In a matter, which at this time, has nothing to do with him or his political organization, the chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) seems to make what can only be seen as a per-emptive strike, in order to save the reputation of his party, at least that is left of it.

“Izmirlian sues CCA – Former developer’s company accuses firm of fraud” – The Nassau Guardian 27 Dec. 2017

Excerpt from this article; BML Properties Limited which was once the company responsible for the development of the Baha-Mar mega-resort, has used China Construction America (CCA), the contractor of record for almost $3.5 billion, claiming CCA defrauded BML ‘in an attempt to gain leverage over BML properties and Baha Mar Limited’, which amounted to ‘one of the largest construction-based frauds in this hemisphere.”

This ‘rock was thrown’ yesterday, in a battle between BML Properties LTD, owned by Sarkis Izmirlian; and China Construction American, the general contractors, in the state of New York but back home the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) releases this statement in response.

“PLP urges Izmirlian to ‘give it a rest” – The Nassau Guardian 28 Dec. 2017

Excerpt from this article; “Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell yesterday labeled former Baha Mar developer Sarkis Izmirlian lawsuit against China Construction America (CCA) as ‘an act of revenge calculated to injure The Bahamas and its reputation and to cast aspersions on the PLP.”

First off let me remind Senator Mitchell that The Bahamas and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) are not one in the same, so if Mr. Izmirlian seeks to suggest in his 268-paged summon, that “…..the bankruptcy of his operation was somehow influenced by dealings by the government, then a PLP administration which was secretive and suspect because the documents were sealed by the Supreme Court of The Bahamas”, this would only be detrimental to the ‘reputation’ of the PLP and not The Bahamas, let us get this straight as this in your party’s burden to bear.

There seems to be a sudden case of guilty conscience here, as the chairman seeks to ‘nip this in the bud’ before it mushrooms out of control, but the damage has already been done and the only thing that the chairman and his party can do now is wait until they are formally called upon and asked to answer the burning questions of whether they were complicit in the alleged fraud or just ignorant/unaware to it and all else that was going on around them the time.

As he [Senator Mitchell] seeks to label others as being vindictive and suggesting that they are ruining the reputation of The Bahamas; I would like to recall one of his most infamous rants shortly after the last general election; “IF the Free National Movement loses the next general election, National Security Minister Marvin Dames ‘will understand what it-for-tat means”, this from a seasoned and mature political figure.

END

“Activists call for Rolle to step down” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “RIGHTS Bahamas (RB) has condemned the ‘shockingly insensitive comments’ of Minister of Social Services Lanisha Rolle on marital rape and called for her immediate resignation.

RB said as the only woman in Cabinet and particularly in light of her official role in providing for the welfare of the vulnerable, Mrs. Rolle ‘should be ashamed of promoting a perspective that encourages assault against women.”

First question who is “Rights Bahamas”? And secondly, how is Minister Rolle “promoting a perspective that encourages assault against women”?

It seems painfully obvious that Rights Bahamas’s perspective is much different from that which many of us share and is not based in reality.  It is my opinion  that the activist group is either confused in its message or attempting to confuse the public; and most defiantly confused in its interpretation of the minister’s comment as it draws this erroneous conclusion.

The group says that “all forms of non-consensual sexual activity should be outlawed in any society that seeks to call itself a democracy” but the last time I checked these acts were, at no time have I seen marriage being successfully used as a justification for the rape of a spouse; I could be wrong and I always stand to be corrected.

The group continues on to build its case to have the Minister of Social Services and Urban Renewal fired on, what I see, as the misinterpretation of her statement on marital rape being a private matter; how they have reached the conclusion which they have reached is amazing for a group of “intelligent” persons; making an assumption.   Nevertheless, it would seem that they have reached the conclusion that the minister is advocating that a married woman that has experienced the trauma of marital rape not report it and not speak about it, all this from the statement “Marital rape is a private issue””.  This conclusion is not only erroneous; as it is a lie within itself, but is also an asinine intimation.

What I am finding truly amazing is that this “intelligent” group (still working on assumption here), would/could come together over this issue, misconstrue the comments of the minister to fit their agenda; whatever that may be, while claiming to seek to protect one segment of society while putting another segment of the very society at risk; disenfranchising them and further minimalizing their rights; this makes no sense and is plain stupid, there is no other word to describe this reckless and irresponsible action, and does not move the issue which they seek to address forward at all .

