Navratilova seeks Czech citizenship again

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/1452...tar-Navratilova-seeks-Czech-citizenship-again

Fed up with Bush, tennis star Navratilova seeks Czech citizenship again
From our ANI Correspondent

Washington, May 30: Fed up with the policies of the George Bush Administration, former tennis star Martina Navratilova is seeking Czech citizenship again after 26 years.






According to contactmusic.com, Navratilova says that she is "ashamed" of the U.S. and the policies being pursued by the George Bush regime.

Navratilova left the Republic of Czechoslavakia in 1975 because she was ashamed of the then Communist regime. The Prague-born star was given American citizenship in 1981.

"Now, I can be ashamed of what is happening in America. The thing is that we elected Bush. That is worse! Against that, nobody chose a Communist government in Czechoslovakia," Navratilova was quoted, as saying.

Born on October 18, 1956, Navratilova is a former World No. 1 woman tennis player. She won 18 Grand Slam singles titles, 31 Grand Slam womens doubles titles (an all-time record), and 10 Grand Slam mixed doubles titles. She won the women's singles title at Wimbledon a record 9 times.

She is one of just three women to have accomplished a career Grand Slam in singles, women's doubles, and mixed doubles. She holds the open era record for most singles and doubles tournament wins (167 and 177 titles respectively).


Copyright Dailyindia.com/ANI

Man, this is a shocker.

She simply can't stick to a decision for too long.

maybe she gave up being gay too...i dunno...

Makes little sense to make that decision now with a new election coming up. Sounds like there is more behind this than just Bush. If its true.

Oh Martina, stick to improving your Tennis commentating before you begin to speak politics.

I would not believe this report 100%. It was quoted on tennisnews.com from dailyindia.com, which in turn quotes contactmusic.com. Let us wait some more to see if reliable sources confirm.

somehow seems onion to me.

If Martina gives up her US citizenship, that will be one less vote in 2008 to get the Republicans out of the White House. In the past, Martina has certainly been one to stand up for what she believes in, but it might be better if she worked WITHIN the system to change things rather than run away. But I guess she's doing this to make a splashy statement.

Confirmed by Yahoo

PRAGUE (AFP) - Czech-born but US passport-carrying tennis legend Martina Navratilova said in a newspaper interview Saturday that she could receive Czech citizenship by the end of the year.

ADVERTISEMENT

"By the end of the year I could get it (Czech citizenship)," the 50-year-old told the Czech daily Lidove Noviny. "I do not have it yet. I am not sufficiently organised," she added in an interview in which she harshly criticised the current state of the US under President George W Bush.

Navratilova said she used to be ashamed of the former communist Czechoslovakia, which she quit in 1975 for the US, receiving American citizenship six years later.

"Now, I can be ashamed of what is happening in America," she explained. "The thing is that we elected Bush. That is worse! Against that, nobody chose a communist government in Czechoslovakia."

Navratilova added that the Bush "regime" operates a form of censorship by making sure that analysis and other material that is judged politically unsuitable never becomes public.

"It is not as bad as it was here. But it is true, that censorship exists there," she explained. "I have a sticker on my car which says "regime change begins at home," she added.

Nuke said:

If Martina gives up her US citizenship, that will be one less vote in 2008 to get the Republicans out of the White House. In the past, Martina has certainly been one to stand up for what she believes in, but it might be better if she worked WITHIN the system to change things rather than run away. But I guess she's doing this to make a splashy statement.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But she might retain dual citizenship if that is permitted between US and Czech Republic.

Yeah, you're probably right on the dual citizenship. I doubt she wants to move her permanent residence there.

Dual citizenship would not be much of a protest. That would be like just getting an extra citizenship.

Who ever said Democracy was perfect? In the last Mid Term elections the Democrats took back control of the house and the senate. By Jan. 2009 we will have a new President. If Martina does not like who running the Government then she should use her voice and actively supported the candidate of her choice. If her candidate did not win then Martina should continue to support the opposition in the Government. To leave a Democracy because you don't like the current President is absurd. Bush will not be President forever.

she wanted to make the news headlines.

sureshs said:

PRAGUE (AFP) - Czech-born but US passport-carrying tennis legend Martina Navratilova said in a newspaper interview Saturday that she could receive Czech citizenship by the end of the year.

