"BORN TO BE LOVED; LOVE TO BE HATED!"
His Anger Teaches Everybody Reality!!
It's your boy BOBBEE BEE "THE HATER" aka the trouble maker from the "city of brotherly love" I am an obnoxious, opinionated, third grader whose ego is bigger than T.O.! I am an "odd"combination of Terrell Owens, KOBE Bryant, Rasheed Wallace, and Allen Iverson!
by Eric D. Graham #TheRapProfessor. If you like what you are learning ($JeffreyBarnes)
The most sacred icons of the Catholic Church are the Black Madonna and Christ child, which are found in Europe's most venerated shrines and cathedrals.
Each year, millions of European pilgrims ritually humble themselves before the image of Black Mary and her child Jesus at Black Madonna sites throughout France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Portugal and other Catholic countries.
Many Black Madonna statues have the black paint literally kissed off of their hands and feet. In Poland, the Church encourages believers to pray to the Black Madonna of Czestochowa every morning before rising. It is reported that Pope John Paul follows this ritual. Time Magazine (June 11, 1979) reported on Pope Paul II's visit to Czestochowa's holiest shrine, which prominently displays "The Lady" known for centuries as the Black Madonna. At Our Lady of Koden (Poland), there are statues of white saints carrying pictures of Black Madonnas.
Pilgrims throughout the ages have visited Black Madonna sites and left inspired, confident, relieved, or healed of their afflictions.
Today, there are over 300 documented Black Madonna sites in France alone!
Sometimes they are hidden away in vaults, while the public is shown Madonnas with European features.
Is there a "Moorish" origin to the modern day version of Santa Claus, which many scholars believe is based on the historical figure, known as Saint Nicolaus, who was a Black priest born in Turkey, which unfortunately, was later turned into a mythological character or a "jolly" old fat man that rides on a sleigh pulled by "flying Reindeers" that was promoted by Coke-Cola and the cartoonist Thomas Nast.
Shockingly, in Europe, this figure is known as Sinterklass, who comes to town on a steamboat in Spain along with a "so-called" racist Black-faced character named Black Peter, which many scholars believe represents the "Moors"-African Muslims, who came on ships and introduced science and mathematics to the region, where they reduced the tax on citizens, while creating 17 Universities in Europe, by democratizing education, funding medical schools, as well as urbanizing Spain by paving roads, introducing pedestrian walkways and street lights, while building hundreds of public showers and mosques.
This, of course, is one theory.
There are several others.
However, keep this in mind.
Especially, with the recent controversy surrounding Princess Michael of Kent, who sparked fury after wearing a so-called “racist” BLACKAMOOR brooch on her coat to the Queen’s annual Christmas lunch at Buckingham Palace, which would have been the first royal luncheon attended by Prince Harry's financee' Meghan Markle, who is Black (A Moor) as well as the Fez, which magically appeared on Carolina Panthers CAM NEWTON'S head during his last two press conferences.
The appearance of the wheels and their workmanship was like sparkling beryl, and all four of them had the same form, their appearance and workmanship being as if one wheel were within another. Whenever they moved, they moved in any of their four directions without turning as they moved.…from the songAngels From The Sky off the album Pocket Full of Ghetto Poems Vol. 1 by eric d. graham
A former military intelligence official who ran a Pentagon program analyzing unidentified flying objects (UFOs) said Monday that there is "compelling evidence" that "we may not be alone" in the universe.
Elizondo oversaw a secretive Pentagon program that investigated UFOs and hunted for evidence of alien life.
The U.S. Defense Department's covert project, called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, was shuttered in 2012 after five years of probing reports of UFOs.
Elizondo resigned from the Pentagon in October 2017, and the agency confirmed the existence of the program only days ago.
Elizondo submitted a resignation letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis asking why the government refused to spend more "time and effort" on exploring signs of alien life.
He publicly pushed for the release of multiple videos that showed possible UFO sightings so people could see the footage for themselves. (Source:Newsweek)
The borrower is servant to the lender” Proverbs (22:7) NKJV
WISDOM FROM ST.PETER’S:SUNDAY SCHOOL LESSON FOR TODAY
Here’s an idea for getting out of debt, and staying out. Instead of referring to it as your ‘credit card,” start seeing it as your “debt card.” Next time you have an “itch” to purchase something you don’t need or can’t pay for, that may just stop you from “scratching” it.
