It is somewhat amazing and to a large extent, incredibly difficult to decipher the actual objective of the forays of negative media reports regarding the presidential ticket of the CDC led by Senator George Manneh Weah.

First, we must understand and appreciate the fact that the authors of these articles are Liberian citizens and given their diverse political or  tribal interests and  backgrounds, it is obvious to arrive at the salient  conclusion that in a country where signs of pragmatism are harder to find when it comes to whose interest should prevail, it is obvious that the CDC ticket has  become a soft target for negative media analyses because it represents the other side of the  issues not favored by the authors. So, don’t be surprised tom see what is being dished out and for whose interest and purpose.

After rumbling and rambling around the question of whether or not the CDC ticket is presidentially marketable which has already been addressed not once but twice on August 19 and October 6, 2017 by the people of Liberia turning out in their thousands, the focus is now shifted to the solicitation of the views of queer and pathetic experts whose analyses of issues can only see the wrongs in a CDC ticket at the polls rather than the demand for positive change in Liberia. Never mind, these negatives views are being summoned not on the altar of fair play and fair judgment of the real issues but on the basis of creating a fake giant image of Ambassador Weah as the reinvention of the horrific past much of which is credited to the benefactors of these articles.

Second, to most Liberians and the authors of the articles, education means alienation of the poor which is why   the article titled: “Liberia to allegedly Lose Enormous International Aid in 2018 and onward” presents a rather grim image and picture of what might happen if the CDC ticket prevails at the polls and it clearly reveals the true interest of the authors favoring any other person but Senator Weah.

Sadly, this is fake judgment and we should first forgive the author and then open a workshop for him by telling him that his doomed predictions about future economic aids to Liberia are his own figment of imagination which is either been driven by his poor understanding of the political argument back home for real change or his sheer dislike for Senator Weah or both.

Written out of ignorance or mischief or both, the article sets to achieve one thing and that is to belabor the argument for real and democratic change with the so-called cliché of Taylor control or influence, something which has no more appeal both in Liberia and the international community.

What seems inevitable however is that If the Liberian people desire, to elect the CDC ticket  or someone else, which the author and his benefactors feared most,  it will surely come to past and no amount of fake predictions will distract their monumental march to history.  Moreover, whoever wins on October 10, 2017 will be the leader of our country and will have to work with all Liberians irrespective of political persuasions or tribal backgrounds. What the author and his unknown expert from the Brookings Institution in Washington failed to realize is the fact that there are no “Taylor-made Liberians or Taylorism” but rather Liberians and so the purported conclusion by the so-called expert that: “George Weah’s decision to associate with Charles Taylor and his selection of Taylor’s wife as his running mate is bad for Liberia” is absolutely groundless.

After earning 50 years prison term for his role in neighboring Sierra Leone, the life of Taylor is nothing but a dead snake, which of course is feared, but in truth is lifeless and harmless and is only good for the vultures of the field. Taylor is a living cadaver who has been caged perhaps for the rest of his life. He  has no dreams, no role to play and no way to influence or control the politics of Liberia and so the use of his name in a competitive political race where every candidate is rated on the basis of  his/her name and qualification is absolutely preposterous, to say the least.

It is therefore  saddened that the author and his experts are living in the past and are  still playing the Charles Taylor card and still clinging to and singing  “Taylor this, Taylor that, they say, you say , and I say insanity mantra”  like raging wrecks in deep seas when Liberians are moving forward with their lives. The plain ‘stupidity’ is not in Weah’s selection of Jewel but in the poor analysis of the likes of Aminu who has been silent on the robbery in his home country, Nigeria where over US$150 billion had been stolen over a period of ten years under former President Goodluck Jonathan.

Of course, Nigeria like Liberia is rich in natural resources, but in the streets of Surulele and other parts of Lagos and the countryside, life there is synonymous to hell. What has Aminu said about this? Aminu and his likes would not  discuss what  has given birth to Boko Haram, a criminal gang of mad Muslims wreaking havoc in his home country because as a Nigerian himself and a disappointed ‘expert’   he prefers to remove the mote from the eyes of others rather than himself.  Weah or Boakai has no link to past terror campaigns in Liberia and whoever wins will have to learn to work with all Liberians.

The fact that Weah has started to reach out to all Liberians prior to the polls shows that he is ready for a real change. May be we need to ask the GARA to help us provide the name of the ‘fellow’ from Brookings Institute so that he can tell us whether it is a crime for all Liberians to work together for the good of the country or not. In these critical times of our history, it behooves our colleagues in Globe Afrique to advise the authors of GARA not to use its platform for the political gains of one group of Liberians or a presidential candidate at the expense of others.

I think the GARA article and analysis are based on tribal or political influence and appeared more judgmental than professionalism and should not be entertained. While diversity of opinion on critical national issues is fundamentally central to our current democratic exercise, it would be proper for the author to write in his own name and express his own personal opinion rather than using Globe Afrique as a platform to badmouth the CDC ticket.