ADVERTISEMENT

"By the end of the year I could get it (Czech citizenship)," the 50-year-old told the Czech daily Lidove Noviny. "I do not have it yet. I am not sufficiently organised," she added in an interview in which she harshly criticised the current state of the US under President George W Bush.

Navratilova said she used to be ashamed of the former communist Czechoslovakia, which she quit in 1975 for the US, receiving American citizenship six years later.

"Now, I can be ashamed of what is happening in America," she explained. "The thing is that we elected Bush. That is worse! Against that, nobody chose a communist government in Czechoslovakia."

Navratilova added that the Bush "regime" operates a form of censorship by making sure that analysis and other material that is judged politically unsuitable never becomes public.

"It is not as bad as it was here. But it is true, that censorship exists there," she explained. "I have a sticker on my car which says "regime change begins at home," she added.

Click to expand...

So I guess, once back in the Czech Rep. for a few years, maybe the government there will not be to her liking, she'll get fed up again, and go somwhere else or return to the US.

You live in a democracy that is temporarily ruled over by maniacs, pathological liars and idiots, you don't RUN AWAY. A real person of principle stays and works to change it-especially one with the celebrity to get her words into print for mass consumption. Her whinning just makes her a small part of the problem.

Phil said:

So I guess, once back in the Czech Rep. for a few years, maybe the government there will not be to her liking, she'll get fed up again, and go somwhere else or return to the US.

You live in a democracy that is temporarily ruled over by maniacs, pathological liars and idiots, you don't RUN AWAY. A real person of principle stays and works to change it-especially one with the celebrity to get her words into print for mass consumption. Her whinning just makes her a small part of the problem.

Click to expand...

^^^ Couldn't agree more. People with the ability to enact change should try and do so more than by simply 'voting with their feet'. If America has been good to hear for 30+ years, why not give a little back and help the land that has helped her?

sureshs said:

Navratilova added that the Bush "regime" operates a form of censorship by making sure that analysis and other material that is judged politically unsuitable never becomes public.

Click to expand...

Oh, if only there were some new medium, not intensively controlled by the government, upon which individuals could post documents for widespread distribution! Maybe we could ask Al Gore to try and come up with something.

sureshs said:

"But it is true, that censorship exists there," she explained. "I have a sticker on my car which says "regime change begins at home," she added.

Click to expand...

My God! I am _outraged_ that the government censors made her do that.

I think she is just showing off her right to free speech and making a point about Bush. I don't think she intends to go back to the Czech Rep.

Navratilova sounds like all the childish people that threatened to leave the country if Bush got reelected. He did. They didn't. Life goes on.
Maybe she was just blowing off steam but her remarks sound like the remarks of a spoiled childish egomaniac. It's disappointing,really.
If America was worth moving to once upon a time maybe it's still worth fighting for. Bush won't be president forever.
Whatever happened to fighting for what you believe in?
I can't say she'll be particualrly missed, should she go, but all the same, her sort of "I'll take my ball and play somewhere else" attitude seems out of place for someone her age who has gotten so much out of this country.

Great tennis player but she can take Rosie O'Donnell with her.

sureshs said:

I would not believe this report 100%. It was quoted on tennisnews.com from dailyindia.com, which in turn quotes contactmusic.com. Let us wait some more to see if reliable sources confirm.

Click to expand...

Why? I get all my hard news from High Times magazine and Rolling Stone. And maybe the Colbert Report (if I'm feeling high brow).

Frank Silbermann said:

....Maybe we could ask Al Gore to try and come up with something.....

Click to expand...