People generally fall into three categories: (1) the haves; (2) the have-nots; and (3) the have-not-paid-for-what-they haves. The story is told of a handyman who’d been called out to a millionaire’s mansion to refinish the floors. The rich man’s wife said, “Be especially careful with this dining room table. It goes back to Louis XVI.” The handyman said, “That’s nothing. If I don’t make a payment by next Friday, my whole living room set goes back to the furniture store!”
They say the average person today drives a bank-financed car, over a bond-financed road, on gasoline they bought with a credit card, to a department store to open another charge account, so they can fill their house that’s mortgaged to thirty years to the bank, with furniture that’s been purchased on an installment plan. Now, the Bible doesn’t condemn credit, but it cautions us about the use of it.
“The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.” It’s okay to borrow for necessities, but you should always pay for luxuries. So if at all possible, pay cash or don’t buy it. “The wicked borrows and does not repay” (Ps 37:21 NKJV). It’s not wrong to borrow money, it’s just wrong to borrow money and not repay it. So the word for you today is: Learn to live within your means. (Source: The Word For Today)
One of my metaphysical teachers told me ONCE that “science-fiction is scientific fact.” Therefore, we MUST ALL watch movies with an intellectual eye and not just for our own personal entertainment.
So, WE must ALWAYS study the dialogue between the actors, while being weary of possible technological advancement within them, along with the subliminal messages, which may be hidden in front of OUR eyes.
Why? Because, these projects, with their million-dollar budgets, are designed to shape the minds and thoughts of future generations and realities through their visual theatrical stories.
This was made evident recently when reports confirmed that the Pentagon had a $22 million government program, which was designed to search for “so-called “UFOs" just like the one's that were depicted in the movie Independence Day.(Followers of the T.H.E.M shouldn't be surprised)
Along with this report about life on other planets, there have also been discussions on the news about the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who officially granted citizenship to a humanoid robot during a program at the Future Investment Initiative named Sophia, along with the creation of Sex-Robots, by engineer Sergi Santos, from Spain, that may be used to replace prostitutes in Las Vegas brothels, which reminds one of movies like A.I., I-Robot starring Will Smith, Surrogate featuring Bruce Willis and the CLASSIC romantic science-fiction drama film (HER)with Joaquin Phoenix.
As the actress Penelope Cruz said in one of my favorite movies Vanilla Skies, "Open Your Eyes...."
WAKE UP-This is the Evolution of an MC: Pocket Full of Ghetto Poems Vol.2
Featured image: A destroyed Vindicator at Ewa field, the victim of one of the smaller attacks on the approach to Pearl Harbor (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
On December 7, 1941 the U.S. naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was attacked by Japanese forces. President Roosevelt, in his well known Infamy speech delivered on December 8, claimed the attack was “unprovoked” and, on this basis, asked for and received a declaration of war from the U.S. Congress.
But the evidence suggests the attack was not unprovoked. On the contrary, it was carefully and systematically provoked in order to manipulate the U.S. population into joining WWII.This provocation game, spectacularly successful in 1941, is currently being played with North Korea. The stakes are high. Many good people are reluctant to look critically at the U.S. role in the Pearl Harbor attacks because they consider FDR a progressive president and because they are appalled at the thought of what might have happened if the U.S. had not joined the war. But they should not allow these considerations to prevent them from examining the Pearl Harbor operation. To give up such examination is to give up the understanding of a key method of manipulating populations.
***
By the late 1930s it was clear to much of the world that war was imminent. British planners worked hard to figure out how Britain could emerge on the winning side of the encounter.
