On February 24, 2025, the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) publicly defended its decision to grant a 21-year lease to Bahamas Moorings Ltd. for operating mooring services in Exuma. The announcement appeared to come as a reaction to growing concerns over the company’s activities in the area. At the time, the OPM maintained that the lease was in line with environmental preservation efforts, suggesting that moorings are beneficial to protecting marine life and reducing damage to the ecosystem.

‘Deal’ is Dead

On February 25 2025, a mere 24 hours later, the government announced that the agreement with Bahamas Moorings Ltd. was “dead.” This swift turnaround came in the wake of public outrage and revelations that Bahamas Moorings Ltd. had begun installing moorings without obtaining the necessary environmental and regulatory approvals. According to the OPM, the lease required the company to meet specific conditions before proceeding, conditions which had clearly not been met.

The Secret Agreement Unravels

The controversy deepened when it was revealed that an employee from the Office of the Prime Minister had acted as a witness to the lease agreement. The OPM launched an internal review but provided no clear answers as to how such a significant lapse in oversight occurred. The question on many minds was: Who exactly gave Bahamas Moorings Ltd. the green light to install moorings in Exuma’s waters?

Chester Cooper’s ‘Pleased’ Response

 Exuma and Ragged Island MP, Chester Cooper, responded to the deal’s collapse with a curious mix of relief and foresight. “I’m pleased with the outcome,” Cooper said, noting that the outrage among Exumians was not surprising to him. He emphasized the importance of “doing things the correct way” — with full environmental approvals, safety measures, and local consultation. His comments, however, raised more questions than answers. As Deputy Prime Minister and a representative of Exuma, why did he not appear to have been involved in or aware of the approval process? Did no one in the government think to consult him before proceeding with such a consequential deal?

A Ministerial Disconnect

Prime Minister Philip Davis, as the minister responsible for lands, had approved the lease for Bahamas Moorings Ltd. The company had ambitious plans to install 250 moorings over 4,000 acres at 49 locations in Exuma. However, the contradiction between the Prime Minister’s approval and Cooper’s assertion that “there is a correct way to do things” is glaring. Was this a case of bureaucratic miscommunication, or was there a deliberate attempt to bypass proper procedures?

A Convenient ‘Review’

In the aftermath of the scandal, the OPM announced a review of existing mooring fields in The Bahamas. The review aims to assess which mooring fields have proper leases, environmental clearances, port approvals, and Cabinet-level endorsements if necessary. While this might appear to be a progressive step, the timing of this review is highly suspicious. It suggests a reactive approach designed to cover up the original missteps rather than a genuine commitment to transparency.

The Bigger Outstanding Questions

1. Who signed off on the deal without ensuring the proper approvals were in place?
2. Why did the government not announce the deal publicly before the installations began?
3. Was the Deputy Prime Minister truly in the dark about the agreement?
4. How could an OPM employee act as a witness to the agreement without senior officials’ knowledge?

The Bottom Line: A Close Call for Exuma

Ultimately, it was the vigilance of the Exuma community that halted what could have been a severe overreach by the government. The promise to now conduct consultations and regulatory checks is not an achievement — it is the bare minimum that should have been done from the start. The entire episode reeks of a government caught with its hand in the cookie jar, now scrambling to reset the narrative.

If the right-thinking citizens of Exuma had not spoken up, would we ever have known about this clandestine agreement? Who will be held accountable for attempting to pull a fast one on the Bahamian people? These are the questions that demand clear, honest answers from those in power.

END

This morning Fred Mitchell Chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government, took to social media to “set the record straight” and to embarrass the opposition and all those that oppose the New Day PLP government. 

It would seem that with each and every voice-note that Chairman Mitchell puts out, he only brings embarrassment to himself and to the New Day PLP party and government.

Today Fred Mitchell says;

“Michael Pintard thinks he’s got the wind at his back, even though his sails are flapping all over the place and his ship appears rudderless. From his seat in the House of Assembly on Wednesday past, he claimed that the Prime Minister’s budget statement reflected desperation.

