Again, CBS News is leading the way in investigating this program:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday denied having any advance knowledge of a controversial program run by federal officials that allowed thousands of guns to be smuggled from the U.S. to Mexico in an effort to trace them to leaders of drug cartels before the program’s existence became public.

She said the Justice Department did not “request coordination” or give “any kind of notice or heads up” about “Operation Fast and Furious,” the ATF operation which put thousands of guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels. The weapons may have been used in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

During the hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) asked Clinton at what point did the State Department learn about Operation Fast and Furious.

“My recollection is that I learned about it from the press, that’s my recollection,” Clinton said.

That sounds like a definitive answer that State was NOT involved. When pushed further by Rep. Mack about the existence of a waiver from the State Department for the DOJ program, which would have been required, Sec. Clinton said she would investigate the matter. Let’s hope she does. I, for one, would like to know the answer to that question.

And the drumbeat for Eric Holder to resign grows ever louder. Now, a total of 17 US House members are calling for Holder’s resignation:

(Rep. Dan) Burton, who once chaired the House oversight committee that is currently investigating the Justice Department over Operation Fast and Furious, said he has always opposed Holder and didn’t believe he should be confirmed as attorney general in the first place, based on his record of deceiving Congress.

“I think he’s been a mistake from the very beginning,” Burton told TheDC in a phone interview.

“When I was chairman of government reform and oversight during the Clinton administration, we had Holder before my committee a number of times and he misled the committee. In fact, he lied. During his confirmation in the Senate, I sent a letter to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, [Sen. Patrick] Leahy, and I sent it to the other members of the committee as well, and I cited specific cases where Holder had not been straight with the committee and I said he should not be confirmed.”

It also appears Holder misled Congress on May 3 when he told the House Judiciary Committee that he had known of Operation Fast and Furious for only a few weeks. Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley told TheDC he personally handed Holder a letter on the topic while the attorney general was in his office months earlier. Senior aides sent Holder numerous briefing memos on the subject, including the name and intimate details of the failed operation, as early as July 2010. (Click here to read the rest.)

I want for Holder to be brought up on charges, and have to testify in public for this insane program. Will that happen if he resigns? If he resigns, will it let him off the hook? In any event, it is clear that he is a conniving liar who has no place anywhere near the DOJ.

Secretary Clinton appears to be in the clear on this whole issue, though I look forward to the answer regarding a waiver for the DOJ. But Holder continues to look guiltier and guiltier. He cannot get his comeuppance soon enough for me, and I trust for the families of the federal agents lost, and those families in Mexico who lost loved ones as a result of these weapons. Yep, his comeuppance cannot come soon enough…

What do you think?

Intrepid reporter, Sharyl Atttkisson reported for CBS News brings us the latest on this new twist to “Fast and Furious”:

Police say Jean Baptiste Kingery, a U.S. citizen, was a veritable grenade machine. He’s accused of smuggling parts for as many as 2,000 grenades into Mexico for killer drug cartels — sometimes under the direct watch of U.S. law enforcement.

Law enforcement sources say Kingery could have been prosecuted in the U.S. twice for violating export control laws, but that, each time, prosecutors in Arizona refused to make a case.

Grenades are weapons-of-choice for the cartels. An attack on Aug. 25 in a Monterrey, Mexico casino killed 53 people.

Sources tell CBS News that, in January 2010, ATF had Kingery under surveillance after he bought about 50 grenade bodies and headed to Mexico. But they say prosecutors wouldn’t agree to make a case. So, as ATF agents looked on, Kingery and the grenade parts crossed the border — and simply disappeared.

Six months later, Kingery allegedly got caught leaving the U.S. for Mexico with 114 disassembled grenades in a tire. One ATF agent told investigators he literally begged prosecutors to keep Kingery in custody this time, fearing he was supplying narco-terrorists, but was again ordered to let Kingery go. (Click here to read the rest.)

I imagine this must have been unbelievably frustrating to these ATF agents to watch this guy walk. It probably went against everything they had been trained to do. Yet, under this Administration, under this DOJ, under this ATF, that is precisely what they had to do as this American citizen engaged in some mighty dangerous trafficking into Mexico.

Meanwhile, the DOJ, headed up by Liar in Chief, Eric Holder, has been mighty busy elsewhere. And just what is occupying their time, specifically the Civil Rights Division? I bet you could guess:

A senior official from President Barack Obama’s Justice Department spent Thursday night and Friday in Alabama appealing for evidence that could strike down the state’s innovative immigration-enforcement reform, which business executives say could open thousands of jobs to unemployed Americans.

The full-court press against the state’s immigration reform complements Obama’s 2012 campaign strategy, which seeks to spur turnout by Democratic-leaning Hispanics in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and other swing-states.

The law allows police to make a “reasonable attempt” to verify the legal residency of people who have been arrested or detained, and it requires public schools to check the eligibility of students.

The administration officials “see every Alabaman as having a Bull Connor on the inside waiting to come out … [and] they’re attacking Alabama to motivate left-wing voters in other states,” said Mark Krikorian, direct of the Center for Immigration Studies. Among progressives, “it is 1963 forever,” he added.

The state had an unemployment rate of 9.9 percent in August, slightly down from 10 percent in July. Unemployment in Alabama’s poorest counties, which are mostly African-American, is above 20 percent. (Click here to read the rest, and there is much more to this article.)

In fact, unemployment in the African American community continues to hit hard, so it makes sense this Administration would be so concerned about a state certifying workers are here in the country legally. Oh, no, wait a minute – no it doesn’t, especially when the state contends its own citizens would benefit from illegal immigrants returning to their country. One would think that such rampant unemployment within the AA community would be of primary importance to Obama, who benefited mightily in 2008 from this community. One would be wrong.

No other country in the world has such open borders as those demanded by some in this country, including this Administration, which consistently sides with those who are here ILLEGALLY rather than the states trying to keep them out. The country from which a quarter of these illegal immigrants come, Mexico, has an incredibly strict policy regarding illegal immigrants (did you know that Mexico deports more illegal aliens a year than the United States? Yeah. That says a lot, doesn’t it?). Yet, Obama and his minions seem to care less for the rule of law in this country than about the potential votes they might get. There is something seriously wrong with that.

Just as there is something seriously wrong with government officials watching someone break the law with impunity – numerous times – and doing nothing about it. Nothing. Even knowing that what the person is trafficking will rain down fire and brimstone on those caught up in some drug cartel’s battle. But, hey, whatever, right?

And all of this is taking place under the auspices of our “Department of Justice.” I can only shake my head in disgust. How about you?

But I don’t want to get ahead of myself. What Ms. Attkisson said in a recent CBS radio interview with Chris Stigall is really startling, shocking, infuriating, and disconcerting. No, really, it is. Check out these excerpts from the interview:

“Since the very beginning, those who knew a lot more about this case than I did, including officials who work for the Obama Administration – this is nothing particularly against him or anyone else who happened to be in charge – they have said this is bigger than Iran Contra. They have said this is bigger than Watergate.” Attkisson replied.

The CBS investigative reporter also noted, “The idea that this started as one whistleblower that pretty much all the officials were painting out to be a liar – an ATF agent in Phoenix. And to see where this has moved over the months to officials admitting, okay this program was going on but it was isolated to Phoenix, Arizona. Then saying, okay people did know about it at ATF headquarters, but that’s where it stopped. To saying, ok the White House and DOJ did know about Fast & Furious but they didn’t know about the details.”

Doesn’t that just make you so angry? The lies, lies, and more lies to cover up what this Administration did while casting false aspersions against the whistleblower. And that is just the start of it.

Attkisson discusses the issue of Holder and his testimony, and there is lots coming out about that now (again, Holder has been subpoenad), but this part of the interview really caught my eye:

The Philadelphia radio host then queried, “Do you believe Sharyl that this goes beyond the Department of Justice because of the international nature and the homeland security nature? I have read people surmising that this has to involve almost by definition it must involve the Secretary of State’s office and the Department of Homeland Security.”

“Congress is trying to find that out, they’ve been asking for documents from the State Department and other departments and haven’t always gotten – well, they haven’t gotten a lot of what they asked for, so they don’t know yet.” Attkisson replied. (Click here to read the rest.)

Okay, I had not thought about the potential State Department component of all of this. It makes sense, of course, considering the involvement with another nation. Naturally, any discussion of the State Department cannot be had without mentioning the head of the Department, Sec. Clinton.