British propaganda expertSidney Rogerson’s 1938 book, Propaganda in the Next War gives us an important glimpse of British thinking on the eve of war. Rogerson notes that “Japan’s distinction is that she is unpopular,” (p. 142) and he comments that U.S. citizens “are more susceptible than most peoples to mass suggestion–they have been brought up on it.” (p. 146). He is thus able to pose the challenge to the British propaganda community in this way:
“Though we [Britain] are not unfavourably placed, we shall require to do much propaganda to keep the United States benevolently neutral. To persuade her to take our part will be much more difficult, so difficult as to be unlikely to succeed. It will need a definite threat to America, a threat, moreover, which will have to be brought home by propaganda to every citizen, before the republic will again take arms in an external quarrel. The position will naturally be considerably eased if Japan were involved and this might and probably would bring America in without further ado. At any rate, it would be a natural and obvious object of our propagandists to achieve this, just as during the Great War they succeeded in embroiling the United States with Germany.” (p. 148)
Reading Rogerson prepares us for the discovery that the Pearl Harbor operation was a masterful exercise in deceit.
FDR and his top advisors agreed with the British that the U.S. needed to get into the war on Britain’s side, and they felt, or claimed to feel, that conflict between the U.S. and Japan was in any case inevitable. Waiting for war with Japan to break out spontaneously was, they felt, a poor idea. But it was also a poor idea to have the U.S. fire the first shot: Japan had to appear as the aggressor. This was the only way to put the U.S. population in the mood for war. The majority of U.S. citizens opposed entering WWII (Stinnett, p. 7) just as they had opposed entering WWI in 1914. Therefore it was decided to goad the Japanese.
As U.S. Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, put it shortly before the Pearl Harbor attack: “The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” (Stinnett, p. 178)
Robert Stinnett served in the U.S. Navy in WWII. He spent 17 years researching the Pearl Harbor events before bringing out, in 2000, his book, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor. I find his argument, based on solid documentary evidence unearthed through Freedom of Information requests, convincing.
Stinnett names eight steps of provocation proposed on October 7, 1940 by Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum.
The list includes instituting a complete embargo on trade with Japan (Stinnett, p. 8). Subsequent to McCollum’s list, it was decided also to institute “the deliberate deployment of American warships within or adjacent to the territorial waters of Japan” (Stinnett, p. 9).
Stinnett says,
The day after December 7, 1941, after listening to FDR’s Infamy speech, and believing his claim that the attacks had been unprovoked, Congress duly passed a declaration of war against Japan. Because of treaties then in place, the U.S. was at war with all the Axis powers.
Are we to believe that this provocation game, so useful to U.S. planners those many decades ago, now gathers dust on the shelf? On the contrary, U.S. strategy today requires it, and its proponents are in some cases surprisingly frank about this. For example, in the publication, Which Path to Persia?, authored by strategists at the Saban Centre (housed in the Brookings Institution), we find the following argument:
(a) Any major, overt military action against Iran by the U.S. will be very unpopular (this was in 2009) internationally and domestically unless it is seen as a response to Iranian aggression.
(b) Waiting for the Iranians to carry out such an act may mean waiting forever, because Iran avoids such actions.
(c) It may, therefore, be necessary to goad Iran into such an action—especially if the aim is an invasion of Iran with regime change as in the Iraq case.
(d) The more violent the Iranian response to U.S. goading, the better. All military options are at that point easy to pursue.
The authors note:
“it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)” (pp. 84-85)
Later they return to the theme of covert regime change as deliberate provocation:
“Indeed, for this same reason, efforts to promote regime change in Iran might be intended by the U.S. government as deliberate provocations to try to goad the Iranians into an excessive response that might then justify an American invasion.” (p. 150)
The dream of these authors is an attack on the U.S. similar to the assaults of 9/11 (p. 66). Their problem is how to bring this about. If they could get an Iranian assault, they feel, U.S. forces could then do whatever they wanted to do to Iran without resistance from either the U.S. domestic population or the international community.
This, then, is what the “game” looks like among certain U.S. strategic thinkers today. As for citizens of the relevant states–democratic or otherwise–we are outside the game and are supposed to remain in a state of political unconsciousness. If we recognize the game, we undermine it.
At this moment, it seems to me that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) is even more vulnerable to the provocation game than Iran. The game, in fact, is already in progress.
Two further actions bring us unsavoury reminders of the provocative acts of the Pearl Harbor operation.
(a) Military maneuvers in the region
To antagonize its diminutive opponent (far smaller, in both area and population, than the state of California), the U.S. led a series of extremely provocative military exercises near the DPRK. The exercises included large numbers of weapons systems, some of them nuclear capable–a clear threat of not only aggressive action but nuclear attack.