Or at least Al Sharpton!

money and taxes

"Ashamed of former communist Czechoslovakia" and "ashamed of Bush policies" - all that sounds very high level, but let's try to catch the elusive shadow of reality by its tail here people. Her 1970's defection sounds like a very practical move - one that allowed her to travel freely to tennis tournaments around the world and retain much of the prize money and endorsement money. If I were a star tennis pro and some government, Czech or any other, stood in the way of the big bucks, I'd be "ashamed" of it, too.

Whilst a U.S. passport can be beneficial to its holder in various ways, one conspicuous downside is the fact that unlike citisens of most countries, citisens of the U.S. are taxed on their worldwide income regardless of the country of residence or the geography of the source of income. Just from reading this news, I would venture to guess that once again Martina is simply being pracitcal by feeling "ashamed" of a regime that's milking her. Whether she had gradually grown into feeling ashamed over the long years of being milked by the IRS, or whether she's got a hot new business venture up her sleeve that provoked a sudden outburst of shame, I would not venture to guess...

The man's only in office for a year and a half more... why bail now? Seems like whining to me.

Forgot to post this earlier. As they were watching Vadiaosova play, the commentator said "Nicole is a czech citizen, like the player standing right next to me". Martina was quick to respond with " An Ex-Czech".

Maybe she isnt looking to change?

I wonder if they have vibrators with kick starters in the Czech Republic? I seldom root for women with bigger arms than mine.

Sup2Dresq said:

Forgot to post this earlier. As they were watching Vadiaosova play, the commentator said "Nicole is a czech citizen, like the player standing right next to me". Martina was quick to respond with " An Ex-Czech".

Maybe she isnt looking to change?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember the necklace she used to wear. It was an x with a check mark attached. Ex-Czech. Clever.


Rrriiightt.

Joeyg said:

I seldom root for women with bigger arms than mine.

Click to expand...

a living and filthy rich tennis legend with bigger arms than you is not bad at all if you ask me

I don't see how being upset with the Bush administration is "whining". Many reforms have happened during his tenure that are questionable to say the least. And, having so-called "free speech" is hardly a great thing if it doesn't foment change. She had that "free speech" before she defected when she was alone in her house, too.

Sometimes "free speech" is just a gilded cage. If the bars don't change when you talk to them, are you whining, or do you simply have no real influence over them? I guarantee that people who exercise their so-called free speech in ways that the US government considers a threat to its hegemony will be dealt with. No-fly and no-hire lists, perhaps? The testing of new non-lethal weapons on protestors? Being called a terrorist, having your citizenship revoked, and being thrown in prison by a secret court?

FiveO said:

Great tennis player but she can take Rosie O'Donnell with her.

Click to expand...

no we need to unload rosie to north korea... maybe the north koreans can survive the next winter if they had rosie..

vsbabolat said:

.....Bush will not be President forever.

Click to expand...

WHAT!!! You're joking, right? What am I going to do?????

- - - - -

re: Martina... If true, a quite immature action.

superstition said:

having so-called "free speech" is hardly a great thing if it doesn't foment change. She had that "free speech" before she defected when she was alone in her house, too.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that McCarthyite suppression of dissent is no great loss in freedom? That puts you on the same side of the free speech issue as J. Edgar Hoover.

superstition said:

Sometimes "free speech" is just a gilded cage. If the bars don't change when you talk to them, are you whining, or do you simply have no real influence over them?

Click to expand...

That's what whining is -- complaining about things you cannot do anything about. (There's no Constitutional right to get your own way.)

superstition said:

I guarantee that people who exercise their so-called free speech in ways that the US government considers a threat to its hegemony will be dealt with. No-fly and no-hire lists, perhaps? The testing of new non-lethal weapons on protesters? Being called a terrorist, having your citizenship revoked, and being thrown in prison by a secret court?

Click to expand...

That's because mere speech doesn't threaten the U.S.' hegemony -- only speech that incites or facilitates illegal action. (There's no right to incite illegal activities.)

FiveO said:

Great tennis player but she can take Rosie O'Donnell with her.

Click to expand...

