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 :Dear ‘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.

In a follow up to Susan’s earlier post, I wanted to point out an error in Obama’s response to the 50 minute diatribe launched by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, where he criticized the US for what he called 100 years of terroristic aggression in Central America and denounced the US-backed attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro’s Communist government in Cuba in 1961.

“To move forward, we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements. I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old. Too often, an opportunity to build a fresh partnership of the Americas has been undermined by stale debates. We’ve all heard these arguments before.”

But Obama, according to his online Certificate of Live Birth, was not actually born yet. The invasion at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba occurred in April 1961. Obama was born August 4, 1961.

Maybe the Bay of Pigs *got him born*, like the march on Selma Alabama?

But, let’s not worry about the specifics. Let’s just continue with the “Obama is brilliant. The most brilliant President, ever.” meme.

Tapper covered Obama’s trip this morning on GMA, and includes some footage of Hillary from the primary discussing the risk of the power and prestige of the US being put at risk by inexperience.

“Oh I see, it’s going to be one of those.” As in, I am going to try and be BFF’s with Chavez, and he is going to publically humiliate me? It that what Diane means by “one of those’? And too bad, although Obama is so brilliant, that Spanish isn’t one of the many foreign languages he speaks. What? He doesn’t speak any foreign languages? But..he is so brilliant!?!

And if you have any doubts about promises made by Obama on the campaign trail, and whether he considers them actual promises or just campaign rhetoric, just have a look at a recent answer he gave Tapper about Cuba:

TAPPER: Thank you, Mr. President. You have heard from a lot of Latin American leaders here who want the U.S. to lift the embargo against Cuba. You’ve said that you think it’s important leverage to not lift it. But in 2004, you did support lifting the embargo. You said, “It’s failed to provide the source of raising standards of living and squeeze the innocent” and “it’s time for us to acknowledge that this policy has failed.” I’m wondering, what made you change your mind about the embargo?

OBAMA: 2004 that seems just eons ago. What was I doing in 2004?

TAPPER: Running for Senate, sir.

OBAMA: I was running for Senate, there you go.

There ya go, as in, “I was campaigning…it was just a bunch of stuff I said to get elected.” And that was just a mere three years before he began his run for President. You can read the rest of the answer here.

Personally I think the *there you go* says it all. What a brilliant answer.

France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, whose unhappiness was recorded by American Girl in Italy on April 6th, objected to Obama’s rude commentary on how Europe should treat its Muslims. On Friday, newspapers reported that Sarkozy finds Obama “inexperienced,” and also said this:

Mr Sarkozy voiced concerns that Obama was “not up to standard” in terms of his decision-making or his efficiency. Mr Sarkozy did praise Obama as being “very intelligent and very charismatic” but said there were certain areas in which Obama “did not have a position.”

Now we have Hugo Chavez brazenly strutting up to Obama and handing him a book — clearly a symbolic gesture indicating that Hugo doesn’t think that Barack is very informed.

The title of the book that Hugo gave Barack is Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent.

Some smartie on MSNBC suggested that Barack give him one of his own books. Uh. How does a book about Obama’s ME ME ME begin to compare to a scholarly treatise on five centuries of European domination of Latin America?

Here’s the raw press pool report via Time’s Mark Halperin (who knew that pool reports were really this raw):

“I have a lot to learn and I’m very much looking forward to listening,” POTUS says. ^* [SEE FOOTNOTE.]

He is seated at the head of a U-shaped table, with the leader of Chile to his right. Chavez was all the way to his left, at the far end of the U. Your pooler asked if he had gotten any reaction from the other leaders to his speech. “We’ll find out right now.”

There was a terrible din outside from pushy camera crews trying to get in. POTUS acknowledged the ruckus –u will get a transcript. When the pool entered the room Chavez was busy talking to other leaders. Then Obama spoke, and as the pool was being ushered out Chavez walked over to him. Obama stood up and Chavez handed him the book The book is :

Las Venas Abiertas de America Latina
By eduardo Galeano

(The Open Veins of Latin America). A helpful Chilean delegate who did not want to be named described it as an academic book that is the basis for the 60s-era “dependency theory” that latin america depends on the north.

The North Koreans are so not worried about Obama that they’ve merrily done away with every bit of progress that the Bush administration accomplished (admittedly not nearly enough), and are gleefully shooting rockets into the air with the knowledge they have NOTHING to fear for doing so. Kim is beside himself with gaiety:

(Learn more about Kim Jong Il and his “wocket” at TheNoseOnYourFace.com. H/T Potfry.)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

^*FOOTNOTE:
RE: “‘I have a lot to learn and I’m very much looking forward to listening’, POTUS says.”

Dear President Obama:

You know, it is not necessary to point out your ignorance. We who’ve had the sad task of closely following your every move area intimately familiar with your lack of knowledge and qualifications. Unfortunately, all the world’s leaders are similarly informed.