(b) Oil embargo
In addition to escalating general economic sanctions strangling the DPRK economy, the U.S. has tried to cut off the DPRK’s entire supply of oil. The DPRK has no significant oil production of its own and relies on China and Russia for its oil, without which it cannot survive as an industrialized country. Only the noncooperation of China and Russia has forced the U.S. to accept, for the moment, a less draconian move. With UN Security Council resolution 2375, passed on September 11, 2017, the DPRK has lost about 30% of its oil imports.
The cynicism of the UN Security Council in passing UNSC 2375 is staggering. How can the five permanent members of this body refer to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), which they piously do in the text of 2375, as a basis for the harsh treatment of the DPRK? It is true that this treaty seeks to halt the spread of nuclear weapons to states that do not have them. But it also seeks to get rid of the nuclear weapons already possessed by nuclear states. Written in 1968, the NPT says:
“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
Far from doing this, the permanent members of the Security Council continue to guard their nuclear weapons and to resist attempts to get rid of them. All five of the nuclear powers who happen to be the permanent members of the UN Security Council have refused to sign the recent Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
As long as the Security Council’s permanent members continue to ignore the NPT’s call for nuclear disarmament, and as long as they likewise refuse other treaties calling on them to get rid of their nuclear weapons, they have no credibility when they insist that other states (the particular ones they designate as “rogue”) remain nuclear weapons-free. If the NPT disallows the spread of nuclear weapons while permitting existing nuclear powers to hold on to their nuclear weapons, it simply becomes a fancy way of maintaining the exclusive Nuclear Club.
The NPT also states that
“in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Instead, we have the U.S., which authored UNSC 2375, threatening the most serious crimes it is possible to commit, including genocide, against the DPRK.
To be clear, I do not approve of the acquisition of nuclear weapons by any state under any circumstances. I have spent my adult life opposing nuclearism. I do not rejoice in the nuclear weapons of the DPRK. But that government is not going to give up its nuclear program voluntarily as long as it feels under existential threat. What DPRK leaders say publicly–we need a deterrent against U.S. aggression–is the same thing their diplomats have said to me privately. And how can the permanent members of the Security Council reject this argument when every one of them believes in nuclear deterrence? Which one of them can claim to be under more threat than the DPRK?
The sad fact is that as long as the so-called “great powers” continue to use treaties such as the NPT to get what they want, while denying other states equal rights, nuclear proliferation will be extremely difficult to prevent.
I have no magical solution to the current crisis, but it seems to me that the Security Council is violating the UN Charter, which it has no authority to do, and is acting to prevent a peaceful outcome.
If I had a global platform from which to address the world I would say the following.
(a) To the leaders of the DPRK:
Please do not play the provocation game. I know you are not insane and therefore I know you will not carry out a Pearl Harbor attack on the U.S. or its allies. But responding, as you have in some instances, with threats and harsh rhetoric is dangerous and cannot possibly benefit you. In fact, such responses make it possible for U.S. leaders to turn any accident or international incident against you. They may even fabricate an incident (create a false flag attack on themselves), in which case every threat you have ever made will be quoted to prove to the world that you are the guilty party.
(b) To China and Russia:
I understand why you do not want to risk the survival of your states and your populations for the protection of the little DPRK, which you no doubt regard as something of a loose cannon. But remember that giving in to U.S. bullying is like giving in to the demands of a violent hostage-taker. No good is likely to come of it in the long run.
(c) To the United Nations as a whole:
Only by addressing the genuine and legitimate security concerns of the DPRK will you be likely to achieve a peaceful outcome to the current crisis. If you believe in your own organization, its purpose and Charter, you will not cooperate with the imperial policies of those members who, to the grief of the world, are installed in positions of privilege in the Security Council.
(d) To the people of the world:
Remember Pearl Harbor. That is, understand the provocation game. Recognize it whenever it is played. Undermine it.
The original source of this article is Global Research
By Richard B. Muhammad and Raychelle Muhammad, Final Call Staffers | Last updated: Nov 29,
Libya’s suffering and slavery didn’t just happen
Demonstrators hold signs during a demonstration against slavery in Libya on November 24, 2017,outside the Libyan embassy in the French capital Paris.