Amen. She can go back and get her Czech citizenship back and leave her money here in America. Without her AMERICAN citizenship the money she won in the tournaments would have gone back to the Czech government. I guess she forgets that part of the past. She can take a boatload of the snotty nosed Liberals with her from Hollywood too, Barbra, two of the Baldwins, Sean Penn, Susan, etc. Good riddence.

I love her tennis and respect her in general (and I'd even love to hit with her)...but I would be glad to buy her some clever little necklace that said "ex-Yank" or something.

Nuke said:

If Martina gives up her US citizenship, that will be one less vote in 2008 to get the Republicans out of the White House. In the past, Martina has certainly been one to stand up for what she believes in, but it might be better if she worked WITHIN the system to change things rather than run away. But I guess she's doing this to make a splashy statement.

Click to expand...

Yep, a statement is what she wanted to make. Martina often talks before she thinks, but I think she is trying to get her name out there to hype book sales. She's no dummy and she knows that she is not on the front pages and that will not help her book which she is pushing. I think this is more about pushing her book than anything else.

superstition said:

...The testing of new non-lethal weapons on protestors? Being called a terrorist, having your citizenship revoked, and being thrown in prison by a secret court?

Click to expand...

I think Bush is as big an idiot at the next guy. But really, come on, we've crossed that bridge that leads from reality to you gotta be kidding me.

• non-lethal weapons on protestors? Examples and I need more than Al Pacino chanting "Attica". And, why would you test non-lethal weapons on protestors? Wouldn't you want something guaranteed to work? How do you know it's non-lethal until you test it? This is funny.
• Being called a terrorist? You've got something to back this up? Sticks and stones my brother sticks and stones...who exactly are THEY calling terrorists? MADD? The NRA? ACLU? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...
• Having your citizenship revoked? Again....proof? OK, did Bush finally kick Alec Baldwin out of the country? I think liberal or not, we could all agree that we're better off without old Alec.
• being thrown in prison by a secret court.... this is my personal favorite. This is the perfect oxymoron. If THEY (and we all know who THEY is [or is it are? damn, this is yet another example of the secret government running the puppet government]) wanted to throw you in jail, why would they need a secret court? I mean ostensibly you would use a kangaroo court to give the proceedings some sort of official look/feel to them. But a "secret" court is really not needed. If it's a secret, why have a court? This is too funny...

Can we add to the list:

• They kill puppies (or kittens if you're a cat person)
• They are part of the tri-lateral commission
• They meet at area 51

And, Navratilova has always let her mouth do the thinking instead of her brain. She'll come back and recant later...problem is when she does, that won't make the paper.

Martina has clarified that she meant she was going to take dual citizenship.

I guess she misses prague. She came to Prague last year for the womens czech open, it was the first time she was in the Czech republic for a long time, I guess its alot different from when she left. Anyways the Czech Government doesnt allow dual citizenship, she would have to hand in her US passport . Of course their are always exceptions for celebrities i guess, or maybe former communist citizens

superstition said:

I don't see how being upset with the Bush administration is "whining". Many reforms have happened during his tenure that are questionable to say the least. And, having so-called "free speech" is hardly a great thing if it doesn't foment change. She had that "free speech" before she defected when she was alone in her house, too.

Sometimes "free speech" is just a gilded cage. If the bars don't change when you talk to them, are you whining, or do you simply have no real influence over them? I guarantee that people who exercise their so-called free speech in ways that the US government considers a threat to its hegemony will be dealt with. No-fly and no-hire lists, perhaps? The testing of new non-lethal weapons on protestors? Being called a terrorist, having your citizenship revoked, and being thrown in prison by a secret court?

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? In other countries you are killed for talking out about the "goverment". Here it is a national pastime that has replaced baseball.
If you hate the US so much there are lots of other choices to go to and live. Re-voke your US citizenship and live there. But just guarantee me you won't whine to come back.

Frank Silbermann said:

So you're saying that McCarthyite suppression of dissent is no great loss in freedom?

Click to expand...

No.

That's what whining is -- complaining about things you cannot do anything about.

Click to expand...

Speaking about something is doing something. How much the speech will accomplish is not known until later.