I know this is going to sound silly, but it honestly choked me up to read this. I am just so disheartened by Clinton’s participation in this tainted Administration, and all of the ways her carrying out Obama’s flawed policies affect her. With hindsight being 20/20, I wish she had never sullied her name by going to work for this man. Now, she is connected to this incredibly short-sighted program which cost the life of a border patrol agent and numerous Mexicans, giving support to the TALIBAN opening offices in Qatar, even as they are attacking our embassies and military bases, and validating the Muslim Brotherhood. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Never mind her going to work for a man who was abusive to her, and women in general, a reality that overshadows her work for women and children.

Indeed – all I can think of is the old adage, if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

As for Holder, despite his whining and complaining, he is in the very midst of this whole thing. I love this excuse from the head of the DOJ:

On Friday, Holder sent a letter to congressional investigators stating that he does not read every document addressed to him and that they are reviewed by members of his staff. Holder went on to say that none of the reports mentioned the controversial tactics used in Fast and Furious.

Ah, the “I didn’t do my job by reading these critical reports” defense. Good one! Except Issa is not buying what Holder is selling (thank goodness):

On Monday, Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating the scandal, replied to Holder in a letter saying, “Operation Fast and Furious was the department’s most significant gun trafficking case. Whether you realize yet or not, you own Fast and Furious. It is your responsibility.”

Issa told “Fox News Sunday” that he was going to issue the subpoena to find out why the top Justice officials are “denying knowing about something that they were briefed on?”

“We want to know what and when they knew it,” he said. “But more importantly, we have to understand — at what level of the authorization really come? It wasn’t an ATF operation. They were part of that. It was a joint operation in which DEA knew more than ATF.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, we DO want to know what, where, how, why all of this came to be, as well as the involvement of the State Department, and any other government departments that may have had a hand in this poorly conceived program.

So, let the subpoenas fly, Rep. Issa. Let’s get tot the bottom of this no matter where it leads or who it takes down. Watergate was big, HUGE, in fact. If this is bigger, then let the hearings begin…

A U.S. law enforcement operation intended to crack down on major weapons traffickers on the Southwest border spiraled out of control as federal agents were told by superiors to “stand down” and ignore weapons bought in Arizona headed for Mexico, a House panel heard Wednesday.

Three federal firearms investigators told the House Oversight and Government Reform committee that they wanted to “intervene and interdict” loads of guns, but were repeatedly ordered to step aside.

“Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals — this was the plan,” John Dodson, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent, testified to the panel. “It was so mandated.”

He added: “My supervisors directed me and my colleagues not to make any stop or arrest, but rather, to keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy cow. I don’t know about you, but I find that to be incredibly disturbing.

This program was halted when Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry, 40, was killed with one of the guns from this incredibly misguided, ill conceived, dare I say, idiotic, program.

Here’s the thing – finding out who actually authorized this program has been much harder than it should be. Obama denied that it was Eric Holder, though the ATF is under his purview. If you have seen any of the hearings on Capitol Hill, you know that trying to get that name has been like trying to pull hen’s teeth. But Obama said that there will be swift action against whoever it was, though it sure wasn’t Holder. Yeah, okay. Well, SOMEONE approved this plan.

That was then. This is now. And that is not the end of it, not by a long shot. The All Stars discussed this very issue on Tuesday night after several Mexican officials, in response to deaths in Mexico as a result ofn “Operation Fast and Furious” spoke out:

Yes, this is a big deal, and Eric Holder has lots of ‘splaining to do. That’s what Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley think, too, as this Daily Caller article highlights:

Top Republican lawmakers have authored an explosive new letter containing details of secret testimony by acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson, which reveal for the first time the extent to which his agency was involved in an international gun selling scandal.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, fired off the letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday detailing what Melson told Congressional investigators in a secret July 4 testimony.

One key takeaway from the meeting was that Melson acknowledged to investigators that agents had witnessed transfers of weapons from straw purchasers to third parties without following the guns afterwards. Straw purchasers are people who could technically legally buy guns in the U.S. but their intent was to turn around and sell them to drug cartels in Mexico.

Another point Melson clarified for investigators was that the ATF group carrying out the mission of Operation Fast and Furious was placed under the direction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s office. The U.S. Attorney in Arizona, Dennis Burke, is a political appointee of the Obama administration.[snip]

Here’s the thing, though – it seems that, Obama’s pledge notwithstanding, the DOJ is not being at all helpful in getting to the bottom of this. Gee, aren’t you surprised by that? No? I wasn’t, either:

The DOJ has not been fully cooperative with a number of Issa’s and Grassley’s requests for documents and other evidence in this investigation. According to the July 5 letter, Issa and Grassley said Melson told them he asked the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) to be more cooperative with Congressional requests for information, evidence and documents.

Their letter also details how Melson told Issa and Grassley that he and other senior ATF officials moved to reassign every major official involved in Operation Fast and Furious. Melson said Obama administration Justice Department officials directed him and other ATF officials to not communicate to Congress the reasoning behind the reassignments. [snip]
(Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, the plot thickens. No doubt, it will get thicker before all is known about this incredibly stupid, moronic plot. As you might guess, those firearms that were purchased were done so on our dime.

Despite the Democrats’ attempts to try to defuse this issue and make it all about gun laws, this is about the DOJ, and the ATF. It is about who crafted, and authorized, this program which cost the life of an agent, and lives across the border. I hope Rep. Issa and Sen. Grassley stand firm in getting to the bottom of this.

I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg. What do you think?

You know, I really should stop being astonished at the news, the sheer upside-down-ness of the world in which we live. But, no – I suppose I still expect a modicum of sanity to prevail. Sadly, that expectation fell far short when I saw some of the following news stories.

For instance, WHO would have ever thought that North Korea – NORTH KOREA – would head the UN Disarmament Council? No one, because it is insane. Yet, that is the reality:

Nuclear-armed North Korea has assumed the presidency of a key United Nations disarmament body — despite facing UN Security Council sanctions over its weapons programs.

The development comes in the same week the UN defended its decision to support Iran’s holding of an international “anti-terrorism” conference — which saw participants declaring that Western powers were the international terrorists.

UN officials point out that North Korean ambassador So Se Pyong takes on the presidency of the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament under rules that say the chair will rotate among all 65 member states in alphabetical order.

But critics said Wednesday the rules should be changed when they allow the body — whose mandate is in part to push for world nuclear disarmament — to be led by a country that the West considers to be an international nuclear renegade.

“No system should tolerate such a fundamental conflict of interests,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch, which also led protests against the UN’s input at the Iranian “anti-terrorism” conference. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Who could really be surprised, though? This is the same “august” body that put Iran on the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Does it surprise anyone that IRAN is happy about this? Yeah, I didn’t think so.Yet another institution for which I have lost all respect.

Meanwhile, the US, in its infinite wisdom in Insanity Land now recognizes the Muslim Brotherhood:

The U.S. has decided to formally resume contact with Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood group – which does not recognize Israel – in a move that could further alienate some Jewish voters already skeptical of President Barack Obama, it was reported.

One senior U.S. official said the Brotherhood’s rise in political prominence after the forced departure of former President Hosni Mubarak earlier this year makes the American contact necessary.

“The political landscape in Egypt has changed, and is changing… It is in our interests to engage with all of the parties that are competing for parliament or the presidency,” said the official, who confirmed the news to Reuters on condition of anonymity. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Do I really need to remind everyone of who and what the Muslim Brotherhood is? You know, “The Quran is our law; Jihad is our way,” including against the United States, Hamas-spawning, and Israel hating formerly outlawed in Egypt organization? Yeah, that one. The same one Obama invited leaders from to hear him babble on in Cairo while they were still outlawed. Yeah, we saw this one coming.

And as if this is not bad enough, the United States, in its infinite insanity, has designated Israel – ISRAEL – as a country that produces terrorists (h/t Gina). Just to be clear – we are engaging with the Muslim Brotherhood, a TERRORIST organization, and calling one of, hell, our ONLY, Middle East ally, a terrorist sponsoring organization:

In an implicit admission that Israel is so threatened by terrorism that it is not only surrounded by countries and territories that produce terrorists but also unwillingly harbors terrorists within its own territory in a way that most other nations in the world do not, the Obama administration is currently listing Israel among 36 “specially designated countries” it believes “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.” {snip} (Click here to read the rest.)

Seriously, are these people out of their freaking mind? And how in the HELL can the Hillary Clinton, as head of State, support this? Don’t even get me started.