I would use another D and not [to] describe the Prime Minister, but [to] describe Mr. Pintard, who is delusional politically. Living in a cloud cuckoo land, he thinks his life is a fairy tale.

 The mid-year budget statement had plenty of good news for everyone, mainly, I think, on the tax front, that contrary to the plans of the FNM and contrary to the advice of the IMF, the taxes are going down, down, down on food.”

What Mr. Mitchell fails to tell the public it that they have already taxed the “hell” out of the average Bahamian and as they are set to some reduce taxes still not having achieved their economic goals, they ask for the Bahamian public to now be grateful for the government’s shortcomings;

“The Bahamian government recorded a $394 million deficit as of December 31, 2024—far exceeding the projected $69.8 million deficit for the fiscal year 2024/2025. This shortfall, despite record revenue collections of $1.4 billion, suggests that government spending is outpacing revenue intake, a trend that could have mixed implications for the average working Bahamian.”

“For the average working Bahamian, the $394 million deficit signals potential economic risks, despite short-term improvements in wages and public spending. If the government fails to rein in spending or find sustainable revenue sources, the burden may eventually fall on taxpayers in the form of higher taxes, reduced public services, and increased borrowing costs. While investments in healthcare, infrastructure, and education are beneficial, long-term fiscal stability remains a major concern that could impact job security and the overall cost of living.”

But Mitchell does not stop there, I get the feeling that he does not know when to stop, as he does not seem to listen to himself or maybe he like listening to himself, interesting;

“The FNM is just a talk shop at the moment, and if there is any D or desperation, I would suggest that the leader of the opposition looks in the mirror.

 The FNM has been trying to find scandals, but every time they think they have the PLP to the mat, just before you can say Jack Sprat, there is a rational and sensible answer awaiting.

After batting away their stupidity on rehires in the public service, Michael Pintard comes up with the great idea that when he becomes Prime Minister, God forbid, he’s going to fire the 213 policemen on the payroll. This is stop, review, and cancel all over again. I warn you people, do not vote for this man, he’s delusional. 

Then they thought they had something about when they discovered this thing about the moorings in the Exuma Land and Sea Park. The government moved to stop and regulate these American boaters coming into the Land and Sea Park and dumping doo-doo in the water and doing so for free. It was a joint venture. The businessman has now decided he’s had enough of this, he’s not putting his family through this FNM grinder. So the end result now is the FNM has caused the country to lose and doo-doo to be dumped freely in the waters of the Exuma Park. “

The issue with the re-hires still is not sitting well with right thinking Bahamians, especially the younger ones but it would appear that “someone” has convinced Mr. Mitchell that he is right.  I am thinking that these persons are over 30 years old.

Then there is this section of Mitchell’s voice note that is very confusing, as Mitchell criticized the FNM’s stance on the Exuma Land and Sea Park moorings issue, accusing them of causing the country to lose revenue and allowing unregulated waste disposal by foreign boaters. He described the government’s initiative as a joint venture aimed at regulating moorings and preventing environmental degradation. It would appear that Mr. Mitchell is in his very own “cloud cuckoo land”.

Actually the controversy centers around a 21-year seabed lease granted to Bahamas Moorings Company for 49 anchorage sites throughout the Exuma Cays. The deal faced backlash due to a lack of transparency, absence of competitive bidding, and potential privatization concerns. Local authorities halted the project, citing missing key approvals. The primary environmental concern was the potential damage to coral reefs and seabed from unregulated anchoring, rather than waste disposal issues.

“An Exuma-wide boat mooring/anchorage deal branded as “insane” by Bahamian marina chiefs has been halted by local government authorities due to the purported absence of key approvals.

Bahamas Moorings Company, which according to documents obtained by Tribune Business has secured a 21-year seabed lease for 49 separate anchorage/moorage sites spread throughout the Exuma Cays, was on Friday ordered to “cease and desist” what the island’s administrator described as an “unauthorized mooring installation”.