When CNN released video footage of a live slave auction in Libya, captured by journalist Nima Elbagir, shockwaves were sent around the world.
Starting the bidding at $400 each, buyers purchased 12 African migrants at an undisclosed location outside the capital city of Tripoli in a matter of minutes.
How is it possible for open slave market to exist in the year 2017?
At the end of the day, several hundred people gathered in front of the Libyan Embassy in Paris to demand the end of slavery practices in the country updated following a report by CNN. Paris, France, November 24.
The roots of the slavery, suffering and misery in Libya goes back to the purposeful, targeted destruction of the government of Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi.
While President Barack Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, declared their assault on the North Africa leader was about protecting the Libyan people and standing for what is right, Libya has gone all-wrong with no solution in sight.
Raymond A. Winbush, a professor and director of the Institute for Urban Research at Morgan State University, noted that by President Barack Obama’s own admission, the worst mistake of his presidency was how he handled Libya.
With three different feuding governments, Libya has never been more unstable.
This instability left the door wide open for today’s widespread corruption, human rights abuses, and the slave trade, said Dr. Winbush.
Dr. Winbush told The Final Call that Libya once boasted the highest standard of living in Africa as Col. Gadhafi redistributed oil revenues back to his people. Libya is now in utter chaos. Racism and slavery are running rampant and these are crimes Col. Gadhafi would have never permitted, he said.
Dr. Winbush also noted that the end of Col. Gadhafi’s reign was accompanied by the birth of the international terrorist organization ISIS.
Gerald Perreira, the chairperson of the Black Consciousness Movement Guyana and Organization for the Victory of the People, drew attention to CNN and its role in offering an “expose:”
“The world we find ourselves in is complex and full of contradictions. It is easy to fall for rudimentary textbook propaganda based on simplistic dichotomies, such as ‘the good guys versus the bad guys.’ If we are not aware of the complexities and nuances facing us, we can fall for this type of propaganda, whose sole aim is to keep us apart and destroy any type of unity that could strengthen our ability to defeat the enemy,” he wrote in a piece titled “Deceptive Intelligence: CNN breaks story on Slave Trade in Libya; French Government Voices Concern for African Migrants.”
“When examining and assessing the latest information fed us by one of imperialism’s mouthpieces, CNN, there are important things for us, as revolutionary Pan-Africanists, to keep in mind. The first thing to note is the clear hypocrisy and insincerity which is nowhere more stark than CNN’s recent expose of ‘Libyan crimes against humanity’ and French President, Emmanuel Macron’s call for a special meeting of the UN Security Council to demand immediate action against this heinous ‘Libyan’ crime,” he wrote.
Mr. Perreira warned against giving too much credence to CNN and Western media without a critical analysis of their roles and their corporate, imperialist agendas. Lies “can come in the guise of the imperialists and White Supremacists themselves, or their mouthpieces such as CNN, BBC, Fox News or any of the mainstream corporate media outlets.
We should never forget their role as cheerleaders and purveyors of the fake news that laid the groundwork for the invasion and destruction of the Libyan Jamahiriya. Therefore, let us ask ourselves the burning question, why are they providing us with this information, and why now? Why are the imperialists suddenly feigning concern for the plight of Africans?” he asks.
“Muammar Qaddafi and the Revolutionary Committees Movement of the Al Fateh Revolution had a monumental task on their hands: to conscientize and reposition the Libyan people for a significant role in the revolutionary Pan-African project for a United States of Africa. This is a battle for all African revolutionaries. In Sub-Saharan African countries, where almost the entire population comprises Black Africans, we face the same battle. Here in the Caribbean, it is no different. So, when Qaddafi urged his people to look towards a United States of Africa and a revolutionary Pan-African perspective, he had to face Libyans who rejected this program in favor of Libya and the entire North African region joining the Barcelona Project, a Mediterranean-European alliance, whose aim is to take North Africa out of Africa,” Mr. Perreira continued.
“Prejudice against dark-skinned Africans exists all over planet earth. Even in countries where the population is almost 100 percent Black African, we have to contend with ‘shadism,’ a hangover from colonialism and plantation culture, where Africans with lighter skin shades are held in higher esteem than Africans with darker skin shades. However, to say that ‘Arab Libyans’ are selling ‘Africans’ is overly simplistic and deliberately misleading. There is a hidden agenda here—beware.