But really, what can one expect from someone like Obama, who not only plays fast and loose with the facts, but is a huge bully while doing so. I cannot go through them all, but let’s just look at Obama’s big comparison between corporate jet taxes, and student loans:

[snip] In a bit of class jujitsu, the president six times mentioned eliminating a tax loophole for corporate jets, frequently pitting it against student loans or food safety. It’s a potent image, but in the context of a $4 trillion goal, it is essentially meaningless. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years.

Meanwhile, student financial assistance, just for 2011, is about $42 billion. So the corporate jet loophole — which involves the fact that such assets can be depreciated over five years, rather than the seven for commercial jets — just is not going to raise a lot of money. It certainly wouldn’t save many student loans. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

You know it’s bad when even the Washington Post is calling Obama a liar. But hey, if the shoe fits, as they say, and it surely does with Obama.

Blech. I wish this was all, but this is all I can handle without my head exploding.

Thank heavens, though, at least there is one bright spot in the world – it is Canada Day! The newest royal couple, William and Kate, are in Canada for the big day, delighting the Canadians with their charm:

[snip] Friday also would have been the 50th birthday of William’s mother, Princess Diana, who died in a 1997 Paris car crash. In London, her admirers gathered to leave gifts outside Kensington Palace, which was her official residence.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, as William and Kate are formally known, arrived Thursday to cheering crowds of thousands. Poised and confident, they thrilled crowds with warm, unscripted gestures, wading into throngs of well-wishers to shake hands and accept flowers and other gifts.

To cheers of delight, William addressed his hosts in both English and French, then cracked a joke about his language skills. “It will improve as we go on,” the prince quipped, then noted how much he and Kate were “truly looking forward to this adventure.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And this is for our neighbors to the North:

I hope the Royal Newlyweds continue to enjoy their trip, and that Canada has an excellent day of celebration.

Personally, I thank Canada for diffusing the explosion in my head from the other news of the day. How about you – what news stories hit you today?

UPDATE: In response to Obama’s chiding and bullying on Weds., insisting that others should get to work, and claiming HE had been working, the NRSC came out with the following ad:

Oh, snap!

What is it, you may ask? Well, this: Soaring Costs Force Canada To Reassess Health Model. Oh, dear. Isn’t this the model the Democrats claimed worked so well, and was one to emulate here in the States? Wasn’t that the constant rallying cry to shove through Obamacare, whether we wanted it or not (and “or not” was what we wanted)? Were not those of us who tried to point out that there were very real problems with the Canadian system scoffed at, derided, and dismissed? Yes, yes we were.

Well, here’s the thing. Once again, we were right, as the article mentioned above demonstrates:

Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada’s provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate “incentive fees” to generic drug manufacturers.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit — an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.

It’s likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.

“There’s got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years,” said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.

“We can’t continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.

“At some stage we’re going to hit a breaking point.”

Huh. Here Canada is having problems, and their relationship with drug companies seems to be a tad bit different from the one Obama has. That is to say, they are actively fighting them, and fighting FOR their citizens, as opposed to Obama making a deal with Big Pharma from the Get-go which definitely was in Big Pharma’s favor. Yt, Canada is having problems:

MIRROR IMAGE DEBATE

In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.

Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all “medically necessary” hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.

Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.

But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.

“As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance … one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed,” said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.

Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including “means-testing” and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.

“Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There’s going to be a finer look at what we’re paying for and, more importantly, what we’re getting for it,” he said.

Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.

Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked.

SEVENTY PERCENT?? Well, I don’t have to be a Nobel Prize Winner in Economics to know THAT is not good (though these days, accomplishments have become passe – ahem):

“Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them,” Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters.

The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.

In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.

Those sound like some possible options, but the outcome is unclear:

WINNERS AND LOSERS

The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.

“Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them,” said U of T’s Golden. “We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now.”

Scotia Capital’s Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. “(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it’s costing,” she said.

“If it’s absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?”

But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada’s national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.

“It’s an area that Canadians don’t want to see touched,” said TD’s Burleton. “Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist’s standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost.”

($1=$1.05 Canadian) (Reporting by Claire Sibonney; editing by Janet Guttsman and Peter Galloway)

Isn’t that the single biggest issue right now? Once a social program has begun, people do not want to give them up? Isn’t that what happened in Greece? Isn’t that a big problem for the US, too? We continue to expand and extend programs that have massive benefits we cannot afford. For example, did you know in some states Unemployment Benefits were extended to 99 weeks? I’m sure you can do the math, but that’s almost 2 years! Could that money not have been better used in a WPA sort of way? Or some other jobs-creation plan? There are claims that the EUC is actually expanding unemployment. That is, simply put, problematic.

But here’s the biggest problem with the whole Canadian health care crisis compared to ours – our financial numbers were fudged. Only after the bill became a law did the REAL numbers start coming out, and they are NOT good. Check out what former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin stated recently:

Yikes. Again, this is what happens when a bill is rammed through without people bothering to read it first, filling it full of pork and giveaways, and expecting more service for less money. That is to say, it was fraught with problems from the beginning. We can only hope that before it is fully implemented, there is a massive overhaul or repeal.

I am all for people having health care, but as I have said before, let’s be smart about it. Do our homework first. REALLY look at the numbers, get out of Obama’s Big Pharma deal, and do right by all of our citizens, not corporations or political parties. Let Canada be a warning to us.

So much going on recently, like: DADT may be coming up for a vote in the House, but its repeal is far from guaranteed, especially with the Chiefs of the Four branches speaking out against repeal; The LA Times reported the hole was finally closed using the Top Kill method of pushing mud and stuff into it, but unfortunately, the news was a bit premature (it is slowing it down, though); and border issues still causing a stir, with the troops Obama wants to allocate going to deal with drugs and guns, not illegal immigrants, even in the face of a TERROR Alert being issued by homeland security. Just like Mexico told him to do – deal with guns and drugs, not stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the US. Hmmm. That sounds like dereliction of duty to me, not protecting the borders as required in the Constitution, but I’m not a lawyer, so…

Whew – makes me tired just thinking about it, not to mention angry, worried, and upset. I need a break. Maybe you do, too. Oh, this will still be political, but hopefully, it will also make you laugh, too.

Here’s the thing. There’s this “reporter” named Joe McGinniss. He is not a fan of Sarah Palin’s to put it MILDLY. McGinniss is currently writing an unauthorized biography of the former governor of Alaska. So, what did he do? He rented the house next door to hers so he could watch her morning, noon, and night for months. Oh, and when I say next door, I mean 15 feet away from her family. I am not kidding.

Check it out:

Holy moley. So, let me understand this – McGinniss threatens a reporter with the police for trespassing, while “invading the space” of the Palin family on a daily basis. I got ya. That sounds about right for the Palin haters. “Okay for me, not for thee” sort of thing. Seriously, though – McGinniss pulling this stunt says a whole lot about him, and his character. The sheer arrogance and hubris of such a move, figuratively and literally, is telling indeed.

But how about Todd’s skills with a saw? Here’s a closer look at the wall (from Greta van Susteren):

Now, that’s a good looking fence. Todd can come to my house and do carpentry work anytime.

Michelle Malkin has another suggestion given the quick wall building skills of Todd Palin and friends:

I nominate Todd Palin for border czar.

If only our federal government acted as swiftly and decisively to protect the nation’s borders from intrusion…

No kidding, huh? Someone who doesn’t drag his feet when decisive action is required. Obama could take a lesson from Todd. That’ll be the day…

So, just what was really ACCOMPLISHED in this major meeting? Charles Krauthammer whittles it all down in his article, Obama’s Nuclear Strutting And Fretting. Huh – how’s THAT for a soundbite? Think Robert Gibbs is going to co-opt that one? Yeah, me neither.

Anyway, here is what this whole big,”Historic!”, “Unprecedented!” summit boiled down to:

There was something oddly disproportionate about the just-concluded nuclear summit to which President Obama summoned 46 world leaders, the largest such gathering on American soil since 1945. That meeting was about the founding of the United Nations, which 65 years ago seemed an event of world-historical importance.

But this one? What was this great convocation about? To prevent the spread of nuclear material into the hands of terrorists. A worthy goal, no doubt. Unfortunately, the two greatest such threats were not even on the agenda.

The first is Iran, which is frantically enriching uranium to make a bomb, and which our own State Department identifies as the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world.

Nor on the agenda was Pakistan’s plutonium production, which is adding to the world’s stockpile of fissile material every day.