The move came after the lease, seemingly signed by the Prime Minister in his capacity as minister responsible for Crown Land on January 25, 2025, sparked consternation, bewilderment and anger among boaters/yachters, impacted Family Island communities and others who all said they were blindsided by revelations of this deal.

Besides raising questions over the Davis administration’s apparent lack of transparency and failure to consult Out Island communities, other observers also challenged why a deal of this nature was not put out to competitive bidding via a request for proposal (RFP). And they queried why the Government had not adopted a different public-private partnership (PPP) model by retaining the seabed and hiring a private operator.

Instead, several sources suggested the lease deal represents a privatization of all safe, feasible anchorage and mooring sites throughout the Exuma cays outside of those in the Exuma Lands and Sea Park. In effect, they said the Government has given a private company a monopoly over these sites where it will be “mandatory” for boats and yachts to pay the fees levied by Bahamas Moorings Company.”

Now, the Member of Parliament that represents this the Exumas has finally broken his silence on the matter to say; that he I pleased with the government’s decision to end the agreement with Bahamas Mooring Ltd. and that the deal (which had been signed off by the prime minister), was done without proper environmental and other approvals” and “Whilst we encourage entrepreneurship, there is a correct way to do things.”

Mr. Mitchell, the budget as presented is worrisome for the reasons as presented above and only time can tell if it is beneficial to the average Bahamian, at this time it seems to have come just in time to “buy” an election and the manner in which you wish to portray this mooring controversy, leaves very much to be desired by a “seasoned politician” like yourself as it is not an issue as to why you would like us to believe; as there much deeper underlying explained reason as to why this is an issue today.

If you call it “do-do” then we can use that term but not for the reason as to why you would suggest.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END

Sometimes I really feel that it would be in the best interest of Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) to just remain quiet but a part of his duty is to defend his party, one that he seems to take very seriously; but what happens when his party policies do not line up with the best interest of the country?

As an elected official I feel that accountability to the country should come first but according to Mitchell sometimes answering questions isn’t worth the trouble.

“Mitchell says answering questions ‘isn’t worth the trouble’ sometime’ “– The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

“Amid backlash over a Cabinet minister’s revelation that the government rehired nearly 500 retirees, Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell said sometimes it “isn’t worth the trouble” to answer questions in this country.

He made the comment in a voice note on Monday as he again lamented the reaction from the Free National Movement (FNM) and some in the labor movement to the rehires.

“In many respects you can see why sometimes answering questions in this country, it isn’t worth the trouble really,” Mitchell said.

 “I get the impression that people don’t want to know the truth. All they want to do is find something to row about,” he said, questioning why critics want to attack police officers or teachers being rehired to fill needed gaps.”

First of all let me dispel two pieces of misinformation and spread some truth that Chairman Mitchell wishes to “hide” here; first, it is not only the FNM that has questioned this latest move by the New Day government and two, the criticism does not “attack police officers or teachers” as is being stated by Chairman Mitchell.

 We all know that Fred Mitchell and by extension, the New Day PLP party/government whom he represents, are not fans of  Freedom of Information, as they opposed the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). What they fail to realize is that it is their responsibility as a government to answer plausible and reasonable questions put to them by the opposition and the others i.e. the public – it is something that we call transparency and accountability.

It now appears that the PLP party/government does not think too highly of these concepts, it would appear that they are foreign to them.  What I find curious is that if Chairman Mitchell truly got the impression that some “that people don’t want to know the truth”, he would not take to putting out his pointless voice notes three times a week in order to “set the record straight” and in order to disseminate “the truth” to “right thinking PLP’s”. It appears that he does feel that people want to know the truth or “the PLP’s truth” and this is where I feel were a conflict comes in.

