstances of Sint Maarten, whereby this sudden massive disaster wipes out a huge amount of infrastructure and economic activity, requires rapid intervention was not the first consideration of Dutch decisions, even though the consequences of slow reaction may have shown up later. (Rapid intervention would have avoided more deficits and losses). The decisions were made by the simple rationale of delivering aid at minimal political risk in the Netherlands.

  So, when politicians in St. Maarten start claiming that the Dutch are using the aid to manipulate the politics of St. Maarten, the simple analysis in the Netherlands will inevitably be that the political establishment, with their tarnished history, is resisting transparency, accountability and anti-corruption .

  The manipulation claims may have a strong political resonance in St. Maarten, but they further complicate the relationship with the Dutch and future funding and support.

  A greater understanding across the ocean divide would be in the interest of kingdom relations.

Robbie Ferron

Dear Editor,

  The present situation St. Maarten is in is because we elect people who we do not know.

A political party only can have harmony when the members have the same ideology and agree on the same values and principles. Vetting means to make a careful and critical examination of something or some person. It is to know all relevant information about people. The law can vet you for criminality, but that does not mean the electorate know you.

  The law vetting implies that under our judicial system he or she is ok to be a minister or a parliamentarian. But that vetting does not let us know those politicians’ hearts and how and what they think. A political ideology lets you know to a certain extent the individual’s values based on the ideology if he or she is a conservative or liberal. The sad fact most politicians even do not know their ideology, that is why it is difficult to reach a consensus.

  Your values, morality and economic policies define who you really are. The point is not for people to agree with you, but for them to know who you really are and understand you. For example, do you know where your politician's stance is on abortion, homosexuality, bestiality, and paedophilia?

  Do you know if your politicians believe in the right to defend self and to have a firearm? Do you know if your politicians believe in massive government control or in minimal government control, implying if he or she is a socialist or capitalist?  Do you know if your politicians believe healthcare is a privilege or a right, and if they think it’s a right, how much more are they willing to tax people to pay for it? Do you know if your politicians see prostitution as a moral or immoral act? Did you ever ask your politicians how much of your earned money is the government’s fair share to take from you?

  The purpose of a government is to provide the best opportunities for people to have a good quality of life and their happiness and to protect them. Do you know the character of your politicians? Did you ever ask them if they believe in freedom of religion? Do you ask them if they believe in Jesus Christ or God? Do you know anything about their personal lifestyle? Knowing that your politicians have an education is good, but that alone does not qualify them to be a leader. Being a good speaker and having a good education is an asset, but that does not mean he or she is the right person.

  Many of the politicians throughout the world, many have a graduate degree but look how messed-up the world is. To vote for a person, you have to know their character, their values and the intent of their present lifestyle. There are many educated thieves and educated paedophiles, you want people with ethics and good values with good intent and with education.

  The conclusion is to make it your business to know who you are voting for by examining that individual’s character. That is why it is up to you to extremely vet the individual you are going to vote for, and if you do not have enough information do not vote. Because choices have consequences, vet your politicians wisely.

The Patriot Miguel Arrindell