Pakistan is a relatively friendly power, but it is the most unstable of all the nuclear states. It is fighting a Taliban insurgency and is home to al-Qaeda. Suicide bombs go off regularly in its major cities. Moreover, its own secret service, the ISI, is of dubious loyalty, some of its elements being sympathetic to the Taliban and thus, by extension, to al-Qaeda.

So what was the major breakthrough announced by Obama at the end of the two-day conference? That Ukraine, Chile, Mexico and Canada will be getting rid of various amounts of enriched uranium.

What a relief. I don’t know about you, but I lie awake nights worrying about Canadian uranium. I know these people. I grew up there. You have no idea what they’re capable of doing. If Sidney Crosby hadn’t scored that goal to win the Olympic gold medal, there’s no telling what might have ensued.

Oh, WHEW!!!!! Who cares about Pakistan and Iran’s nuclear ambitions as long as we have our Neighbors To The North under control!!! I mean, really – with their hockey sticks and curling stones, there is no TELLING what they might try against us! Way to go, OBAMA!! (Better write down this date – I doubt you’ll see something like that again, unless it is the day after the election in 2012, and Obama gets tossed out!)

Canada. O, Canada – thank you for your willingness to forgo your enriched plutonium. What a feather in Obama’s cap, this summit was. I mean, it’s a start, anyway:

Let us stipulate that sequestering nuclear material is a good thing. But, it is a minor thing, particularly when Iran is off the table and Pakistan is creating new plutonium for every ounce of Canadian uranium shipped to the United States.

Perhaps calculating that removing relatively small amounts of fissile material from stable, friendly countries didn’t quite do the trick, Obama proudly announced that the United States and Russia were disposing of 68 tons of plutonium. Unmentioned was the fact that this agreement was reached 10 years ago — and, under the new protocol, doesn’t begin to dispose of the plutonium until 2018. Feeling safer now?

The appropriate venue for such minor loose-nuke agreements is a meeting of experts in Geneva who, after working out the details, get their foreign ministers to sign off. Which made this parade of world leaders in Washington an exercise in misdirection — distracting attention from the looming threat from Iran, regarding which Obama’s 15 months of terminally naive “engagement” has achieved nothing but the loss of 15 months.

Oh. Um. Well, not such a feather after all, it would seem. Oops. Hey, at least he tried, right? That’s something, anyway. Maybe not:

Indeed, the Washington summit was part of a larger misdirection play — Obama’s “nuclear spring.” Last week: a START treaty, redolent of precisely the kind of Cold War obsolescence Obama routinely decries. The number of warheads in Russia’s aging and decaying nuclear stockpile is an irrelevancy now that the existential U.S.-Soviet struggle is over. One major achievement of the treaty, from the point of view of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, is that it could freeze deployment of U.S. missile defenses — thus constraining the single greatest anti-nuclear breakthrough of our time.

This followed a softening of the U.S. nuclear deterrent posture (sparing non-proliferation compliant states from U.S. nuclear retaliation if they launch a biochemical attack against us) — a change so bizarre and literally unbelievable that even Hillary Clinton couldn’t get straight what retaliatory threat remains on the table.

All this during a week when top U.S. military officials told Congress that Iran is about a year away from acquiring the fissile material to make a nuclear bomb. Then, only a very few years until weaponization.

At which point the world changes irrevocably: The regional Arab states go nuclear, the Non-Proliferation Treaty dies, the threat of nuclear transfer to terror groups grows astronomically.

A timely reminder: Syria has just been discovered transferring lethal Scud missiles to Hezbollah, the Middle East’s most powerful non-state terrorist force. This is the same Syria that was secretly building a North Korean-designed nuclear reactor until the Israeli air force destroyed the facility three years ago.

But not to worry. Canadian uranium is secured. A nonbinding summit communique has been issued. And a “work plan” has been agreed to.

Oh, yes. And there will be another summit in two years. The dream lives on. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com )

Dang, this is so irritating. This guy is such an egotist – and that is a huge piece to this puzzle. He wanted to notch his belt with another “accomplishment.” Yep, getting Canada to bend to his will was QUITE the coup, eh? Please.

So just what did Obama accomplish at this Big Summit? Changes with China? North Korea? I think this sums it up nicely:

“Whether we like it or not” we’re a military Superpower? Say huh, WHAAAAA? “Whether we like it or NOT?” WTH?? Whatever he meant by that, it was poorly, uh, uh, uh, worded, and further serves to undermine regardless of how he meant it. Doesn’t he know he cannot stray from TOTUS?? Wow. What an unbelievable statement from the President of the United States.

So what did the Summit accomplish? Not Much. At great expense to us, no doubt, hosting all of these world leaders. And, great expense to them to have to come to this “event.” That Obama – he sure does love his get-togethers, doesn’t he? I wonder if his BFFs, Jay-z and Beyonce attended the Nuclear Disarmament Summit, too? Hey, I wouldn’t be surprised. Surely if they are able to be in the Situation Room, attending this kind of Summit is nothing but a party. Woohoo!

What a wasted opportunity. At least we don’t have to lose sleep over Canada…

One of the other results of this earthquake, though, was that it knocked the Earth off its axis by about 3 inches, thus increasing the rotation of the earth, and decreasing the length of our days. Not by much, mind you, only 1.26 microseconds, but it is a cumulative thing.

That is all to say, it was a massive earthquake. Secretary of State Clinton had already planned a trip to Chile anyway, and she met with Secretary Bachelet on Tuesday:

Below is the text of Secretary Clinton’s remarks to President Bachelet, and the people of Chile. For the complete session, with comments by President Bachelet, click HERE:

SECRETARY CLINTON: President Bachelet, I first come with the great sympathy and support from President Obama and the people of the United States. This devastating earthquake has wrought so much damage across your country. The ferocity was 800 times greater than the earthquake that hit Haiti, and your leadership and the extraordinary efforts of your government and the people of Chile are responding with resilience and strength. And the United States is ready to respond to the request that the government of Chile has made so that we can provide not only solidarity, but specific supplies that are needed to help you recover from the earthquake.

Amen to that. Chile has a better infrastructure than Haiti, but there was still a tremendous amount of damage done, and loss of life. Clinton continues:

I was planning to be in Chile today anyway for a long-scheduled trip and I was so looking forward to meeting with President Bachelet who is a leader whom I admire greatly and consider a friend. And when I spoke with the president, I said, “I will not come if it will interfere in any way.” And we changed the itinerary so that I could come and I brought with me 25 of these satellite phones. We have identified 62 as the highest priority for the government’s request. I had 25 on my plane loaded on and I’m going to give this one to you, Madam President.

And let me just add after consulting with the president and her ministers, we are sending eight water purification units. They are on their way. We have identified a mobile field hospital unit with surgical capabilities that is ready to go. We are working to fill the need for autonomous dialysis machines. We are ready to purchase and send electricity generators, medical supplies and are working to identify and send portable bridges so that some of the places that are remote that lost their bridges will be able to be reconnected to the country. People are working. That’s a good sound.

And finally, Madam President, after discussing the needs that Chile has, we will look to see if we can provide additional equipments from portable kitchens to helicopters to assist you in this massive rescue recovery effort that you are undertaking. And additionally, we will let the people of America, who are very anxious to help Chileans, know that they can contribute to the Chilean Red Cross; that they can contribute to the Caritas Chile and the ONEMI programs. We will get that information and give our press the specifics.

Like her trip to Haiti, Secretary Clinton, by her presence, and by the tools she brings, represents our country so well, exuding sympathy, comfort, and determination.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Chile. I hope the aid Secretary Clinton brought with her, and promised on our behalf, will be of an immediate help.

Yes, yes, that was mighty funny. Finally, someone was saying what so many of us lefties thought.

Then, at the end of this past September, Chavez turned his, um, aromatic rhetoric on Obama, who came out smelling like a rose:

Oh, blech. Anyone smell any hope up in here? Yeah, me neither.

Well, that was then. Now, Chavez’s olfactory senses are being assaulted again, this time by Obama:

See, I told you Obama was like Bush (and not just because of Chavez)! Oh, this is just too, too rich. I bet Obama didn’t see THAT one coming!

Now I have no particular love lost for Chavez, though I do appreciate that his country sent a whole bunch of heating oil up to New England during Bush’s presidency. Regardless how you feel about him, this is funny.

But it isn’t just Chavez who is turning on Obama. It seems many in the World Community are seing the “Citizen of the World” for who he is. The more Obama traipses around talking, taling, talking, the more they get it. Yes, this headline from the Guardian (UK) pretty much says it all, Barack Obama’s Speech Disappoints And Fuels Frustration At Copenhagen,US president offers no further commitment on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries.