Furthermore, it’s flat-out embarrassing to us U.S. citizens who take pride in leaders who know what they’re doing and have also read and studied global foreign policy for years. Like Hillary Clinton, for example.

Modesty has its virtues. But we remain the world’s only superpower, and in that there is in superpower status an intrinsic, essential power that we must protect for the good that it can do, for the destruction it can prevent, and for the threats that it can authoritatively issue or carry out.

Keep your ignorance to yourself, please. It’s bad enough that they all know you’re clueless. You needn’t draw attention to your deficits.

We must also remain somewhat fearsome because then, and only then, will despots listen to us. You are “greenlighting” the world’s dictators that they can continue their despotic, cruel ways with impunity!

Here’s an example. Can you please SKIP the warm gesture of a hand on Chavez’s arm and that silly grin?

And here’s Jake Tapper, one of the few reporters who doesn’t feel compelled to suck it up all the time, who describes how you reacted when Chavez walked over and handed you the book:

At President Obama’s meeting with the heads of South American countries this morning, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez stood, walked over to him, and presented him with a copy of "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" by Uruguayan author Eduardo Galeano.

Obama politely posed for a photograph with Chavez, shook his hand, and accepted the gift.

WHY???

Fellow NoQuarter Regulars: HOW WOULD YOU HAVE REACTED if Chavez had handed you a book? That book?

For starters, I doubt you’d have shaken his hand and posed for a photograph. Had I been Obama, I might have stood up, to show the advantage of my height, taken the book but not extended my hand. I wouldn’t have smiled either since it was obviously another typical Chavez stunt — which anyone with a clue would instantly recognize. One would avoid being duped into willing participation.

Jake Tapper also reports:

The copy of the book Chavez gave Obama appears to be in Spanish, a language Obama does not speak.

At the start of the first plenary session at the Summit of the Americas later this morning, President Obama was asked what he thought of Chavez’s gift.

“You know, I thought it was one of Chavez’s books," Obama answered. "I was going to give him one of mine.”

Hello? If the book is in Spanish, it’s clearly intended as an insult.

CALLING LARRY JOHNSON (who knows so much about how to behave in diplomatic settings that he teaches the subject): Larry, can you instruct this doofus in how to behave with dignity and how to avoid such trickery?

LARRY: Can you also show him how to make himself look a bit more like a powerful leader, rather than a subservient, please-be-my-friend, babe-in-the-woods chump?

The post-superpower meme might be fashionable in the salons of Fareed Zakaria and Charlie Rose but it’s downright embarrassing to most American citizens that our president behaves like a subservient, unskilled, gawkish capitulator.

All the conjecture and today’s meeting reminded me of Truthteller’s excellent piece on March 22, “Chávez Calls Obama an ‘Ignoramus’,” which we’re reprinting for your amusement:

No Quarter is a loose but raucous chorus of discordant voices. Some of us are centrists, others are hawkish Democrats, some view themselves as reformers, a few are resolutely independent and others are unabashed Leftists. Consider me one of the latter. In this essay I will not criticize Chávez, and I will not repeat all the threadbare rhetorical bludgeons such as socialist, communist, totalitarian or dictatorial many use to dismiss Chávez and his democratically elected government. If that is what you are seeking, I recommend you take your dossier and go somewhere else.

But at least consider this before you rush for the exit: the candidate who claimed “negotiations without preconditions” would yield amicable and cooperative relations with Iran, Cuba and Venezuela has literally had his Ferragamo shoe shoved squarely in his programmed mouth by Hugo Chávez. I quote Reuters:

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his U.S. counterpart Barack Obama was at best an “ignoramus” for saying the socialist leader exported terrorism and obstructed progress in Latin America.

“He goes and accuses me of exporting terrorism: the least I can say is that he’s a poor ignoramus; he should read and study a little to understand reality,” said Chavez, who heads a group of left-wing Latin American leaders opposed to the U.S. influence in the region.

Negotiations with Chávez and the Leftist Latin American coalition are now foreclosed as a result of Obama’s garrulity and glibness. How else would one expect a country to react if one claims its largest export is terrorism? Here is one effect:

Chavez said Obama’s comments had made him change his mind about sending a new ambassador to Washington, after he withdrew the previous envoy in a dispute last year with the Bush administration in which he also expelled the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela.

Obama really is the Democratic incarnation of Bush: so much for change, and so much for meaningful negotiations. Not only are our relations with our neighbors Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Paraguay, El Salvador and Brazil strained; the Mexican government has raised tariffs on our exports, and we are the subject of much ridicule in the British press.