It seems that the Chairman of the New Day PLP party/government is more upset that “the truth” that he seeks to disseminate is not being readily digested as he would like it to be by others out of the sphere of “right thinking PLP’s”.  It would appear that Mitchell and the New Day PLP government party/government are seeing themselves as governing a nation that does not think and therefore does not question any of their actions; it would appear that the New Day PLP party/government have come to believe that they are catering to a mindless citizenry, it appears that Mitchell and his New Day party/government are wrong – except for the few that regurgitate anything and everything that the PLP puts out without even attempting to rationalize it for themselves without fear of making themselves look at stupid as the person whom the follow blindly.

It is a very sad situation that an elected official would some to the rationalization that it’s better not to answer the public that hired them because they feel that that that population is intelligent enough to question him and the party/government that he represents.  It is sad that followers of his party believe that what he says actually makes sense, as they do not seem to see that it casts them in a very poor light.

The Bahamas deserves better.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END

“Exuma moorings project dead” – The Nassau Guardian

In a plot twist no one saw coming, the government pulled the plug on its secretive 21-year lease with Bahamas Moorings Ltd. mere hours after defending it. Public outrage over the clandestine deal—lacking environmental approvals, transparency, or basic common sense—seemed to have forced their hand.

Bahamas Moorings Ltd., in a graceful exit statement, thanked the government for the opportunity and reassured us all that they care deeply about marine conservation. Never mind that the project was scrapped before it even got past the shadows.

Now when you really look at it, this did not have to be this controversial. If there was not something really amidst, the real kicker is that the government’s own justification was that unregulated anchoring is damaging marine ecosystems would have seemed quite legitimate. So if the mooring system was the eco-friendly solution, why all of the “back-room dealings”?

Why the lack of public consultation?

Why the rushed defense before the sudden U-turn?

Ah yes, because secrecy is the PLP’s default setting. But they sure do call me “disrespectful” for pointing out that the Prime Minister runs his administration like an undercover spy mission, therefore having me labelled him “Secret Squirrel”

PLP Fails For One Reason, It Is Their Nature.

END.

In a recent and highly contentious move, Fred Mitchell, the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and Minister of Foreign Affairs, has launched a vehement defence of the Davis administration’s decision to rehire nearly 500 public service retirees. This action has ignited widespread criticism across the nation, transcending political affiliations, and raising serious questions about the government’s commitment to PROGRESSIVE policies and youth empowerment.

Mitchell dismisses the backlash as mere “propaganda,” particularly targeting the Free National Movement (FNM) for allegedly misleading the public. He contends that the government’s policy is a necessary response to the country’s shifting demographics, citing an aging population and a declining birth rate as justifications for rehiring retirees. According to Mitchell, The Bahamas faces a shortage of young labour, necessitating the retention of experienced older workers to maintain public services.

However, a critical examination of the demographic data reveals inconsistencies in Mitchell’s rationale. As of 2024, The Bahamas has a population of approximately 401,283, with a median age of 35 years. The total fertility rate stands at 1.4 live births per woman, which is below the replacement level of 2.1. While these figures indicate an aging population, they do not inherently justify the large-scale rehiring of retirees, especially when considering the potential stifling of opportunities for younger professionals.

Moreover, Mitchell’s attempt to link the current demographic challenges to historical events, such as the crack cocaine epidemic and the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, appears tenuous and lacks empirical support. These events, while tragic, do not directly correlate with the present policy of reinstating retirees into the public sector.

The government’s narrative also suffers from internal contradictions. Labour Minister Pia Glover-Rolle has previously stated that the rehiring initiative is part of a “succession planning” strategy, aiming to have experienced workers mentor the younger generation. This explanation conflicts with Mitchell’s emphasis on a labour shortage, suggesting a lack of cohesive policy direction within the administration.

Critics argue that if the Davis administration were genuinely committed to progressive ideals and empowering the youth, it would prioritize creating opportunities for younger Bahamians rather than recycling retirees into the workforce. The defence of senior positions by long-standing party members, including Mitchell himself, further undermines the government’s credibility on this front.