That's because mere speech doesn't threaten the U.S.' hegemony -- only speech that incites or facilitates illegal action. (There's no right to incite illegal activities.)

Click to expand...

This is simplistic. The founders wrote that if the US government ever becomes degraded to the point that the public doesn't want it anymore, it should be replaced. If someone tried to do that today, they'd be called a traitor, terrorist, etc. Are you suggesting that the suggestion of revolution is illegal - that any speech that supports the replacement of the current regime/governmental structure with a new one is illegal? If so, then you're not supporting free speech. You're supporting "convenient speech", speech that is convenient for a regime.

Rabbit said:

I think Bush is as big an idiot at the next guy. But really, come on, we've crossed that bridge that leads from reality to you gotta be kidding me.

Click to expand...

I have never said Bush is an idiot. The way he and his administration (Rove/Cheney especially) have manipulated the public and other people/groups/organizations has been much more skillful and successful than I'd like at times. I do question the intelligence regarding the long-term viability of the planet's ecology, something he and his crowd unintelligently seem to care little about, in lieu of short-term "profits".

[*]non-lethal weapons on protestors? And, why would you test non-lethal weapons on protestors? Wouldn't you want something guaranteed to work? How do you know it's non-lethal until you test it? This is funny.

Click to expand...

http://miami.indymedia.org/news/2006/09/5720.php

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=99472&page=2

http://www.wanttoknow.info/nonlethalweaponsnewsarticles

http://www.alternet.org/story/47092/

http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2101916&C=landwar

http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/story/9499345p-10423294c.html

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ar...ecretary_wants_to_test_weapons_on_protestors/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4694419

The Patriot Act 1 and Patriot Act 2 (passed in pieces when the original whole bill failed) have a variety of things in them like:

1. The monitoring of libraries (such as who checked out what book), which has prompted some libraries to stop keeping records.
2. Secret trials and secret courts. No, the media doesn't get to know.
3. The ability of the Attorney General, or the President, or both to take away a person's citizenship. (Patriot 2)
4. No fly list. I don't know if this is part of the Patriot Act, but it exists.
5. No hire list. I've heard this is a new thing.

There are also the secret flights and the recently exposed illegal monitoring of US citizens which Bush has tried to make retroactively legal and may have by now.

The new modus operandi regarding the "Patriot Act" sort of legislation is to stick it into bills at odd hours so that no one will read them (the additions). I believe that's how the citizenship suspension scheme got through.

Once again, show me where as you said, they have been tested...the links I looked at said "they should" "they could"

I think Bush is an idiot, but you're making stuff up to support an agenda that is clearly facetious.

Rabbit said:

Once again, show me where as you said, they have been tested...the links I looked at said "they should" "they could"

I think Bush is an idiot, but you're making stuff up to support an agenda that is clearly facetious.

Click to expand...

I didn't make anything up when I mentioned the possibility of the testing of non-lethal weapons on civilians.

Since she's fed up with the U.S. maybe she can move to Iran and even organize a gay pride rally in Tehran. I'm sure they'll welcome her with open arms.

superstition said:

The testing of new non-lethal weapons on protestors? Being called a terrorist, having your citizenship revoked, and being thrown in prison by a secret court?

Click to expand...

superstition said:

I didn't make anything up when I mentioned the possibility of the testing of non-lethal weapons on civilians.

Click to expand...

Exmaine the first quote. Do you see the "recommendation" or the "possibility" of testing non-lethal weapons? No. What you see is an active state of testing non-lethal weapons. You made the statement, when pressed for facts, you folded like a cheap suit. Next time, be sure you can back up what you say before you say it or watch what and/or how you say it. Posting a bunch of unsubtantiated quotes about "how" this general or that colonel said "we ought" to do something is a world away from anyone actually pointing a weapon and pulling the trigger.

Again, made up.

Look, the whole country basically agrees that Bush is a loose cannon or an idiot, or more possibly both. But, to start posting this kind of crap, is just disingenuous. It does nothing more than discredit the far left which is where you reside.