The objective is to ignite hostilities between so-called Arab-Africans and so-called Sub-Saharan-Africans. There is a debate amongst Africans about who is an African. On the one hand, there are those who limit the definition of African to Black Africans in the Sub-Saharan region of the continent. On the other hand, there are those of us who believe that Africa is one, and we will resist any attempt by the imperialists to redefine and further balkanize Africa,” he continued.
“When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong, there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up,” President Obama said to The Atlantic.
“If we’re going to do something, obviously we’ve got to be up front, and nobody else is sharing in the spotlight.”
The former president’s admission of error does nothing to solve the problem.
Complicating matters, Italy’s government has made deals with Libya’s coast guard, tribes, and warlords to prevent refugees from entering Libya and continuing their journeys into Europe.
And while Western nations were able to collude on how to deal with Libya and Col. Gadhafi, they have not come together to deal with the horrors of Libya today. Did the Western nations fear what was happening in Libya and an awakening of a broader African identity and possible political and economic reality?
“Rather than becoming part of the European Community, North Africans promoting the Barcelona Project would be better off seeking out their African roots. This is what Muammar Qaddafi told all Libyans.”
The writer lived in Libya and is a Gadhafi Modern Ghana online.
loyalist. Mr. Perreira pointed out how the forces of U.S.-European Union imperialism had fought to take down Col. Gadhafi and his government since its establishment in 1969. In 2011, Col Gadhafi was on the brink of unifying the African continent and was poised to receive the UN Human Rights Award, he wrote in an article published on
But the Obama administration, on the advice and counsel of Secretary Clinton and others, along with British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Saudi Arabia King Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, and Qatar Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani launched an all-out assault against Col. Gadhafi which ended in his execution on Oct. 20, 2011.
In an interview with The Atlantic published in April 2016, President Obama discussed the U.S. “intervention” in Libya which he said was carefully planned to stop Col. Gadhafi from invading Benghazi, where there was an uprising. President Obama, along with Vice President Joe Biden and then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, initially wanted no part in the conflict, according to the article. It was Secretary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and others who won Mr. Obama over.
But he expressed remorse for how Libya was handled and turned out—but not that Col. Gadhafi was killed.
The effort, which cost the U.S. $1 billion, was an epic failure. Publicly, Mr. Obama said, “Libya is a mess.” Privately, the article said, he called Libya a “sh*t show.”
“When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong, there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up,” President Obama said to The Atlantic. “If we’re going to do something, obviously we’ve got to be up front, and nobody else is sharing in the spotlight.”
The former president’s admission of error does nothing to solve the problem. Complicating matters, Italy’s government has made deals with Libya’s coast guard, tribes, and warlords to prevent refugees from entering Libya and continuing their journeys into Europe.
And while Western nations were able to collude on how to deal with Libya and Col. Gadhafi, they have not come together to deal with the horrors of Libya today. Did the Western nations fear what was happening in Libya and an awakening of a broader African identity and possible political and economic reality?
Mr. Perreira offers a compelling answer: “The North Atlantic Tribes Organization (NATO) deeply fear this type of awakening and the unity of purpose and action it could lead to in this oil rich and wealthiest region of the world. Minister Farrakhan said many years ago, reflecting on periods of unity in our history, ‘we did it before and we can do it again.’ Muammar Qaddafi’s persistent struggle to forge a United States of Africa was starting to pay off. He was on the verge of creating an African currency that would have shifted the global economic imbalance, preparing the way for Africa to take its rightful place in the world. … Fear of this emerging African unity, especially between countries in the north and south of the continent, prompted France to orchestrate (Cote D’Ivoire leader Laurent Gbagbo’s) removal from power at the same time as the NATO led invasion of Libya. Genuine African unity, resulting in anything more than talk, will always be opposed, no matter what the cost, by the forces of White Supremacy.” CHAOS BREEDS REFUGEE CRISIS
Since 2014, over 600,000 people have migrated to Italy including an all-time high of 180,000 refugees in 2016 alone. Although this action has left migrants vulnerable to being sold into slavery, Italy’s interior minister Marco Minniti stands behind their policy.