Venezuela, many of you may recall, is an ally of Iran, and Chávez will visit that and other countries in the Middle East in a few days for a summit of leaders from South American and Arab countries. Iran just rebuffed Obama’s recent attempt at negotiations with television and teleprompter, dismissing the staged spectacle as so many “slogans.” Democrats in the US may be duped by Obama’s empty rhetoric, media simulations and other mass ornaments, but true Leftists are always ones to lift the hood and investigate the true operations of the apparatus power utilizes against them. Unlike Andrew Sullivan, they are not mesmerized by brands and “faces;” they need a bit more than just images and surfaces. No wonder why Chávez calls Obama an “ignoramus.” I imagine he thinks that term also applies to all of Obama’s easily duped supporters.

What can one expect now that Obama has alienated Iran, Venezuela and all their allies in the Middle East and South and Central America? Oil prices will rise, trade agreements will become increasingly strained, tariffs on exports will probably increase, the price of imports will increase, and all the populist movements in countries wherein impoverished citizens are demanding something that resembles a suitable standard of living will be hostile instead of receptive to the United States’s particular version of democracy and global unity. With our economy spiraling into bankruptcy this can only engender more problems abroad, especially if our European allies feel we are exacerbating the distrust many countries have for what can broadly be defined as the West. Here is Russia admonishing the US in the wake of Obama’s failed attempt to engage Iran:

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said there was no proof that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon and urged the West to respect and reach out to the Islamic republic.

While I opposed Obama during the primaries for his lack of an ideological compass and his lack of a bold domestic agenda that would expand social services and thereby provide more Americans with equal access to power and resources, I thought his foreign policy, however vaguely defined, however utterly naïve, however hopelessly optimistic, would enable the United States to marshall the energy generated by all the New Social Movements, populist upheavals and new articulations of ethnic identity occurring throughout the world and funnel it toward a global understanding wherein difference and empathy would be celebrated and cultivated. Instead, we have more of the strained relations that were aggravated under Bush. Chávez, who is the face of some Leftist and New Social Movements, views us as antagonists to be shunned, as colonizers to be ousted, as representatives of a late capitalist hegemony that for him and his followers is the latest iteration of enslavement to the West. Obama promised to change this perception with his “negotiations without preconditions,” but instead all he did was reinvigorate it.

That Obama and his staff are reproducing the errors of Bush does not surprise me. Hopefully Hillary will help Obama out of this latest problem he has created for us. After all, it takes a Clinton to clean the mess created by a Bush. And Obama, to be sure, is nothing more than the Democratic Party’s version of George W. Bush. Indeed, he is nothing more than an ignoramus.

Then, there’s how the Canadian handle the pirate problem? (Hint: It’s SMARTER!): The Canadians had the bright idea (!) of having military ships guard and escort their cargo ships delivering food to Africa. That link takes you to this video:

CTV Newsnet: Eric Margolis, foreign affairs expert, on the role of the Canadian ship

A Canadian ship will guard food deliveries in waters off Somalia because of the threat of piracy, which as a foreign affairs expert explains, is big business in the failed state.

Latin America policy uber diva Julia Sweig chaired a news-making gathering at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington yesterday morning. It was excellent, and the CFR has audio of the entire event here.

In response to a question I posed to Sweig’s panel, Obama administration Summit of the Americas point man Jeffrey Davidow fell back on droopy anachronisms while Foreign Policy magazine blogger and best-selling writer and geostrategic interpreter David Rothkopf hit the ball out of the park with his statement:

“US-Cuba policy is the Edsel of American foreign policy.”

The full line-up on Sweig’s panel included Jeffrey Davidow, White House Adviser for the Summit of the Americas and former US Ambassador to Mexico; Luis Alberto Moreno, President of the Inter-American Development Bank; and David J. Rothkopf, President and CEO, Garten Rothkopf and visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The Summit of the Americas, which President Obama is attending, will convene in Trinidad & Tobago from April 17-19.

After Davidow successfully avoided mentioning the word “Cuba” in his primary remarks on the Obama administration’s game plan for the Summit of the Americas, the former US Ambassador to Mexico finally offered in his penultimate exhale an acknowledgement that “Cuba might come up” in the meeting.

And then he finished stating that other “flamboyant personalities may ‘flambay’” — a clear nod to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

When I had a chance to pose a question, I pressed Davidow pretty hard on what he tried to avoid.

The exchange between Ambassador Davidow, David Rothkopf, and myself follows below.

What is interesting and disconcerting is that Barack Obama’s point guy on this upcoming Summit gave the unreconstructed, neoconservative-friendly, ideologically vapid, ‘unchastened by five decades of embargo failure’ answer to my question on Cuba.

Has Obama read the brief that his people are preparing for him on Cuba?

Davidow embraced one of the worst single editorials I have read in years in the Washington Post titled “Coddling Cuba.”

And Rothkopf did his part to say that on US-Cuba policy, the American position has no clothes — and has become completely illegitimate in the eyes of the world and undermines America’s own, parochial national interests.