Until one of these "wonder" weapons is actually used, i.e. like Chicago in '68 when a Democratic mayor used them on the citizens, then you really are just crying 'the sky is falling'.

And, again I ask, who is being called a terrorist? Who is having their citizenship revoked? Why have a "secret" court to send someone to a "secret" prison? If it's secret detention for an undetermined length of time, the only reason you'd have a "court" is for the pretense of law which you clearly indicated doesn't exit.

Superstition said:

This is simplistic. The founders wrote that if the US government ever becomes degraded to the point that the public doesn't want it anymore, it should be replaced. If someone tried to do that today, they'd be called a traitor, terrorist, etc. Are you suggesting that the suggestion of revolution is illegal - that any speech that supports the replacement of the current regime/governmental structure with a new one is illegal? If so, then you're not supporting free speech. You're supporting "convenient speech", speech that is convenient for a regime.

Click to expand...

I guess you support then the notion of the Southern States to secede from the Union over the issue of slavery? But wait, slavery is immoral, right? Are we then to interject morality in the dicussion and whose view of morality is prevalent? I don't disagree with your premise, Thomas Jefferson was a proponent of revolution and made his famous quote about the tree of liberty. However, he was saying this in favor of his revolution. He also spoke on both sides of any issue, on one hand favoring anti-slavery and on the other keeping slaves until his death as an example. While I didn't know Mr. Jefferson, I can safely assume that you are no Jefferson yet like to invoke the same type rhetoric for any "revolution" that you favor. However, I assume and I think safely that your view of morality is in the vast minority of what is considered standard.

Ergo, your views on right/wrong can't be implemented for everyone since majority rules. You do agree with that premise, no? But, I digress. My main objection with most of your posts is that they come from a lunatic fringe. You make unsubstantiated claims with verbiage that states fact when in fact, it is annecdotal or proposition rather than implementation.

Truman advocated using the A-bomb in Korea. Does that mean he did it? Negative. Pointing an unloaded weapon is the same as pointing a loaded weapon. The difference, which you so casually glaze over, is pulling the trigger. No one here has pulled a trigger and no weapons, lethal or otherwise have been used against the US citizenry by the Bush administration. As a matter of fact, the only weaponry used against the citizens of this country that I can think of were used in Waco Texas during the Clinton administration. Of course, these weren't non-lethal weapons, they were lethal. Where's your rage on that topic?

She can do whatever it wants, but it seems so "cut and run." No matter your political persuasion, some government policies will always be in conflict with your beliefs and your politics. Things have really turned sour, in large part, for those of us who lean left. But, why cut and run? Politics is cyclical and even though the past few years have been depressing, it's not good just to give up.

But, she doesn't have to actually move out of the country just because she changes her citizenship (as someone upthread suggested). She can still be an activist in the US, though it would seem slightly odd right after she changed citizenship.

bluetrain4 said:

She can do whatever it wants, but it seems so "cut and run." No matter your political persuasion, some government policies will always be in conflict with your beliefs and your politics. Things have really turned sour, in large part, for those of us who lean left. But, why cut and run? Politics is cyclical and even though the past few years have been depressing, it's not good just to give up.

Click to expand...

If the Titanic is sinking, should you cut and run?

There are two basic instincts regarding danger, fight and flight. Neither is superior as a general rule. Circumstance determines which one is the better choice.

Rhetoric can use both simultaneously. By advocating or threatening flight, Navratilova may be engaging in fight.

Simon Cowell said:

Since she's fed up with the U.S. maybe she can move to Iran and even organize a gay pride rally in Tehran. I'm sure they'll welcome her with open arms.

Click to expand...

Yes, if people don't like the USA, they should move to Iran instead of The Netherlands or another country where gay people are treated with more respect. This is because the USA is the best country in the world, superior in every way, and people who question that are bad.

Rabbit said:

bych moan ad hominem

Click to expand...

The post was satirical and rooted in fact. Swift didn't actually hope that people would eat babies. I managed to slog through a few sentences of your diatribe and grew bored.