The definition of rape in The Bahamas now is; Rape is the act of nay person under fourteen years of age having sexual intercourse with another person who is not his spouse;

1. Without the consent of that person
2. Without consent which has been extorted by threats or fear of bodily harm;
3. With consent obtained by personating the spouse of that other person.

My first suggestion would be to remove the words “…who is not his spouse” from the definition and work from there, because then it should then automatically makes the act of rape a crime.

Finally Rights Bahamas, no one is going to fire anyone under the direction of a face-less, fringe group; which seemed to have formed over night, in a social vacuum, which seem to have no solutions to the serious issue to which they wish to address.

END

I said two days ago that our vision is limited only by our ability to reason and to reason; the reactions to the headline in Wednesday’s Guardian by Minister of Social Services and Urban Development Lanisha Rolle, I feel proves this point.

The media printed the headline “Rolle: Marital rape is a private issue” and they did so to sell papers, as is their right, but it would seem that most of us never got past the headline itself, even as the minister went on to explain her comment and the result of this is the current uproar that we have, which in my opinion, has been brought about due to the minister’s poor choice of words and by a set of people that seem determined, due to their desire to be politically correct, to now condemn the minister or anyone else that they see as being as indifferent to the matter of marital rape.

“Rolle: Marital rape is a private issue – Minister says law must have wide support of public” – The Nassau Guardian 20^th December 2017

Excerpt from this article; “Minister of Social Services and Urban Development Lanisha Rolle said yesterday that marital rape is a private issue and before the government considers legislation in relation to it, a public discussion must take place.

UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women Dubravka Simonovic suggested last week that The Bahamas is out of step with the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) as it has failed to criminalize the act.

“Well certainly we do not support any form of violence against women,” Rolle told reporters outside Cabinet.

“That is the stance the country has taken. Certainly I am one that supports that.

“In relation to marital rape, I’ve always said it is an issue that is private.

“It can become public, but we want to start where marriage is sacred and marriage is private, and so if we are going to legislate any type of law to affect marital couples and relationships between those parties, it is proper to have a conversation with the wider community to get their perspective on how they feel about it.

“Certainly there are existing laws that deal with domestic violence, that deal with sexual offenses; there are laws that are on the books at this time.

“The Penal Code covers several offenses in relation to acts and rape is one of them; assault is another.
“But when we get into the sanctuary of marriage, it’s very, very important, I feel, because this relates to both parties, and nobody else would be there other than those two parties.

“So if we are going to legislate something like that, it must be something where we have the wide support of the community, because we want to protect the privacy of individuals and of marriages and that’s very, very important.”

First, I would like to address the subject of the minister’s use of language; in the very paragraph if she had said “…….that rape was a PERSONAL issue and before the government considers legislation in relation to it, a public discussion must take place”, would we have had this uproar?

Indeed, the issue of marital rape and the act itself is a very personal one and I feel this is why most cases may go unreported, so now to bring about legislation to cover matters that may be private/personal, like the minister says “….and if we are going to  legislate any type of law to affect martial couples and relationships between these parties, it is proper to have a conversation with the wider community to get their perspective on how they feel about it.”

It would appear to me that the Minister of Social Services and Urban Renewal is suggesting that we need to strike a balance between a very sensitive subject, matrimonial affairs, the crime of rape and the legislation of person’s personal lives.  But it would seem that total lack of vision, as to what she is attempting to suggest is being misinterpreted, intentional or unintentionally by those that lack the ability/capacity to comprehend or reason out exactly what would be the ramifications of blind legislation i.e. simply criminalizing marital rape without the necessary safeguards.

It is my personal belief that marital rape as with any other type of rape is wrong but indeed in this instance, which crosses over into the private and personal lives of many persons in a way that many may not understand; bear in mind you now have someone you have trusted enough to exchange marital vows with inflicting violence upon you and violating you in a way that you would have never imagined, there is so much more to now take into consideration which cannot be solved by a ‘catch all’ law that criminalization of marital rape would bring about; there is no vision in that type of legislation and a need, as recommended by the Minister of Social Affairs and Urban Renewal, to have a conversation with the community at large as to a way forward.

END

“Cooper: Junk status nothing to celebrate” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Shadow Minister of Finance Chester Cooper charged yesterday that while there is some relief to The Bahamas avoiding a further downgrade from credit ratings agency Standard & Poor’s (S&P), the maintained junk status is not much to celebrate.