Here is the exchange in full between Sweig, Davidow, Rothkopf, and myself:

Council on Foreign Relations - Washington, DC
April 9, 2009

Perspectives on the Fifth Summit of the Americas: Cooperation on Development, Energy, and the Environment

Speakers:
Jeffrey Davidow, White House Adviser for the Summit of the Americas
Luis Alberto Moreno, President, Inter-American Development Bank
David J. Rothkopf, President and CEO, Garten Rothkopf

Presider:
Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Partial Transcript of Q&A Exchange

STEVE CLEMONS, Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation and Publisher, The Washington Note

I would like to just start with what David Rothkopf said about the Cuban embargo, “the beginning of the end” and ask Ambassador Davidow if you would agree with David’s perspective on that, or perhaps his assertion.

It’s very odd right now when one looks at Senator Richard Lugar and his statements on Cuba that seem to be running politically left of the President. Brent Scowcroft has said recently that Cuba makes no sense at all as a foreign policy problem. Russia’s lack of patronage of Cuba has shown that we can’t starve Cuba.

So, part of the question is if Barack Obama is the change agent he said, is Cuba more than Cuba? Is it a place where the steps you take there are so symbolic that they can have echo effects geostrategically on other parts of the world?

Or are we leaving this in the same arena where Senator Martinez and others would like to have it which is we are going to create opportunities for a class of ethnic Americans but not look at the broader geostrategic equation?

JULIA SWEIG, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Ambassador Davidow? It’s the “four letter word” - not Peru - that you are asked to address now.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY DAVIDOW, White House Adviser for the Summit of the Americas

I will try to answer that question. . .

JULIA SWEIG, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

And other panelists can chime in . . .

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY DAVIDOW

Yes, why don’t they!

Look it’s obviously a highly contentious issue. From my perspective, a few points to make.

From my perspective, I think it would be unfortunate to lose the opportunity for this hemisphere, at the beginning of the Obama administration, to set down some guidelines and make some progress jointly by getting distracted by the Cuban issue.

Cuba is not an issue for discussion at the Summit if one reads the Summit declaration and the documents on all the past year of negotiation. However, having said that, and given what we are reading in the press, it is probable that it will come up in some way.

The one point that I would respond to in Steve’s question specifically is, “Is Cuba something larger than itself?” and the answer is ‘yes, it is’.

And I think that whatever the reasons have been in the 1960s for initiation of elements of our Cuban policy, the fact is in today’s Hemisphere, Cuba is the odd man out.

Keep in mind that this meeting in Trinidad is a meeting of 34 democratic states.

If we had been talking about a meeting of the hemisphere as little as twenty years ago, it would have been cast in a different light.

There has been a remarkable historical transformation in this hemisphere, and a laudable one, toward democratically elected governments.

We may have difficulty with some of the governments that have been democratically elected, of course, but this Summit is a reunion of countries and presidents, every one of which has been elected by their populations.

There is not one government represented at this Summit whose population would willingly accept the kind of restrictions on their civil, political and human rights that are commonplace in Cuba - and that remain commonplace.

So, I think as we talk about Cuba and talk about how we as a government deal with it and so forth, let’s keep in mind that it is something larger than itself, it is in a way a memory of that which existed in the past and a caution of what may exist in the future unless we are totally committed to the question of democracy, human rights and representation of people.

And lest you think, and I’m sure some of you do, that I am some sort of ideologue on this, take a look at the lead editorial in today’s Washington Post. Maybe you think they are a bunch of ideologues as well, but I think they say it much better than I do.

So, we have been struggling with Cuba as a nation for close to half a century and there is a real focus on what we should be doing, but to answer the question, it is an important place beyond a small island 90 miles off our shore

DAVID J. ROTHKOPF, President and CEO, Garten Rothkopf

If I may make a couple of brief comments on this- and I am unconstrained by affiliation with the United States government right now - so perhaps they will be in a slightly different direction.

The editorial in today’s Washington Post was absurd.

The position of the Florida contingent on this is Paleolithic.

The policy is indefensible on any grounds,

The reality is that Cuba may be special, but you have to ask yourself why it’s therefore easier to travel to or do business with the Stalinist, nuclear weapon-toting North Koreans, or whether it’s more comfortable for us to be totally economically integrated with the Saudi royal family and their depredations, or if we are concerned about human rights, why are we so integrated with and why are we the sole supporter of a government in Afghanistan that has just made rape in marriage legal and denies women the right to go outside without the approval of their husbands?

So this notion that some how democracy alone is the only criteria that we should use in defining the nature of relationship doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever, and the reality is that only one country that has successfully been isolated by this fifty year embargo, and that is the United States of America.

Our [US-Cuba] policy dates back to the Edsel.

It is the Edsel of American foreign policy.

[END]

David Rothkopf is absolutely right.