Oh dear. That doesn’t bode well for Obama from the get-go:

Barack Obama stepped into the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit today saying he was convinced the world could act “boldly and decisively” on climate change.

But his speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort — and a 10-day meeting — from ending in total collapse.

Obama, who had been skittish about coming to Copenhagen at all unless it could be cast as a foreign policy success, looked visibly frustrated as he appeared before world leaders.

He offered no further commitments on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries beyond Hillary Clinton’s announcement yesterday that America would support a $100bn global fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change.

He did not even press the Senate to move ahead on climate change legislation, which environmental organisations have been urging for months.

Nope. Of course he didn’t. He’s too busy pushing this “Health Care” policy that the majority of Americans do not want, apparently to feed his own ego. He sure isn’t going to push them on something for which he cannot claim sole credit. C’mon already!

As for what Obama said in Copenhagen:

The president’s speech followed the publication of draft text, obtained by the Guardian this morning, that reveals the enormous progress needed from world leaders in the final hours of the Copenhagen climate change summit to achieve a strong deal. The draft says countries “ought” to limit global warming to 2C, but crucially does not bind them to do so. The text, drafted by a select group of 28 leaders – including UK prime minister, Gordon Brown – in the early hours of this morning, also proposes extending negotiations for another year until the next scheduled UN meeting on climate change in Mexico City in December 2010.

In his address, Obama did say America would follow through on his administration’s clean energy agenda, and that it would live up to its pledges to the international community.

“We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say,” Obama said.

But in the absence of any evidence of that commitment the words rang hollow and there was a palpable sense of disappointment in the audience.

Instead, he warned African states and low island nations who have been resisting what they see as a weak agreement that the later alternative — no agreement — was far worse.

“We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation,” he said.

“Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.”

Well, I guess he chose delay, because there is nothing concrete about the “deal” that came out of all of this. But Obama wasn’t done:

He also took a dig at China, drawing attention to its status as the world’s biggest emitter and reinforcing America’s hardline on the issue of accountability for greenhouse gas emissions.

The lacklustre speech proved a huge frustration to a summit that had been looking to Obama to use his stature on the world stage – and his special following among African leaders – to try to come to an ambitious deal.

The president was drawn into the chaos within minutes of his arrival at Copenhagen, ditching his schedule to take part in a meeting of major industrialised and rapidly emerging economies.

Responding to Obama’s speech, a British official said: “Gordon Brown is committed to doing all he can and will stay until the very last minute to secure a deal… but others also need to show the same level of commitment. The prospects of a deal are not great.”

I believe he was talking to Obama, don’t you? I love Obama lecturing China, too. That is rich. He might want to be a tad careful before they call in all of their chits. We’d be bumming if that happened.

People abroad are opening their eyes on this “Citizen of the World”:

Many reactions were strongly critical of Obama. Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

Tim Jones, a spokesman for the World Development Movement, said: “The president said he came to act, but showed little evidence of doing so. He showed no awareness of the inequality and injustice of climate change. If America has really made its choice, it is a choice that condemns hundreds of millions of people to climate change disaster.”

Friends of the Earth said in a statement, “Obama has deeply disappointed not only those listening to his speech at the UN talks, he has disappointed the whole world.”

The World Wildlife Fund said Obama had let down the international community by failing to commit to pushing for action in Congress: “The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the president to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority.”

The extent of crisis in the talks has taken leaders by surprise. The Brazilian leader, Lula da Silva, told the conference that the all-night negotiating sessions took him back to his days as a trade union leader negotiating with his bosses.

There’s that Chavez again exposing Obama’s lack of real action. Not to mention an organization we have supported for many, many years now, the World Wildlife Fund. I think the “Friends of the Earth” sum it up nicely: “…he has disappointed the whole world.” Surely now the “whole world” realizes he hoodwinked them, too, with his “lofty” (empty) rhetoric. All talk, no action, just like we have been saying.

Ah, well – I guess they have learned their lesson, too, like some in the States are now. Maybe next time, they, along with those in this country, won’t be taken in by a charlatan. That doesn’t help for the moment, but maybe we will all be wiser next time around (that’s a collective “we,” not us specifically, as I posted recently). Our country depends upon it. And the world just might, too.

As to the actual decision to have the 2016 games in Rio de Janeiro,I say Good for them. Brazil has worked very hard as a nation to achieve energy independence, no small feat, among other advances. And the Olympics have never been held in South American before, so this is historic.

What else was historic was for a US President to go lobby to get the Olympics. And that turned out to be a big waste of his time and our money. We were paying not just for the President to take Air Force One, but his wife to take Air Force Two, with Oprah in tow, all on a failed mission. Perhaps they though the new Olympic Rings were going to look like this if they did:

Ahem. Hey, you know you wouldn’t have been surprised by that, and neither would I.

Let’s just look at the cost of this little misadventure. You may not be aware that when the President travels, it isn’t JUST Air Force One that goes places. Nope. It also involves C-17s carrying limos, equipment, staff, all of that. It is a VERY expensive enterprise:

President Barack Obama’s failed bid to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago cost more than a bruised ego.

Taxpayers shelled out probably $1 million or more for the president, his wife and others to fly to Copenhagen and back to woo members of the International Olympic Committee.

A 2006 congressional study pegged the cost of flying Air Force One at $56,518 an hour. The Pentagon recently said it cost $100,219 an hour to fly the huge, reconfigured Boeing 747 without Obama aboard. The Pentagon estimate included more costs for support needs, such as maintenance.

At those rates, the president’s 14-hour trip to Copenhagen and back cost about $790,000 to $1.4 million.

However, presidential travel requires additional spending, especially for security personnel and equipment. Also, first lady Michelle Obama and some administration officials traveled to Copenhagen at public expense ahead of the president.

Uh, yeah. In other words, a gazillion dollars.

Second while there, Obama managed to fit in a BRIEF meeting with General McChrystal, he who has been charged with oversight of Afghanistan:

The Copenhagen trip was not devoted entirely to the Olympics bid. Obama spent 25 minutes conferring with Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his top Afghan war commander. McChrystal had been in London for a speech, and he made the relatively short trip to Denmark to meet with Obama.

WOW – 25 whole minutes?!?! Holy schmoley, where DID he find the time?!?! Freakin’ spare me. He still hasn’t made up his mind what the hell he is going to do in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, our soldiers continue to die there, 5 of them today, while Obama hems and haws on what to do.

Way to get your priorities in order, President Obama.

And finally, a point made by Larry Johnson in his post, “Barack Obama, Surrender Monkey?” That is this: you do NOT send someone like the president into a situation expending his credibility capital when you do not know for certain what the outcome will be. It is, in Larry’s words, “clueless and feckless.” Amen, brother. You got that right. But clueless they are.

As an aside, I might add so is Michelle. This is in the “You Gotta Be Frikkin Kidding Me” camp. Michelle, in her plea to the IOC, spoke of her youth, watching the Olympics with her dad, sitting on his lap as they watched all of these great athletes win their gold medals. Okay, nothing wrong with that. Until she included Carl Lewis. Just think about that for a moment. That would have made her 20, hardly a little girl. Perhaps the IOC is better at math than she gave them credit for being. Just a thought.

And now, in recognition of Rio de Janeiro winning the 2016 Olympics, I leave you with this:

And don’t blame me when it gets stuck in your head for days!

Naturally, it’s about Secretary Hillary Clinton. For once, there was a GOOD article, calling out some of the sexism with which she has had to deal, while highlighting the incredible work she has been doing on behalf of the State4 Department, and our country. David Rothkopf had this article, “It’s 3:00 a.m. Do you Know Where Hillary Clinton Is?” I admit, when I first saw the title, I thought he was being snarky, and it was going to be yet another hatchet job on this amazing woman, this bright star. Imagine my delight when I read it, and discovered, far from snark, this was a serious article, about a serious role, and a serious person. All I can say is, it’s about damn time:

When it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we’re missing the forest for the pantsuits.

Clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation’s top diplomat — that honor goes to her most distant predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossiped-about men in America — but she may be the biggest. And during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation’s foreign policy.

Even venerable publications — such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy — have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton’s handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton’s weight and hair, while her “defense” of Hillary in her essay “Obama’s Other Wife” was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband’s views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton’s first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

May I just pause here to say, THANK YOU for calling these “news” sources out for these sexist depictions/attacks on Clinton. Thank you.