In conclusion, the Progressive Liberal Party’s decision to rehire a significant number of public service retirees, coupled with Mitchell’s unconvincing defence, raises serious concerns about the administration’s commitment to progressive change and youth advancement. The reliance on questionable demographic arguments and inconsistent policy narratives suggests a government more focused on preserving the status quo than fostering genuine progress for the nation’s future.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END

It would appear that the since the recent debacle in Grand Bahama where business owners said that they felt disenfranchised after being excluded from Carnival’s Cruise Port opportunities, the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government needed a distraction and what better than that money that the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) owe the government?

Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the New Day PLP government seems to be the “point” on this assignment and not any of the elected PLP members of parliament in Grand Bahama, not even the Minister of Grand Bahama; the Hon. Ginger Moxey, odd but then this is the PLP that we are talking about.

So Fred Mitchell went on the attack!

“Mitchell: New GBPA investor needed” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell said yesterday Freeport is being hampered by a lack of capital and innovation from the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) shareholders.

“Let’s put this clearly – Freeport suffers because the GBPA’s shareholders today do not have the capital, it appears, or the ideas to fix the city and promote development there,” said Mitchell in a repeat of statements he made last year.

“That’s it. A new investor needs to be found that has the money and the ideas. They cannot even fix, the present shareholders, the bridge to Taino Beach, for Lord’s sake.

“What was most offensive and impertinent, though, was the suggestion that there is some sort of deal with the government behind the scenes to keep the current shareholders in power.”

While speaking at the Grand Bahama Business Outlook last week, GBPA Executive Director Rupert Hayward said excessive red tape, guardrails on immigration and the watering down of the regulatory regime have significantly undermined the Hawksbill Creek Agreement.

The 99-year agreement, which was signed between American investor Wallace Groves and The Bahamas’ colonial government, designated the Hawksbill Creek area as a free-trade zone, offering investors attractive tax incentives and duty exemptions.

The deal has been altered over the years and expires in 2054.

The Davis administration has had rocky relations with the GBPA.

Since winning the September 2021 general election, Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis has on many occasions expressed frustration with GBPA and the state of Freeport.

Last year, the government sent a demand letter to GBPA asking that it pay $357 million the Davis administration says it is owed under Section 1(5) of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, which specifies that costs borne by the government for certain activities and services provided are to be reimbursed by the Port for amounts in excess of customs duties and emergency taxes collected.

The Port Authority, however, rejected the claim that it owes that sum and said it “will robustly defend against it”.

An arbitration process is currently underway.”

Now I have been warned about talking about this case because it is in arbitration, but it would seem that it is fine for the Chairman of the PLP to go against this “warning” but then we know that the PLP are infamous for “do as we say and not as we do”.

I find it amazing that as Mitchell attempts to take control of Freeport, he would use that the “reasoning” that “Freeport suffers because the GBPA’s shareholders today do not have the capital, it appears, or the ideas to fix the city and promote development there”.

I would just like to ask the question, then why is the rest of The Bahamas suffering, especially when it comes to infrastructural improvement and why?

Another funny, as told by Chairman Mitchell; “I like the prime minister enormously. He’s very accommodating when we sit down and talk about things behind closed doors.”

Mitchell said, however, that Hayward’s suggestion that there is a “behind-the-scenes agreement” between them was “impertinent.”

“What was most offensive and impertinent, though, was the suggestion that there is some sort of deal with the government behind the scenes to keep the current shareholders in power,” Mitchell said.

“Mr. Hayward says that he is friends with the prime minister’s wife and likes the prime minister. What in God’s name does ‘like’ have to do with it?”

Is this what Chairman Mitchell seems to draw this very own private conclusions of some suggested “secret deal” that he finds “impertinent” “offensive” from?; this here suggests one thing to me – mental health is an issue to be taken very seriously; where are these suggestions that has offended Chairman Mitchell?

I feel that Mitchell is playing to his audience, those that would not dare question him when he says that there is something to be found “impertinent” and “offensive; if they even knew what “impertinent” meant  -“impertinent /ɪmˈpəːtɪnənt/ adjective  – not showing proper respect; rude”; you are very welcome.