Copper once again urged the government to communicate a clear path for growth and economic recovery.

‘It is hoped that the government is receptive to S&P’s advice and analysis on the need to focus on economic growth’, he said in a statement.”

You know there is only so much that anyone in the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) should have to say about the present economic state of the country, unless you are willing to sit down and answer some serious questions; and this is if you were a part of the last administration or not, in active politics or not.

First, let me say that while Chester Cooper MP, now calls for the Free National Movement (FNM) government to ‘communicate a clear path for growth and economic recovery,’ I must suggest that he must have been quite pleased with those communicated by the former Progressive Liberal Party government which led to four economic downgrades, because I never heard his voice raise up in objection or criticism to them, even as the country meandered down the disastrous economic path blazed by the Hon. Perry Christie’s PLP government, and this was as Prime Minister Perry Christie continued to tell the country that the ratings agencies just did not understand what his government was doing; well apparently a lot of us did not know what was being done and we doubted that the Minister of Finance at the time knew, as we were even further downgraded.

So as shadow Minister of Finance, Chester Cooper says, “….while there is some relief to The Bahamas avoiding a further downgrade…., the maintained junk status is not much to celebrate.” And he is correct that junk status is nothing to celebrate, he should acknowledge two things; first, how did we [The Bahamas] get to ‘junk status’ and second, that the Free National Movement (FNM) government was able to arrest the downward spiral that the former Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) had the country in.

Of course, he will not acknowledge these two facts and probably label this as an attack on the former prime minister and his administration but Mr. Cooper you did put it out there and probably sho0uld be a bit more careful of what you say in this effort just to be heard or because someone puts a microphone in your face.

END

“Government perceived as soft on immigration because of Campbell” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell said yesterday the Minnis administration has been perceived as being soft on illegal migration largely.  This is because one of its Cabinet ministers was not only a product of that source, but has acted as a liaison for the Haitian community and the Free National Movement (FNM).

‘So it sent out a signal that once the FNM got in power that this whole situation of enforcement was going to ease,’ said Mitchell, a former immigration minister.”

This is is typical example of what happens when you cannot put a decent, logical thought together and continue to produce to what amounts to nothing more than what a lot of persons call ‘brain farts’.

Exactly what is Senator Fred Mitchell suggesting here? 

Is he suggesting that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) would never consider running a candidate with the background of Frankie Campbell?

Is Senator Mitchell suggesting that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) would never consider running the product of two illegal migrants?

Is he further suggesting, by extension, that a product of two illegal migrants cannot be a productive citizen of The Bahamas and should never be considered for high office?

What I find fundamentally flawed about this commentary by Senator Mitchell is that he is seeming to suggest that the present administration is being perceived as being soft on immigration because it ran Frankie Campbell in the first place, this seems to come very close to the xenophobic language that they [the Progressive Liberal Party] used during the election campaign but it just turns out to be just plain stupid or maybe it is both.

Senator Mitchell goes on to make these claims and the point that he is trying to make is actually lost in the ignorance of the message; as the point is an ignorant one, produced by an ignorant mind.  It would seem that Senator Mitchell is attempting to make a correlation between the two recent landings of illegal migrants and Minister Frankie Campbell being a Member of Parliament but there is no logical connection to be made, so he stands on a point of ignorance.

While we are on the subject of immigration and the perception of the present government being viewed as being soft on immigration, maybe the former Minister of Immigration would like to answer the questions being raised in another story in The Nassau Guardian; “RBDF: Sloop waited for patrol window – Patrols of western end of island only started again recently”, except from this article; “A Haitian sloop that made landfall three nautical miles west of the Royal Bahamas Defense Force (RBDF) base likely waited for a window of opportunity before coming ashore as the force had been patrolling that area just hours earlier, RBDF Commodore Tellis Bethel said yesterday.

Bethel, who spoke with The Nassau Guardian, said the only recently resumed patrolling the western portion of New Providence after being told to by the former administration to ‘stand down’ from patrolling that area.”

It would be interesting to know, who gave the order and why.

END

“Speaker appears to make pitch for MP’s raises” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Stopping short of calling for an increase for parliamentarians, Speaker of the House Halson Moultrie said yesterday that no one would sign up for a job agreeing to have his salary frozen.

‘Politicians make colossal personal sacrifices as well as financial ones,’ said Moultrie, as he addressed Parliament during the morning sitting.’