The International Organization for Migration, a United Nations agency, has been reporting the rape, violence, extortion, and enslavement of refugees for months.
The IOM exposed the problem and yet no one was apparently listening. Migrants were being swindled by human traffickers they had paid to transport them off the African continent. Survivors said instead they were enslaved, starved, and abused by their captors.
“The latest reports of ‘slave markets’ for migrants can be added to a long list of outrages [in Libya],” said Mohammed Abdiker, IOM’s head of operation and emergencies. “The situation is dire. The more IOM engages inside Libya, the more we learn that it is a vale of tears for all too many migrants.”
All Africa reported that many families of migrants captured by militia and smugglers have been extorted. If they can’t pay the ransoms, then the prisoners are sold. Often the new owners will try to extort the families as well. If at some point the captors can neither collect on nor sell a prisoner, or if the prisoner falls ill, the prisoner is killed.
The CNN footage has garnered much attention and condemnation from the UN, African leadership, and people around the globe. Shortly after the story aired, a massive, and at times violent protest in Paris outside the Libyan embassy ensued. Similar demonstrations were held at Libyan embassies in several African capitol cities including Bamako, Mali and Conakry, Guinea.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an immediate investigation into the matter and prosecution of all guilty parties.
France called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the problem. President Emmanuel Macron condemned human trafficking as a “crime against humanity” via Twitter on Nov. 22. He has since met with head of the African Union, Alpha Conde.
But are France’s hands clean? “The destruction of this most prosperous and just African country was led by France, who now dares to call for a special meeting of the UN Security Council to discuss the crimes committed against African migrants ‘by Libyans.’
This is devil-speak,” said writer Perreira. “The same devil who, in the words of the Honorable Minister Farrakhan, ‘unleashed the demons’ that are now committing these and other heinous crimes, is trying to sow more discord by talking about ‘Libyan crimes.’ Where was CNN and the French government when these same gangs of demons were committing the atrocities described above?”
Libyans have vowed to cooperate with the UN probe while also conducting investigations of their own.
But West African political leaders have heavily criticized the Libyan slave trade and are taking action on behalf of exploited migrants from the region.
Both President of Niger Mahamadou Issoufou and the foreign minister of Burkina Faso, Alpha Berry, summoned the Libyan ambassador to meet to address the issue.
President Issoufou has demanded that the International Court of Justice investigate Libya.
The matter of the slave trade in Libya has been added to the agenda of the next African Union meeting in Ivory Coast on Nov. 29 and Nov. 30.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
Where do we go from here? The answer to that question is multi-layered with many moving parts. Minister Abdul Akbar Muhammad, the international representative of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam told The Final Call that those who have bought and sold slaves must be held accountable.
All authorities, who include the AU, the UN, the U.S., international human rights organizations, and all three divisions of the Libyan government, must step in to chastise and isolate the offenders, he said.
Mr. Muhammad also observed that the fractured Libyan government model is nothing shy of a “basket case.” And with the government being a product of a military coup, Libya should be kicked out of the UN as well as the AU, he argued.
The United States must now be involved in the solution as both the creator of the problem as well as the home of the media outlet that filmed and aired the footage of the inhumane practice, Min. Akbar Muhammad said. CNN’s reporting has culpability in the world’s perception of this crisis and their investigative team is a witness against the perpetrators, he continued.
Mr. Muhammad also said Blacks in the U.S. and other members of the African Diaspora must become voices for the victims by petitioning their governments and human rights organizations to act swiftly against slave trafficking.
Perhaps the most important action that the 54 members of the African Union must take, Mr. Muhammad said, is to immediately begin to invest in building their economies, creating business and employment opportunities, and improving the quality of and access to education so that young people will no longer have to risk their lives migrating to Europe.
The most sacred icons of the Catholic Church are the Black Madonna and Christ child, which are found in Europe's most venerated shrines and cathedrals. 
Time Magazine (June 11, 1979) reported on Pope Paul II's visit to Czestochowa's holiest shrine, which prominently displays "The Lady" known for centuries as the Black Madonna. 
Time Magazine (June 11, 1979) reported on Pope Paul II's visit to Czestochowa's holiest shrine, which prominently displays "The Lady" known for centuries as the Black Madonna. 