It would appear that each and every time that this issue is reintroduced and Chairman Mitchell weighs in on it, he speaks in a threatening tone what does not enough an amicable resolve to the matter.

The Bahamas deserves better because the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END

A few days ago, I highlighted the unsettling admission by our esteemed King’s Counsel and Prime Minister, the Hon. Philip Brave Davis, who confessed he is “not sure of the law when it comes to sentencing sexual predators.” This revelation is deeply concerning, especially given his position and legal background.

In a recent article titled “PM decries ‘horrific’ act against children” by The Nassau Guardian, Prime Minister Davis expressed his horror over a case where a father received a mere five-year prison sentence for molesting his three-year-old twin daughters. He stated, “Our fathers need to be caring and protective rather than predators of their children, and the full brunt of the law always should be brought to bear in circumstances such as this.” He further added that he believed the offense warranted life in prison but admitted he was unsure of the law.

While it’s commendable that Prime Minister Davis acknowledges the gravity of such heinous acts, his uncertainty about the law is alarming. If our nation’s leader is unsure about legal statutes concerning such critical issues, one must wonder about his grasp on other matters of national importance.

Fortunately, we have emerging leaders willing to address what the Prime Minister et al seems either unable or unwilling to confront. Free National Movement (FNM) Senator Michela Barnett-Ellis has called on the government to increase sentences for sexual offenses, decrying the “mixed messages” the Davis administration is sending about protecting women and girls. She referenced the same case, stating; “Five years does not feel like enough punishment for his heinous actions.” She emphasized the need to increase the maximum sentence for indecent assault, which currently stands at seven years, to send a clear message of non-tolerance for such behavior.

It appears that while the Prime Minister and his administration remain hesitant, leaders like Senator Barnett-Ellis are stepping up to advocate for necessary legal reforms. This hesitancy is reminiscent of past instances, such as when Prime Minister Davis suggested supplying women with whistles as a measure against sexual assault—a proposal that was met with widespread criticism for its inadequacy.

Beyond reactive discussions about sentencing, we must address the root causes of these crimes. What goes through the mind of a man that makes him “comfortable” sexually assaulting his three-year-old daughters? What makes a person believe it is “alright” to sexually assault minors? There must be underlying factors contributing to this behavior. Is there a growing number of individuals finding this acceptable, or has it always been prevalent, only now coming to light through increased reporting?

The Bahamas deserves better.

 The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason; it is their nature.

END

All Bahamians of goodwill,  gather around for yet another installment of “What Did Fred Mitchell Say This Week?”—a thrilling political soap opera where the truth is optional, contradictions are frequent, and self-righteous indignation is always on sale.

Now, last weekend, I was warned that Fred Mitchell—Foreign Affairs Minister, MP for Fix Hill, Chairman of the PLP, and self-appointed Minister of All Things Verbal—was a malignant narcissist. But, plot twist! Turns out, he might also be bipolar! No, no, not the “let’s have a serious discussion about mental health” kind, but the political kind—where one moment he’s standing on his soapbox like a street preacher, and the next, he’s the Grand Inquisitor of the Opposition.

And what was the offense this time? Oh, the usual—spreading his version of reality like a street magician trying to convince you he just pulled a rabbit out of his hat when you clearly saw him stuff it in there five minutes ago.

Scene One: The Judicial Condemnation Slip-Up

Mitchell, in his grand oratory style, boldly declared that Marvin Dames—the former National Security Minister—was judicially condemned in the Shane Gibson case! Except… minor detail… that never happened. My Dear! Turns out, he meant the Frank Smith case. But hey, same difference, right?

I mean, who among us hasn’t accused someone of being condemned by the courts, only to realize we got the entire case wrong? Just a regular day for Fred! But here’s the kicker: “The point stands,” he says. Because apparently, in Mitchell’s world, accuracy is an afterthought, and so long as the insult lands, the facts are just details.