Barack Obama has given few indications thus far that he is willing to move a five decade failed relationship forward in a meaningful sense — with the single exception that he may ironically codify “relaxation” for a class of ethnic Americans in a way that crudely discriminates against all other Americans.

We did not open Vietnam by relaxing travel and remittances for Vietnamese-Americans.

And Obama’s team — for all of the ballyhoo about democracy promotion — is promoting a policy of the United States government that restricts the American right of free travel anywhere.

I thought that we lived in a real democracy — and that it was supposed to be Communist governments — not democracies — that restricted the travel rights of their citizens.

President Obama is a busy man, but he better take a look at the brief that his team is preparing for him — otherwise he’ll learn too late that he’s driving “an Edsel” to the Summit of the Americas.

– Steve Clemons

Editor’s Note: Steve Clemons hosts a venerable blog, The Washington Note, is Senior Fellow & Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation and Director of the Japan Policy Research Institute.

The CIA, which has been monitoring foreign countries’ use of electronic voting systems, has reported apparent vote-rigging schemes in Venezuela, Macedonia and Ukraine and a raft of concerns about the machines’ vulnerability to tampering.

Appearing last month before a U.S. Election Assistance Commission field hearing in Orlando, Fla., a CIA cybersecurity expert suggested that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his allies fixed a 2004 election recount, an assertion that could further roil U.S. relations with the Latin leader.

In a presentation that could provide disturbing lessons for the United States, where electronic voting is becoming universal, Steve Stigall summarized what he described as attempts to use computers to undermine democratic elections in developing nations. His remarks have received no news media attention until now.

Stigall told the Election Assistance Commission, a tiny agency that Congress created in 2002 to modernize U.S. voting, that computerized electoral systems can be manipulated at five stages, from altering voter registration lists to posting results.

“You heard the old adage ‘follow the money,’ ” Stigall said, according to a transcript of his hour-long presentation that McClatchy obtained. “I follow the vote. And wherever the vote becomes an electron and touches a computer, that’s an opportunity for a malicious actor potentially to . . . make bad things happen.”

Stigall said that voting equipment connected to the Internet could be hacked, and machines that weren’t connected could be compromised wirelessly. Eleven U.S. states have banned or limited wireless capability in voting equipment, but Stigall said that election officials didn’t always know it when wireless cards were embedded in their machines.

Oh, goodie - yet more ways for people to commit voter fraud! Ahem. As if they NEED any more ways - and I know he is talking about other countries, but the possibility of wireless and Internet voting coming to a town/city/overseas military base is most DEFINITELY possible.

And now, to the good ol’ USA:

While Stigall said that he wasn’t speaking for the CIA and wouldn’t address U.S. voting systems, his presentation appeared to undercut calls by some U.S. politicians to shift to Internet balloting, at least for military personnel and other American citizens living overseas. Stigall said that most Web-based ballot systems had proved to be insecure.

The commission has been criticized for giving states more than $1 billion to buy electronic equipment without first setting performance standards. Numerous computer-security experts have concluded that U.S. systems can be hacked, and allegations of tampering in Ohio, Florida and other swing states have triggered a campaign to require all voting machines to produce paper audit trails.

The CIA got interested in electronic systems a few years ago, Stigall said, after concluding that foreigners might try to hack U.S. election systems. He said he couldn’t elaborate “in an open, unclassified forum,” but that any concerns would be relayed to U.S. election officials.

Holy frijoles, really?? Yikes - another good reason not to do this. Not that we didn’t have foreign interference this past election with campaign contributions, specifically to the Obama campaign (I wonder just how many laws Obama broke getting himself into the White House??)

The expert got more specific about a few countries:

Stigall, who’s studied electronic systems in about three dozen countries, said that most countries’ machines produced paper receipts that voters then dropped into boxes. However, even that doesn’t prevent corruption, he said.

Turning to Venezuela, he said that Chavez controlled all of the country’s voting equipment before he won a 2004 nationwide recall vote that had threatened to end his rule.

When Chavez won, Venezuelan mathematicians challenged results that showed him to be consistently strong in parts of the country where he had weak support. The mathematicians found “a very subtle algorithm” that appeared to adjust the vote in Chavez’s favor, Stigall said.

Calls for a recount left Chavez facing a dilemma, because the voting machines produced paper ballots, Stigall said.

“How do you defeat the paper ballots the machines spit out?” Stigall asked. “Those numbers must agree, must they not, with the electronic voting-machine count? . . . In this case, he simply took a gamble.”

Stigall said that Chavez agreed to allow 100 of 19,000 voting machines to be audited.

“It is my understanding that the computer software program that generated the random number list of voting machines that were being randomly audited, that program was provided by Chavez,” Stigall said. “That’s my understanding. It generated a list of computers that could be audited, and they audited those computers.

“You know. No pattern of fraud there.”

A Venezuelan Embassy representative in Washington declined immediate comment.