Moultrie raised the issue in the middle of a tribute in honor of former House Speaker the late Sir Arlington Butler, who died last Thursday.

‘There is an argument today that politicians knowingly sign up for the salary being offered,’ Moultrie said.

‘What is flawed about this argument is that every employee knowingly signed up for the salary they were being offered at the time of engagement, notwithstanding no one who has just started work would agree to have their salary scales frozen for more than 30 years.”

Now while this may be true what Mr. Moultrie must realize is that the long and short of it all is that it is insensitive for the government to even suggest it needs a raise and that at its first opportunity it will give itself one.  If we were to follow House Speaker Moultrie’s logic, then it would be the employers suggesting a raise, the people.

It is an insensitive suggestion as the government goes about the ‘painful’ exercise of ‘right sizing’ the civil service –cutting unnecessary jobs in order to decrease public expenditure because no matter how necessary the exercise; it may even be welcomed by some that understand our current situation, the long of short of it all is that the government is sending more persons to the unemployment line; these people are probably people already catching ‘internal hell’ and are now left defenseless to catch this ‘internal hell’.

A more sensitive government would instead of looking to give itself a pay increase find a way to put these monies into unemployment benefits because at this point in time there are persons that require the assistant much more than you, then as you grow the economy then ask the people of the country to assess your performance and ask for a raise.

Of course this will not be an easy task, as person have come not to trust governments but you must realize that this move to increase the pay of parliamentarian while citizens cannot even find jobs will only make person trust governments that much less.

As I make this commentary on what can only be described as insensitive behavior by the Free National Movement ((FNM) government, I must caution members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) party as they seek to criticize the current government on this issue, as they were the ones that put it in play; no one knows what would have come to pass if they had actually won the 2017 general election. Then I must also caution them as a whole, as they seek to criticize the current administration with statements such as; “The Free National Movement thinks too much about statistics and figures and not enough about people,” PLP Chairman Fred Mitchell; is the chairman of the PLP suggesting that we should allow the whole to suffer in order to comfort the few?

Indeed, the current situation is a very difficult one brought about by decades of neglect and abuse of the public sector by both parties but can the Progressive Liberal Party honestly say that what is being done at this very moment is not necessary to correct this abuse, while they attempt to make a case for an uncaring government which it seems that the Free National Movement is to happy to help them with the recommendation for a pay increase at the most inopportune time.

END

While interim leader of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) states that they ‘heard the message that was delivered to us [the PLP] on May 10 and we are responding”, I would dare ask him, exactly what was the message as he understood it?

Excerpt from this article; “Reflecting on the Progressive Liberal Party’s PLP May 10 loss, Interim Leader Philip Brave Davis yesterday insisted that the PLP’s convention this week will show that the party has changed.

‘I hope that the convention will demonstrate to the Bahamian people that we have heard the message that was delivered to us on May 10 and we are responding,’ Davis told reporters after a prayer breakfast at Melia, Nassau Beach resort, which opened the convention.

‘So what they see at the convention, during the convention and post convention, will be a response to the message sent on May 10^th.

‘I expect us to reflect on where we are, understand the times and season that we are in and craft a new imaging of our party going forward.’

‘I think we need to be able to demonstrate to the Bahamian people that we are reworking our vision to reflect what the Bahamian people would like to see.”

As Mr. Davis states, they have listened to the message sent on May 10^th and as I have asked, exactly what was it that they got from this ‘message’? 

Mr. Davis and the Progressive Liberal Party would now have the Bahamian people believe that after six months as opposition, they have had a revelation and now have ‘changed’ and understand exactly what the Bahamian people need?

Would it not seem logical to Mr. Davis that if HE really heard ‘the message’ and really understood it, then he would/should realize that HE was/is a part of the problem and therefore cannot be a part of the solution going forward?

It is my opinion, that the Bahamian people rejected the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) to such a resounding degree because they had lost all confidence in them and saw them as being ‘corrupt’ or less than honest with them; doesn’t Mr. Davis see that if he wins he will also have to change his very own image in order to bring about a positive change within that party in the eyes of the people, because he to carries the stigma of the PLP being a ‘corrupt party’?