Scene Two: The Drones That Weren’t There

Ah yes, the $17 million drone story! Mitchell & Co. have been beating this dead drone… I mean, horse… for years now, claiming that Marvin Dames spent $17 million on drones, and—surprise!—no drones exist!

And yet, no proof has ever been provided. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

But does that stop Mitchell from repeatedly using it like a battering ram? Absolutely not! Because, you see, in the world of political theater, repeating something enough times makes it true. Evidence? Who needs it! Just keep saying it louder until it sticks.

Scene Three: The “Fairness” Hypocrisy

But Mitchell isn’t done yet, folks. Oh no, we’ve got a whole act left!

Now he’s gone full “PLP for the People” mode, claiming that the FNM’s love affair with transparency and fiscal responsibility is just a scam to keep their rich friends rolling in government contracts.

The solution? Scrap transparency! Because, you know, listing the names of people who get government contracts is a security risk. I mean, why let the public know where their tax dollars are going? That’s dangerous!

And, oh, the irony—Mitchell openly admits the PLP doesn’t really care about fiscal responsibility laws. The same laws he’s attacking the FNM for allegedly not believing in.

You keeping up? Because the mental gymnastics here are Olympic level.

Finale: The Double-Tongued Hypocrisy

And after all this, after the misinformation, the contradictions, the grandstanding, Mitchell dares to say:

“When you see less going around, ask yourself the point in question: is it true?”

Yes, Fred. Excellent advice. Perhaps you should try it sometime.

Look, Bahamians deserve better than this circus. Less theatrics, more governance. Less soapboxes, more substance. And maybe—just maybe—a little less hypocrisy from the Minister of Verbal Acrobatics.

Because at the end of the day, if the only way you can win an argument is by misrepresenting facts, are you really winning at all?

END

Fred Mitchell, the ever-loyal Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), continues his now well-worn routine of warning the Bahamian public that the Free National Movement (FNM) is engaging in “nasty politics.” This would be a fair concern—if it weren’t for the fact that Mitchell himself, along with his fervent band of PLP loyalists, has already dragged Bahamian politics into the gutter with rhetoric far worse than anything they accuse the FNM of. The irony is almost poetic.

As 2025 begins, the PLP has seemingly donned its full war armor—not one of progress, unity, or even basic governance, but of hatred and division. Their political strategy appears less about solutions and more about manufacturing “battles” to justify their aggression. And leading the charge? The usual suspects, armed with baseless accusations, racial paranoia, and the usual dose of fear-mongering.

If there’s one thing the PLP has mastered over the years, it’s the art of weaponizing race to keep its base in check. Former PLP Member of Parliament Leslie Miller recently resurrected this tactic with his absurd remarks about “Project 2025,” claiming it was an FNM-led conspiracy to get rid of or suppress black Bahamians. Let that sink in: Miller, without a shred of evidence, accused the FNM—led by a Bahamian of color—of colluding with the “white man” to oppress black people.

This is nothing more than the same tired race-baiting narrative the PLP has peddled for decades, now dressed up with a modern, Trump-era twist. The story goes like this: The “wicked and evil white man” is always lurking, waiting to rob Bahamians of their future, and the only way to stop him is unwavering loyalty to the PLP. Never mind the fact that this narrative is divisive, outdated, and harmful. Never mind that it actively distracts from real issues like economic stagnation, crime, and governmental mismanagement. To the PLP, stoking racial paranoia is far more useful than governing.

Not to be outdone, Chairman Fred Mitchell has been busy playing his own twisted version of identity politics. In response to a claim made by the Member of Parliament for St. Anne’s, Mitchell saw fit to twist the discussion into racial terms.

• “Exactly what do you mean when you say ‘there is nothing good for someone that does not look like him,’ Chairman Mitchell?”
• “What do you mean by ‘when they see a man like Adrian White,’ Chairman Mitchell?”