The disclosure of Stigall’s remarks comes amid recent hostile rhetoric between President Barack Obama and Chavez. On Sunday, Chavez was quoted as reacting hotly to Obama’s assertion that he’s been “exporting terrorism,” referring to the new U.S. president as a “poor ignorant person.”

Questions about Venezuela’s voting equipment caused a stir in the United States long before Obama became president, because Smartmatic, a voting machine company that partnered with a firm hired by Chavez’s government, owned U.S.-based Sequoia Voting Systems until 2007. Sequoia machines were in use in 16 states and the District of Columbia at the time.

Reacting to complaints that the arrangement was a national security concern, the Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States launched an investigation. Smartmatic then announced in November 2007 that it had sold Sequoia to a group of investors led by Sequoia’s U.S.-based management team, thus ending the inquiry.

Again, WHY have we not had this level of investigation HERE??? Blackboxvoting.org has documented instance after instance after INSTANCE of electronic voting machine shenanigans (examples below), and we sure have not had the Treasury Department launching full scale investigations HERE! Pathetic.

As for Chavez allegedly fixing the election in 2004, I think it is safe to say we shouldn’t be throwing stones (as in living in a glass house ourselves), no matter whether you like/hate Chavez. We need only look back at our past 3 elections to prove that point. Unless this is one of those, “do as we say, not as we do” kind of things…

And isn’t it interesting that Obama is picking fights with Chavez, too, just like Bush did? Curious…

Back to the international scene:

In the former Soviet republic of Georgia, Stigall said, hackers took resurrecting the dead to “a new art form” by adding the names of people who’d died in the 18th century to computerized voter-registration lists. Macedonia was accused of “voter genocide” because the names of so many Albanians living in the country were eradicated from the computerized lists, Stigall said.

He said that elections also could be manipulated when votes were cast, when ballots were moved or transmitted to central collection points, when official results were tabulated and when the totals were posted on the Internet.

In Ukraine, Stigall said, opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko lost a 2004 presidential election runoff because supporters of Russian-backed Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych “introduced an unauthorized computer into the Ukraine election committee national headquarters. They snuck it in.

“The implication is that these people were . . . making subtle adjustments to the vote. In other words, intercepting the votes before it goes to the official computer for tabulation.”

Taped cell-phone calls of the ensuing cover-up led to nationwide protests and a second runoff, which Yushchenko won.

Election Assistance Commission officials didn’t trumpet Stigall’s appearance Feb. 27, and he began by saying that he didn’t wish to be identified. However, the election agency had posted his name and biography on its Web site before his appearance.

Electronic voting systems have been controversial in advanced countries, too. Germany’s constitutional court banned computerized machines this month on the grounds that they don’t allow voters to check their choices.

Well, there’s a concept. Germany actually cares that the voter can assure his or her vote is recorded accurately. What a concept! Ad more:

Stigall said that some countries had taken novel steps that improved security.

For example, he said, Internet systems that encrypt vote results so they’re unrecognizable during transmission “greatly complicates malicious corruption.” Switzerland, he noted, has had success in securing Internet voting by mailing every registered citizen scratch cards that contain unique identification numbers for signing on to the Internet. Then the voters must answer personal security questions, such as naming their mothers’ birthplaces.

Stigall commended Russia for transmitting vote totals over classified communication lines and inviting hackers to test its electronic voting system for vulnerabilities. He said that Russia now hoped to enable its citizens to vote via cell phones by next year.

“As Russia moves to a one-party state,” he said, “they’re trying to make their elections available . . . so everyone can vote for the one party. That’s the irony.”

After reviewing Stigall’s remarks, Susannah Goodman, the director of election reform for the citizens’ lobby Common Cause, said they showed that “we can no longer ignore the fact that all of these risks are present right here at home . . . and must secure our election system by requiring every voter to have his or her vote recorded on a paper ballot.”

Well, true that, Ms. Goodman. We have our own problems here, like Bev Harris of Black Box Voting finding garbage bags full of CERTIFIED votes tossed out in the trash, while another set were resented as the count. I am not making this crap up. Check it: Certified Votes found in trash in Florida.

Or how about this one: . Oh, now THAT’S some security there, because NO ONE can get a mini-bar key, right??

A NUMBER of states have had issues with voting machine problems. Check HERE - I bet you’ll find your state listed (special nod to my home state, NC, which had some machines that, once they reached their pre-designed total, began to count BACKWARDS.
Mini-bar key can open Diebold Electronic Voting Machines.

The problems in New Mexico were so rampant, it is thought they cost Kerry the presidency. They continued this past year, too, and not just in New Mexico.

Don’t even get me started on Ohio, both in 2004 and 2008 (I have written about the voter fraud issues in Ohio a number of times, as have a bunch of others. You can view previous articles Here, Here, and Here, for starters.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of voting machine issues in this country.