As to the work of Secretary Clinton, the article continues:

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades — a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the “team of rivals” cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America’s leaders awake all night.

In these early days of the new administration, it has been easy to focus on what Clinton has not achieved or on ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. Indeed, some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult personnel approvals or disputes with the White House about who should get what jobs. But this is the way of all administrations. More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy — more assertively than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton before him. Obama’s centrality amplifies the importance of his closest White House staffers, while his penchant for appointing special envoys such as Richard Holbrooke (on Afghanistan and Pakistan) and George Mitchell (on the Middle East) has been interpreted by some as limiting Clinton’s role.

Given the challenges involved, it was perhaps natural that the White House would have a bigger day-to-day hand in some of the nation’s most urgent foreign policy issues. But with Obama, national security adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates absorbed by Iraq, Afghanistan and other inherited problems of the recent past, Clinton’s State Department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future — in particular, how America will lead the world in the century ahead. This approach is both necessary and canny: It recognizes that U.S. policy must change to fulfill Obama’s vision and that many high-profile issues such as those of the Middle East have often swamped the careers and aspirations of secretaries of state past.

Which nations will be our key partners? What do you do when many vital partners — China, for example, and Russia — are rivals as well? How must America’s alliances change as NATO is stretched to the limit? How do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threats? How do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfranchised peoples?

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration’s worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include “partnership” and “engagement” and “common interests.” Clearly, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation” has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those “others” are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. “We will put,” Clinton said, “special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa — to be full partners in tackling the global agenda.” This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world’s sole superpower.

Obama and Clinton have both made engaging with emerging powers a priority. Obama visited Russia earlier this year and will host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first state dinner in November. Clinton has made trips to China and India, and she would have been with Obama in Russia had she not injured her elbow. Both have visited Africa and the Middle East, reaching out to women and the Islamic world.

To anyone who has been following Clinton throughout her career, the manner in which she has been pursuing her position should come as no surprise. You may recall a book she wrote some time ago, It Takes A Village, in which these kinds of concepts have been discussed. She works in a collegial manner, holding the bigger picture firmly in hand as she goes about her work. It isn’t about her. It is about the world, the country, and the citizens here and abroad. It is about pulling women and children up out of poverty, having people be educated, allowing people to live their lives, and not just fight to survive. That’s her deal, and it has been for a long, long time. And it is that commitment that leads to this:

On many critical agenda items — from a rollback of nuclear weapons to the climate or trade talks — such emerging powers will be essential to achieving U.S. goals. As a result, we’ve seen a new American willingness to play down old differences, whether with Russia on a missile shield or, as Clinton showed on her China trip, with Beijing on human rights.

At the center of Clinton’s brain trust is Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Now head of policy planning at the State Department, Slaughter elaborated on the ideas in Clinton’s speech. “We envision getting not just a new group of states around a table, but also building networks, coalitions and partnerships of states and nonstate actors to tackle specific problems,” she told me.

“To do that,” Slaughter continued, “our diplomats are going to need to have skills that are closer to community organizing than traditional reporting and analysis. New connecting technologies will be vital tools in this kind of diplomacy.”

A new team has been brought in to make these changes real. Clinton recruited Alec Ross, one of the leaders of Obama’s technology policy team, to the seventh floor of the State Department as her senior adviser for innovation. His mission is to harness new information tools to advance U.S. interests — a task made easier as the Internet and mobile networks have played starring roles in recent incidents, from Iran to the Uighur uprising in western China to Moldova. Whether through a telecommunications program in Congo to protect women from violence or text messaging to raise money for Pakistani refugees in the Swat Valley, technology has been deployed to reach new audiences.

Of course, you need more than new ideas to revitalize the State Department; you need resources, too. The secretary has brought in former Bill Clinton-era budget chief Jack Lew to help her claw back money for statecraft that many in Foggy Bottom feel has been sucked off toward the Pentagon. She has also created special positions to back new priorities, such as Melanne Verveer as ambassador at large for women’s issues, Elizabeth Bagley to handle public-private outreach worldwide and Todd Stern as the chief negotiator on climate.

Even just a few months in, it’s clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon’s strategic assessments and designed to review State’s priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women’s issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that “the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity.”

Unlike other politicians, I don’t think Clinton appoints people to be “window dressing,” but to get the job done. That is further evidenced with the following appointment:

Clinton has also signaled the importance of private-sector experience by naming former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman Robert Hormats, a respected veteran of four administrations, to handle economic issues at the State Department, as well as Judith McHale, former chief executive of Discovery Communications, to run public diplomacy. In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India’s private sector on energy cooperation — showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community. As with any new administration, there have been inevitable problems. The old campaign teams — Clinton’s and Obama’s — still eye each other warily, but this feeling is gradually fading. And by most accounts, the administration’s national security team has come together successfully, with Clinton developing strong relationships with national security adviser Jones and Defense Secretary Gates. Her policy deputy, Jim Steinberg, has renewed an old collaboration with deputy national security adviser Tom Donilon; the two of them, working with Obama campaign foreign policy advisers Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, have formed what one State Department seventh-floor dweller called “a powerful quartet at the heart of real interagency policymaking.” Henry Kissinger may have overstated matters when he said this is the best White House-State relationship in recent memory, but it’s not bad, while the State-Pentagon relationship is in its best shape in decades.

Huh. Well, I’ll be. Who could have seen THAT coming? Oh, I know – the 18 million people who voted for her!

But Clinton is not looking back to what was. Rather, she is looking ahead to see how best she can fulfill her work, As such, again, she looks at the big picture, and how best to accomplish what needs doing, including:

At the heart of things, though, is the relationship between Clinton and Obama. For all the administration’s talk of international partnerships, that may be the most critical partnership of all.

So far, according to multiple high-level officials at State and the White House, the two seem aligned in their views. In addition, they are gradually defining complementary roles. Obama has assumed the role of principal spokesperson on foreign policy, as international audiences welcome his new and improved American brand. Clinton thus far has echoed his points but has also delivered tougher ones. Whether on a missile shield against Iran or North Korean saber-rattling, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or rape and corruption in Congo, the secretary of state has spoken bluntly on the world stage — even if it triggered snide comments from North Korea.

It is still early, and a president’s foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory “smart power” already does to me.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that, seven months into the job, Obama’s unlikely secretary of state is supporting and augmenting his agenda effectively. Not as Obama’s “other wife,” not as Bill Clinton’s wife, not even as a celebrity or as a former presidential candidate — but in a new role of her own making. (drothkopf@carnegieendowment.org

David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” and “Running the World: The Inside Story of the NSC and the Architects of American Power.” He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.)

Indeed – she is embracing a “role of her own making.” It is hard not to consider what could have been had she been President instead of Secretary of State. Don’t get me wrong – as I have said a number of times, I am glad that Clinton is in such a crucial role for our country. Clearly, we need her. But the same intelligence; the ability, and vision, to hold the big picture in her grasp while determining the best course to achieve those goals, while finding the people who can affect those goals; the nation-building, yes, the community-building; are all the ingredients necessary for a good presidency. And I am pretty sure that a President Hillary Clinton would not have made any “wee-wee” remarks about the press corp, either. It’s a matter of decorum, the ability to hold things, events, people, in tension. It’s a matter of vision, and the ability to effect change in a real, meaningful way. That’s our Hillary. Thank heavens she is finally starting to get the recognition she so richly deserves.

No one knew where he was. No one. Not his wife. Not his security detail. Not the lieutenant governor, no one. To say it’s raised more than a few eyebrows in these here parts is just a bit of an understatement.

To give you a bit of a backstory, Governor Sanford has had a few defeats here recently. There was the whole not wanting any federal stimulus money – the Legislature said, “yes we do.” And he had a big string of defeats when the Legislature overturned every single one of his vetos, ten in number. So, according to the story in the Post and Courier (linked above):

He told his staff he might go hiking.

“But I said ‘no’ I wanted to do something exotic … It’s a great city,” he said during an interview at the Hartsville-Jackson International Airport.

Sanford said he was alone on the trip and declined to give any additional details other than to say he drove along the coastline.

He told the reporter he didn’t know why his staff told reporters he was on the Appalachian Trail.