Mitchell, who is no stranger to inflammatory rhetoric, seems to be openly suggesting that Adrian White—an FNM politician and a white Bahamian—is some sort of bogeyman to be feared. What is the message here? That Bahamians should view their fellow citizens through the lens of skin color rather than merit? That white Bahamians cannot represent or act in the best interest of the nation? If these statements had come from an FNM official, they would have been met with national outrage. But because it’s the PLP, we’re supposed to just let it slide?

The most laughable part of all this is that the PLP constantly portrays itself as the victim while being the aggressor. They feign outrage when criticized, yet have no problem unleashing the nastiest political attacks imaginable. They cry foul when challenged but are always the first to dive headfirst into mudslinging. This is not the behavior of a party that genuinely cares about the Bahamian people—it’s the behavior of a party that sees politics as a blood sport, where the goal is to destroy the opposition by any means necessary.

Let’s be clear: This is not governance. This is not leadership. This is not even effective opposition politics. This is a desperate attempt by the PLP to deflect from its failures and maintain control by sowing division. The Bahamian people deserve better than this petty, race-baiting, intellectually dishonest nonsense. If the PLP is truly worried about “nasty politics,” they should start by looking in the mirror.

Until then, their crocodile tears will fool no one.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END

As expected, Fred Mitchell, the self-appointed defender of the “New Day” Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), has once again graced us with his melodramatic finger-pointing. This time, he’s attempting to claim that a full-page ad in The Tribune—one allegedly targeting the Free National Movement (FNM)—is some grand act of political sabotage. Predictable, isn’t it? When all else fails, Fred’s go-to strategy is to blame the FNM.

In his characteristic bluster, Mitchell suggests that the Members of Parliament featured in the ad should sue because their images were used without permission. But let’s get real—who’s truly behind this so-called “fake ad”? Mitchell’s over-the-top accusations don’t just strain credulity; they collapse under the weight of their own absurdity.

And then there’s Mitchell’s sanctimonious diatribe about the ad’s ethical breaches, which he describes as an “unlawful tortious interference in a contractual right.” (Bravo for pulling that one out of the legal jargon hat, Fred!) Yet, he conveniently ignores the elephant in the room: the growing chorus of PLPs voicing their dissatisfaction with Hon. I. Chester Cooper. These voices aren’t coming from the FNM, Fred—they’re coming from your camp. Are you seriously unaware of the internal power plays? Or are you just playing dumb because it’s politically expedient?

Let’s examine the plausibility of Mitchell’s claims. According to him, the FNM is behind this “vicious” act, orchestrating an elaborate scheme to fool voters. Really, Fred? Is this the best deflection you could muster? Here’s a more likely scenario: the ad was placed by someone within the PLP, someone with a vested interest in propelling Coleby-Davis further up the party ranks. Perhaps it’s part of a backroom promise gone awry. If the plan failed, no problem—blame the FNM. It’s a textbook move from the PLP playbook of “nasty politics,” isn’t it?

And speaking of nasty politics, Mitchell doesn’t stop at wild accusations. He drags Dr. Dwayne Sands, FNM chairman, into the mud, rehashing old scandals and taking cheap shots. Is this your idea of elevating the political discourse, Fred? Or is this just more proof of how low the PLP is willing to sink when their own house is in disarray?

Here’s a reality check for you, Fred: your party is not the fortress of solidarity you would like us to believe. It’s more like a crumbling facade, barely holding together under the weight of its own infighting. When Prime Minister Davis called for an end to the PLP’s internal squabbles, is this the chaos he was referring to? Or is this just the latest in a long line of disasters that highlight the PLP’s utter dysfunction?

So, Fred, while you flail about trying to pin this fiasco on the FNM, maybe it’s time you turned your attention inward. The real issue isn’t the Free National Movement (FNM)—it’s the power struggles, backstabbing, and utter lack of cohesion within your own party. Your deflections are not fooling anyone, and your desperate attempts to control the narrative are as transparent as your party’s increasingly hollow promises.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason; it is their nature.

END