Ms. Goodman is absolutely right - we cannot ignore the voting problems we have at home. I sure wish the FBI, Treasury Department, and anyone else in the upper echelons of government, would do as much work here at home as the CIA is doing abroad on this critical issue. In my humble opinion, we have not had legitimate elections since the introduction of the Diebold machines. Add in blatant voter fraud (and one man gleefully acknowledged he voted more than once on national tv), and I think it is safe to say our elections do not “count every vote” (neither does the Democratic Party for that matter - oh, wait - they do, just not the way in which the people cast them).

We need REAL voting machine reform in this country, too, the sooner the better, preferably by 2010 (elections are not THAT far away)…

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs 60 votes to close the debate on the $410 billion dollar omnibus spending bill and bring it to a Senate vote. As of this morning, he is one vote short. A few moderate Republicans that Reid was counting on have yet to climb on board. The GOP has some amendments of their own they would like to add to this bill and are trying to leverage their votes to push their proposals through.

Reid may just have to give in to some Republican demands, thanks to a dissenting vote from his own caucus. Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a member of the Democratic leadership is voting no and is downright pissed off.

His anger has nothing to do with the massive spending by a government already in unfathomable debt or even the 9,000 plus earmarks attached to this drunken Capitol Hill spending spree.

What infuriates Menendez is that when his legislative aides read through the legislation online, they discovered language that eases restrictions on travel to Cuba and importing Cuban goods. Menendez would be the first to admit that he holds a minority view when it comes to dealing with the Castro government. As the son of Cuban immigrants, he has always taken a hard line on Cuban policy. He undoubtedly knew that with the Obama administration in charge, a change in policy was coming, but the way this was handled really has him steamed.

Shailagh Murphy reports in the Washington Post that Menendez even held off support on some administration appointees in protest.

“The process by which these changes have been forced upon this body is so deeply offensive to me, and so deeply undemocratic, that it puts the omnibus appropriations package in jeopardy, in spite of all the other tremendously important funding that this bill would provide,” the enraged son of Cuban immigrants said last week on the Senate floor. Menendez even slapped a hold on a pair of Obama nominees to draw attention to the issue.

Treasury officials, working with Reid’s office, continued yesterday to search for an administrative resolution with Menendez that would ensure a narrow interpretation of the legislative language in order to prevent gaping loopholes from developing. Menendez has pointed out that, had the bill sought significant changes in U.S. policy toward Iran or Venezuela, lawmakers would revolt. “What’s the difference with Cuba?” said Menendez spokesman Afshin Mohamadi.

No doubt, that Reid at some point will wrangle that last vote and everyone on the hill will have their pork and eat it too. He will even find a way to pacify Menendez. Yet, this little incident is just another reminder of why our government is broken to begin with. The Cuban issue is important enough to deserve its own debate on the floor. In typical congressional fashion, it was tacked on to a bill that had nothing to do with the issue. Whoever, added it to the omnibus spending bill was probably figuring that Menendez and his staff would not actually read the whole thing until it was too late.

It’s amazing what happens when your legislators have time (or at least their staffs have time) to read what they are voting on. The Menendez staff probably was going through this bill because lawmakers are starting to feel the heat after the e-mails and phone calls from angry constituents following the stimulus vote. They never expected Cuban policy to be part of the legislation they were reviewing.

Whether or not, the Cuban policy needs change is not the issue. The issue is that it shouldn’t have been in this bill in the first place. So good for Bob Menendez. Make Harry go find his vote somewhere else. It will certainly cost him.

Obama campaign mum on NAFTA contact with Canada. Despite repeated requests, Barack Obama’s campaign is still neither verifying nor denying a CTV report that a senior member of the team made contact with the Canadian government — via the Chicago consulate general — regarding comments Obama made about NAFTA.

- Snip -

On Wednesday, CTV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign called the Canadian government within the last month — saying that when Senator Obama talks about opting out of the free trade deal, the Canadian government shouldn’t worry. The operative said it was just campaign rhetoric not to be taken seriously.

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.

During a candidates’ debate Tuesday, both Democratic party leadership contenders — Obama and Hillary Clinton — suggested they would opt out of the North American Free Trade Agreement if core labour and environmental standards weren’t renegotiated.

- Snip -

On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial.

“At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA,” it said in a statement.

But on Wednesday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.

The denial from the embassy was followed by a denial from Senator Obama.

“The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don’t know who the sources were,” said Obama.

Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government — who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp — have reconfirmed their position.

- Snip -

However, Harper had a warning to anyone contemplating renegotiation of the trade deal.

“If a future president actually did want to open up NAFTA, which I highly doubt, then Canada would obviously have some things we would want to discuss,” Harper said.

My, my - was that really only a year ago? Oh, yes - Obama was saying one thing to people in the Midwest, and apparently, saying something quite the opposite on the down low in Canada.