Uh, yeah- because Buenos Aires is hardly the Appalachian Trail…

All manner of folks are weighing in on this, including our former (Dem) governor, Jim Hodges. Republicans and Democrats alike think it was irresponsible for him to call off his security detail, and provide NO means of communicating with him, especially as Gov Hodges said:

“You never know when a crisis is going to strike the state or the country; you can’t afford to be out of touch when that happens.”

He makes a good point, especially given Gov. Sanford had, as I said, no security detail at all. Even Republicans are upset with him, with one of our representatives, the House Speaker, Bobby Harrell, weighing in:

“If a governor is going to go off by himself where he cannot be reached and without his security, then he should have to transfer that authority during that period of time,” Harrell said. “But the real answer is a governor shouldn’t do those things.”

Yeah, probably not. But here’s the thing: apparently, Governor Sanford did not violate the State Constitution. According to the article:

Nothing in the state constitution requires the governor to announce his travel plans, or even to declare when he is out of state.

In fact, beyond the line of succession, the constitution is vague on many of the movements surrounding the governor, though it does allow for the lieutenant governor to take over in the governor’s absence during an emergency.

Article 4, Section 11 covers only the “removal of the Governor from office by impeachment, death, resignation, disqualification, disability, or removal from the State, (that) the Lieutenant Governor shall be Governor.”

It reads that “In the case of the temporary disability of the Governor and in the event of the temporary absence of the Governor from the State, the Lieutenant Governor shall have full authority to act in an emergency.”

Temporary absence and temporary disability are not defined further.

An attorney general’s opinion from the 1970s concluded that the lieutenant governor possesses authority to extradite prisoners in the governor’s absence. The lieutenant governor can determine when an emergency exists, it said.

Was it smart? No. Irresponsible? Yes. Mind-boggling? You betcha. But it wasn’t illegal. It just doesn’t make much sense. And what it did was make a governor who has been seen as a fair governor look like a nutjob. And don’t think the Post and Courier didn’t point that out. From here on out, Governor Sanford is going to be linked with the following governors: A LOOK AT ODD BEHAVIOR BY U.S. GOVERNORS

South Carolina’s chief executive isn’t the first to earn headlines for acting odd.

A look at governors’ unusual behavior:

EARL LONG; GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, 1939-1940, 1948-1952, 1956-1960: Long had an affair with a stripper, Blaze Starr. In 1959, Earl got into arguments with legislators at the State House and his wife at the mansion. He was committed to the State Hospital for the Insane but released after using his authority as governor. He removed the hospital director and replaced him with a doctor who was his ally.

JIMMIE DAVIS; LOUISIANA GOVERNOR, 1944-1948 and 1960-1964: Well known as the “Singing Governor,” Davis gained international fame with his version of the song “You Are My Sunshine.” Even while serving as governor, he kept his hand in show business and set a record for absenteeism during his first term with trips to Hollywood to make Western “horse operas.”

LESTER MADDOX; GEORGIA GOVERNOR, 1967-1971: Maddox was known for quaint sayings, such as calling constituents “little people,” and outrageous gestures such as riding a bicycle backward.

JESSE VENTURA; MINNESOTA GOVERNOR, 1999-2003: Ventura traded his pinstriped suits for referee stripes when he took part in a WWE “SummerSlam” event in Minneapolis. Later in his term, he moonlighted as a football commentator for the failed XFL. He also tried to make Capitol reporters wear press credentials dubbing them “Jackals.”

ROD BLAGOJEVICH; ILLINOIS GOVERNOR, 2003-2009: After his ouster from office, Blagojevich joined the Second City comedy troupe for a performance of its show “Rod Blagojevich Superstar.” He also planned to appear on NBC’s “I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here!” until a judge ruled that he couldn’t leave the country while awaiting trial on federal corruption charges.

ELIOT SPITZER; NEW YORK GOVERNOR, 2007-2008: Elected on an anti-corruption platform, Spitzer resigned after becoming embroiled in an investigation into a high-end prostitution ring. Referred to in court papers as “Client-9,” Spitzer spent tens of thousands of dollars to arrange visits with prostitutes, law enforcement officials said. Prosecutors ultimately declined to file criminal charges.

Oh, joy. Like this state doesn’t have enough to deal with in terms of education (the state sucks at it), hurricanes (we get a lot of them), tons of mercury in the water (maybe that’s the problem, and not the education – people eating mercury tainted fish), and now a Runaway Governor to go along with those (and many other) problems. Sigh.

Well, at least we have the Tall Ships arriving in Charleston from around the world to take our minds off of Governor Waldo. Though, I gotta tell you, those Russian sailors aren’t too used to our heat and humidity. To add insult to injury, they had to limp into harbor with a broken foremast. Imagine fixing that mast, when you’re from Russia, in mid-90 degree heat, and probably 150 degree humidity (okay, okay, that’s a slight exaggeration…). But they aren’t facing as much heat as Governor Sanford is, and at least they get that nice breeze off the water…

UPDATE: H/T to American Girl in Italy for the heads up that Governor Sanford has admitted he was having an affair. Yep. For a YEAR. He went off to see his lady friend. Holy smokes – WHEN will these people EVER learn??? Here’s the skinny:

In an emotional news conference, Sanford said his relationship with the woman in Argentina would not work, but would not say if it was over. He did not name the woman, but said he met her eight years ago, although their casual friendship evolved into a romantic relationship about a year ago.

“The bottom line is this: I have been unfaithful to my wife,” the two-term governor said before a mass of press in the State House outside the governor’s office. “Let me apologize to my wife Jenny and my four boys … for letting them down.”

Asked directly if he and first lady Jenny Sanford are separated, Sanford said: “I don’t know how you want to define that. I’m here and she’s there. I guess in a formal sense we are not.”

Sanford acknowledged he misled his staff earlier this week when he lead them to believe he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.

Sanford said he would resign as chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association — a platform he has used over the past few months to broadcast his opposition to President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package and fueling speculation that Sanford was considering a 2012 run for president.

But Sanford did not respond when asked if he would resign as governor.

Sanford fought back tears several times during a 20 minute news conference, especially when he mentioned his marriage counselor and his long time personal and political friend Tom Davis, Sanford’s former chief of staff.

Sanford’s relationship with the woman in Argentina became more sexually charged about a year ago, but Sanford’s wife did not learn of the affair until about five month sago. The Sanfords have since been in counseling.

In his apology, Sanford acknowledged not only all South Carolinians, but people of faith, people in his own party as well as his family.

He denied he had ever had other extramarital affairs.

“I’ve spent the last five days of my life crying in Argentina,” Sanford said. “I am committed to trying to get my heart right.”

Good grief. It raises a whole bunch of questions, of course, like one pointed out by AGII, who made such a big issue of this on the national stage? I might add, maybe he was hoping for the John Edwards’ treatment. You know, the MSM looks the other way for over a year until some gossip rag exposes him…

There were a number of interesting comments at this article, including some along this line:

EIG4 ear ‘ol Mark should have also apologized to the many gay folks around South Carolina for denying them the right to marriage citing the destruction of its “sanctity”…excuse me?! I do believe committing ADULTERY kind of makes you a hypocrite! Looks to me like marriage between a man and a woman is still quite full of sin. Thanks!

Uh, yeah, there’s that.

Anyway – Mystery solved. Governor Waldo was simply having a romantic tryst. No wonder he didn’t tell anyone, ESPECIALLY his wife. Ahem…

Now, this isn’t a new issue – GLB couples having to engage in all kinds of machinations should they fall in love with someone from another country. But this story was mighty surprising given the position one of the men held, Gay Couples Forced To Flee U.S. Over Immigration Law: San Angelo mayor last month resigned his post and moved to Mexico to live legally with his partner. Right? Wowie zowie:

The mayor of this West Texas sheep ranching town offered a stunning explanation when he suddenly resigned last month: He was in love with a man who was an illegal immigrant and had gone to Mexico.

They had to move, he said, because there was no legal way for them to remain together in the United States. Same-sex couples can’t secure green cards for their partners like heterosexual spouses can (emphasis mine).

“It wasn’t a decision that any U.S. citizen should have to make,” former Mayor J.W. Lown said from Mexico. “I left a home. I left a ranch. I left a promising political career.”

His local prominence and his departure on the day he was supposed to be sworn in for a fourth term caused jaws to drop, but it also became a high-profile example of the thousands of Americans who face a similar choice — separate or move abroad .

About 36,000 Americans are in this situation, said U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., citing information from the advocacy group Immigration Equality.

He is absolutely right – it ISN’T a decision any U.S. citizen should have to make.