Mr. Davis speaks to crafting ‘’ a new imaging of our party going forward” but can he be a ‘bridge to the future,  as Perry Christie once purported to be when he [Mr. Davis] represents the image of the ‘old guard’, the persons that brought about  the deep mistrust of the PLP with the Bahamian people; this we will have to see as he promises “to demonstrate to the people that we [the PLP] are reworking our vision to reflect more of what the Bahamian people would like to see.”  But I have serious doubts that barring an act of God himself, that he will be able to convince the masses that the party’s image has changed along with its ideals, which it openly displayed over their last five years in government, over the past six months.

END

“Campbell faces new citizenship challenge” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “Two weeks after Transport and Local Government Frankie Campbell rejected speculation he has dual citizenship, Attorney Wayne Munroe, QC has confirmed he is looking into challenging in court whether the Cabinet minister’s citizenship can be rightfully established.

Of concern is whether the Southern Shores MP’s eligibility to run for Parliament and be elected to office was legitimate, Mr. Munroe said yesterday.  In an interview with The Tribune the lawyer said he was asked by former Senator Rodney Moncur to represent a constituent who wished to raise in court matters challenging Mr. Campbell’s Bahamian citizenship.”

Okay let me see if I have the facts of this case straight; Mr. Munroe, on the advice of Mr. Moncur seeks to challenge the citizenship of member of parliament Frankie Campbell based on an affidavit allegedly sworn to by Mr. Campbell’s mother and another woman along with another document on behalf a constituent of the Southern Shores constituency?

Just at faced value I must ask if it has already been established that his father was Bahamian, now deceased, then what is the problem but there seems to be other things at play here and most of them based in the realms of speculation, unless some are suggesting that Mr. Campbell was not born in The Bahamas and that he was brought here illegally.

So are some suggesting that he was actually born in Haiti and subsequently smuggled into the country?  This would suggest and it is speculated that his father or the man whose name he carries, Edwin Campbell, is not actually his father and further speculation is that maybe this is the reason as to why he [Edwin Campbell] never signed for Minister Campbell, a lot of speculation in that argument.

Then there is the constitutional argument; Mr. Moncur argues that as per Chapter Two of The Bahamas Constitution 3.-(1) “Every person who, having been born in the former Colony of the Bahama Islands, is on 9^th of July 1973 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall, if his father becomes or would but for his death have become a citizen of The Bahamas in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph, become a citizen of The Bahamas on July 10^th 1973.”, claims that this makes Mr. Campbell a non-citizen because at the time of his birth he was not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and also Mr. Moncur claims that Mr. Campbell cannot claim citizenship from his father because his father was not married to his mother but the constitution itself states that “Every person who, having been born in the former Colony of the Bahama Islands, is on 9^th of July 1973 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall, if his father becomes or would but for his death have become a citizen of The Bahamas.”  It has been conceded that Edwin Campbell is the father of Frankie Campbell, so therefore as he is a Bahamian citizen, by the constitution which Senator uses to base his case then becomes a Bahamian citizen; the constitution makes no stipulation of the parents having to be married.  Now Senator Moncur may be able to make a case for a poorly worded or presented affidavit but that is about it, as this does not prove any impropriety on anyone’s behalf beside that of poor workmanship.

So there are two theories as to why Frankie Campbell is not a citizen of The Bahamas; one suggesting that he was not born in The Bahamas and the other suggesting by The Constitution he was never a citizen of The United Kingdom and her Colonies because his parents were unwed and because of this was not automatically made a citizen when The Bahamas became independent in 1973.

Both arguments are simply amazing based in the fact that not only was Mr. Campbell able to obtain documents stating that he is a citizen of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas i.e. a Bahamian passport and other documents but he was also allowed to served on the Royal Bahamas Police Force for 29 years but also served in a diplomatic position in 2010 as Charge d’Affaires at The Bahamas Embassy in Port au Prince, Haiti.

So it would seem that Mr. Campbell was citizen enough to serve in these capacities but is not citizen enough to be an elected official despite the fact that both arguments as to why Minister Campbell should be removed from Cabinet and should resign as a member of parliament make no sense.

END

“BPL’s Elite List ‘Just A Privilege” – The Tribune 18 September 2017

Excerpt from this article; “FORMER Bahamas Electricity Corporation Executive Chairman Leslie Miller said yesterday there is a nothing ‘unusual’ about parliamentarians, top civil servants and churches being placed on a special ‘do not disconnect’ list at Bahamas Power and Light.

In fact, Mr. Miller claimed the list has been around since the 1970’s and remained in place through both the Free National Movement and Progressive Liberal Party governments.