Now is when I interject that my sister married some guy from the other side of the world whom she met in a Star Trek chat-room. I am not kidding you (and yes, we were all so proud). Oh, he is now an American citizen – BECAUSE HE CAN BE.

And like everything else dealing with the GLBT community, it is not smooth sailing ahead:

Bills have been introduced in Congress to treat same-sex partners like heterosexual spouses for the purposes of immigration, but they are likely to face a strong fight, both from opponents of gay marriage and anti-immigration groups. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prevents immigration officials from recognizing same-sex marriages, even from states where they are now legal.

Proponents see the issue as a basic rights question, and Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Immigration Equality, said he thinks the best chance for the legislation is as part of a larger immigration bill.

But other immigration advocates want to keep the issues separate, fearful of bogging down an already tough fight. Kevin Appleby, migration policy director for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the push for same-sex partners in immigration is about getting recognition in federal law for gay marriage — which he opposes.

“It’s an unholy marriage of the immigration debate and the same-sex marriage debate,” he said. “It’s very combustible.”

Oh, well, when you put it like that, by all means, let’s just back burner the whole thing and continue to make the GLBT community pay a higher price than anyone else in this country to BE citizens of this country.

As for the mayor, well, evidently, his decision was a bit of a surprise:

Lown’s decision last month brought the issue to an unlikely place, a town of 90,000 where ranchers and roughnecks from the vast open lands come to do their banking and send their kids to the regional state college. The town’s only other recent brush with national fame came last year when it housed the hundreds of children taken from a polygamist sect’s ranch in nearby Eldorado.

Before his May 19 resignation, Lown was considered a political rising star. The 32-year-old Republican, first elected at age 26, won his fourth term with about 89 percent of the vote.

During his tenure, Lown transformed the $600-a-year, part-time job from a mostly ceremonial position to a hands-on office. He actively appeared at thousands of community functions and went to Washington to lobby for the West Texas town — spending his own money after a few residents complained about taxpayers footing the bill.

“That’s devotion and dedication,” Councilwoman Charlotte Farmer said. “He would have gone far in the political arena in the state of Texas and perhaps farther.”

Lown’s sexuality never really became an issue. Some people didn’t know he was gay. Lown’s godfather, Mario Castillo, said most who knew didn’t care.

“San Angelo has a live-and-let-live attitude. As long as you don’t go around waving your boxer shorts in Sunday school, people leave it alone,” said Castillo, a longtime resident who is now a Washington lobbyist.

ROTFLMAO – okay, that was funny. But, what is not funny is the attitude there in the town. It is downright REFRESHING. And AMERICAN.

Back to the mayor:

But Lown, who worked as a real estate agent, said his prominence meant his 2-month-old relationship would be scrutinized and his 20-year-old partner might be subject to deportation.

“My heart was torn, and I had to make a decision,” he said shortly after his resignation.

Lown has declined to identify his partner but said the man came across the Rio Grande as a teenager and attended high school and college in San Angelo. They went to Mexico — Lown won’t say exactly where — so that his partner can apply for legal residency in the United States, generally a lengthy process for Mexicans without a spouse, child or parent who is a U.S. citizen.

“I did not want to consciously violate the law,” Lown said. “We want to make a life together and do it in the right way and follow the law.”

Lown, whose mother was Mexican, holds dual citizenship that allows him to live legally in Mexico, he said.

And on that level, he is lucky that he CAN live in the country of citizenship for his partner. “Lucky,” in that regard, but a difficult word to use given what he has had to give up because of whom he loves:

San Angelo, meanwhile, will be without a mayor until the City Council decides whether to appoint someone or schedule a special election.

Lown said he hopes to eventually return here with his partner.

“I don’t know how long this is going to take. It could take months. It could take years, but I’m prepared to wait as long as it takes,” he said. “I hope I’ll have some shred of my good name left when this is resolved.”

I don’t know how long this will go on, either. It has gone on far too long as it is, but so has the fight for us to have equal rights AT ALL. And now we have a president who has reneged on every promise he made to the BLT community (and you already know how I feel about that – I expected nothing less from him than this big huge dagger sticking out of my back, but frankly, I am sick of so many of us reaping what others have sown. I’m just sayin’.).

So now Mr. Lown has had to up and move, give up his position (and potential positions) to live with the man he loves. This is happening all over the country, make no mistake. And will continue to happen until we are seen as full fledged citizens of this country. Once again, though, I am NOT holding my breath for that to change under Obama. Maybe when we get a President Clinton…Until then, GLB U.S. citizens will continue having to give up their homes, their professions, and their COUNTRY because of whom they love. And that is just wrong.

We have been exposed to an education lately on International Law and the Rule of Law. Everyone has been following the torture memos and some of us have a quaint understanding of how the U.S. signing the treaty at the Geneva Convention forcibly influenced laws that we were required, by the treaty, to add to our books. That treaty suits us and most of us don’t argue with the fact that we signed and ratified it.

But what if the U.S. was considering signing an international treaty that – in essence – violated our Bill of Rights? Remember. We DO have rights that some countries do not afford their subjects.

Back up. Did you know that the U.S. does not have to pass any laws to inhibit your 2nd amendment rights? If the UN sanctions an international treaty then any country signing and ratifying the treaty is under international law, bypassing our traditional balance-of-power safeguards. An international treaty signed by the president only needs to be ratified by the Senate. The House does not get to vote on it and U.S. courts cannot alter international law. It becomes law.

In 1997 Bill Clinton signed CIFTA but the Senate has refused to ratify it. This law would make it illegal for you to reload your own ammunition, register to carry your gun to go out hunting, possibly make gun clubs illegal and grant the other treaty countries the right to have you extradited to their country for prosecution on charges such as selling a gun at a gun show and that gun ending up in their very democratic (NOT) country. Article V Jurisdiction. They would know if you did anything wrong because the treaty calls for each country to openly share everything they know about you and your gun ownership and transfers with all those friendly South American countries. Article XIII Exchange of Information.

There are more anti-gun provisions in this treaty than all the gun control laws we have seen come before congress this year combined. I don’t know about you but I do not relish the thought of Hugo Chavez getting upset with one of my comments and demanding that I be delivered unto him – on some trumped up gun charge – for a heaping helping of some Venezuelan justice that could make even Dick Cheney cringe.

In Article IV, parties commit to adopting “necessary legislative or other measures” to criminalize illicit manufacturing and trafficking in firearms. Remember that “illicit manufacturing” includes reloading and modifying or assembling any firearm in any way. And, while treaties should not trump the Bill of Rights (in contrast to what the Supreme Court held in Missouri v. Holland), they do have the force of statute — which would mean that the Obama administration could promulgate regulations on the basis of this treaty which would ban any modification or machining of any firearm in any manner whatsoever except by license of the government.

Article IV goes on to state that the criminalized acts should include “association or conspiracy” in connection with “said offenses” — which is arguably a term broad enough to allow, by regulation, the criminalization of entire pro-gun organizations or gun clubs, based on the facilities which they provide their membership.

Knowing that bills such as HB 45 (Bobby Rush – IL) that could put you in jail for keeping a gun anywhere your 17 year old son could reach, such as in his hand while he is squirrel hunting, will likely fail, President Obama went to Mexico and pledged to his “american idol” fan base there that he would urge the U.S. Senate to ratify this treaty, giving the United Nations the right to dictate the terms under which you may own a gun – or not.

Dianne Feinstein and Richard Durbin have been leading an effort to get this treaty ratified since February 26, 2009 and will lead the charge, along with John Kerry to push this through the Senate. There are four binding acts the U.S. Senate can execute without judicial oversight or input from the House of Representatives. Confirm Judges; Confirm Cabinet Appointments; Confirm Ambassadors and Ratify Treaties.

The administration softened up the electorate by publishing the Right Wing Extremist report and there may just be enough “lie down and surrender our rights to keep the radical conservative kooks and Ron Paul supporters away from a loaded gun” support to allow the Senate to ratify this treaty without public protest.

We must not let this happen. It is going to take action by people other than the NRA to stop this. Anyone who believes that the “rule of law” in this country should be written in this country under our system of creating law should act. That means contacting your U.S. Senators, sharing this article and urging all of your friends to take action as well.

Here are some links to give you a background on this. Share this information freely while you still have the freedom to do so.

Two minute CNN video briefly explaining it.

Gun Owners of America’s position against the treaty.

Feinstein’s Letter promoting the treaty.

The Treaty.

To ascertain with certainty that we will be joining a fine club, here is the guest list showing those who have RSVP’d.