The Tribune understands at least one serving FNM Cabinet minister and two former PLP Cabinet ministers currently owe BPL more than $10,000.”

While Leslie Miller is making it known that the existence of a ‘BPL Elite List’ is nothing new, the leader of the Opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Philip ‘Brave’’ Davis is in another room making another statement, which seems to be rather odd.

“Davis denies knowledge of BPL list” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Leader of the Opposition and former Minister of Works Philip Davis yesterday denied any knowledge of a special list at Bahamas Power and Light (BPL) for politicians who were not to be disconnected for non-payment.

Yesterday The Tribune revealed names and the amounts allegedly owed by several former and current parliamentarians who were on the list.

‘I was not aware of that and that it would not have been policy that I would have adopted.” Davis said.” But it was policy that he did adopt, although he is now intimating that he did so with even knowing.

Again as the leader of the Opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) attempts to distance himself from this ‘practice’, the former attorney general  of the former Progressive Liberal Party government makes it seem that either the leader of the opposition is totally unaware of what is going on around him or just lying.

“Maynard-Gibson: BPL list ‘not unusual’ – The Nassau Guardian 23 Sept 2017

Excerpt from this article; “Former Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson said yesterday while she was unaware of the list at Bahamas Power and Light (BPL) that exempted individuals from having their electricity supply disconnected despite non payment, it is ‘not unusual’.

Here we have the former attorney general denying the knowledge of such a list but willing to chime in that if such a list existed then there was nothing ‘unusual’ about it.  Let us say for a moment that she was unaware of said list, as she was unaware of the study into Rubis gas leak which her government commissioned and probably thought her office, how can she go on to condone such a practice?

She then goes on to defend persons privacy on said list; “She suggested that the list contained private information that should not have been publicized as she questioned the purpose of its release.”

Many question the purpose of much that was released under the former government; especially right before election but this is a story for another day.  Today, there is a point to be made and this is that ‘‘policy’ has changed or is being corrected and not longer will those that are able to pay their bills have their bills paid for by those struggling to keep food on the table, let alone the lights on.

The former administration has begun to spin the whole issue of ‘the list; and their spin is…”What’s the big deal?” As the former attorney general says it is ‘not unusual’.  Well the big deal is that no longer will the average citizen be made to suffer while those of means are given a free ride; this does not even make sense.

Indeed, the time has come to name names of persons who have taken advantage of their positions in the system, no matter what party they may have been attached to and letting the chips fall where they may.

END

This morning it was my intent to comment on Progressive Liberal Party’s (PLP) member of parliament’s Chester Copper’s demands for an answer on disaster insurance, wherein he claims that the Minnis administration wasted money when it renewed the Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance (CCRIF) which was cancelled under the Christie administration due to its high premiums and low payouts; to me typical of insurance.  I was wondering that due to the cancellation of the policy under the Christie administration, which saw the country having to borrow large amounts of money for restoration efforts; was Mr. Cooper going to demand answers as to the whereabouts of funds that had gone basically unaccounted for but I have deiced to give him the time to think about he is trying to say, as another subject surfaced over the past weekend which I found much more troubling.

Fred Mitchell’s rant shortly after the general election, which he likened them [the general elections] to nothing more than a game of sorts resurfaced in another form as I conversed with a Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) stalwart who refused to see the failure of the of both referenda (Gaming and Gender) as an indictment on the Progressive Liberal Party but as he would rather believe it was more of a sign that the Bahamian people at large just being afraid of change. 

It is my opinion that this myopic view by the ‘old guard’ of the PLP will continue to be the downfall of that party, preventing its progression, even as Chester Copper attempts to change the narrative of the party’s focus in the eyes if the Bahamian electorate’s view, there will always be persons like Senator Fred Mitchell who will refuse to allow the party to move forward….progress.

My opinion, is that the old guard and those with the same said mentality fail to realize that the main reason that the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) lost the last election so resoundingly was not that person were afraid of change; as they did change governments, voting out persons in areas that persons never thought would change, two areas being the Fox Hill and Centerville and Farm Roads, areas where persons were confident that would never change but yet they did.

It is clear that the Bahamian electorate lost all confidence in the Progressive Liberal Party’s ability at the time to successfully run the country but yet Senator Fred Mitchell still wishes to continue to return the country to a Progressive Liberal Party that just does not seem to know why they lost the general election and thereby wish to carry on with business as usual.

The Progressive Liberal Party continues fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END