Lo and behold, it seems the Canadian report was right, at least according to this NY Times article regarding Obama’s recent trip, Nafta Looming Over Obama’s Canada Trip :

As a candidate, Barack Obama courted votes in the Rust Belt by suggesting he might renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a pact he criticized as not “good for America.”

Now Mr. Obama is about to make his first foreign trip as president to Canada, the United States’ largest trading partner — and he is sounding a strikingly different message.

With Canadians up in arms over “Buy America” provisions in President Obama’s economic recovery package, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper warning the United States not to back away from its international treaty obligations, Mr. Obama, who will make a day trip to Ottawa on Thursday, is no longer emphasizing the idea of reopening Nafta.

Instead, he and his senior advisers are talking up the booming trade relationship between Canada and the United States — the largest trade partnership in the world, the White House says — and limiting their Nafta message to revamping side agreements on environmental and labor protections.

Well, golly gee. Yet another campaign promise proven to be a lie. Raise your hand if you are surprised! Yeah, I thought not.

The article continues:

In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Tuesday, the president said there were “a lot of sensitivities right now” about renegotiating trade pacts “because of the huge decline in world trade.” As he tries to right the struggling American economy, Mr. Obama pledged to do so in a way that would enhance, rather than suppress, trade between the two nations.

“It’s not in anybody’s interest to see that trade diminish,” he said.

Trade is an issue that has long bedeviled Democrats, and this is especially so for Mr. Obama. Trade has split the party along regional and economic lines, pitting those who see a globalized economy as inevitable and productive against those in economically depressed areas of the nation, like Ohio and Michigan, who see the price of free trade, in lost jobs and declining wages, as simply too high for the American worker to bear.

The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, fought hard to pass Nafta (sic), and made many in his party uncomfortable — including, eventually, his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who like Mr. Obama talked of reopening the pact when she was running for president.

Interesting.

Ah, yes, Obama continues to renege on campaign promises made, now that he’s actually in the White House. His latest is yet another stand with a Bush Doctrine, Siding with Bush, Obama says Afghan detainees have no U.S. rights. Oh, what a surprise!!! Just like the Extraordinary Rendition and State Secrets part Obama kept - I have been saying this for MONTHS and months - Obama is Bush III. This is why he voted for FISA, too. He wanted all the same “tools” available to him that Bush managed to secure. Here’s the nitty-gritty:

The 600-plus detainees at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their imprisonment, the Justice Department said today in a two-sentence court filing.

Last summer the Supreme Court gave al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects held at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detention. But the Justice Department argues that Bagram is different: it’s in a war zone and the prisoners are the result of continuing military action.

“They’ve now embraced the Bush policy that you can create prisons outside the law,” said Jonathan Hafetz of the American Civil Liberties Union, who has represented several detainees.

“The hope we all had in President Obama to lead us on a different path has not turned out as we’d hoped,” said Tina Monshipour Foster, a human rights attorney representing a detainee at the Bagram. “We all expected better.”

The decision also disappointed Amnesty International, which issued a report calling for judicial review of the detentions.

Uh, yes. Again, groups are “disappointed” - the ACLU, Amnesty International, HRC, and on, and on. All “disappointed” that Obama is not doing what he said he would do.

They SHOULD be disappointed in themselves for believing his lies, for pretending that his “hope and change” message was a substitute for certifiable experience and an actual RECORD on which to base his claims. They’re “disappointed.” Yeah. Join the club. I’m “disappointed” that all of these groups bought this crap in the first place, and stuck us with this guy.

Sigh. Once again, though, there is one bright light, one adult in the room who DOES instill some faith. Oh, and she actually HAS a record on which to base her actions. Oh, yes, Sec. Clinton. She is winding up her first trip abroad as the Secretary of State, and has been doing a fine job of it. Here she is arriving in China:

And while in China, Secretary Clinton has been focusing on a number of issues, particularly Climate Change. Hopefully, this will be an issue on which our two countries can work together successfully (Sec. Clinton did mention Tibet, but for now, the Obama Administration is keeping a low profile on the issue of human rights).

Hmmm - I wonder what will be next on Obama’s list of promises to break? Oh, that could be a whole new party game, come to think of it! We already have the drinking game Jon Stewart proposed (taking a drink whenever Obama pauses while talking), so why not have a “Which Promise Is Going Down The Toilet Next?” game? Hey, it’s one the whole family can play together! What a uniter!! Which one do you think is next?

Many of you know me as Seattle Moss, a manufacturer of industrial poly products such as bags, covers, liners and sheeting crucial to all companies that are processing, manufacturing, or shipping any type of finished goods to the market place.

I have been called the canary in the coal mine. Without my products, there are no products from anyone to anywhere. So I would like to take a moment to give you all a quick snapshot of where business stands in the Northwest United States and Canada.

For the past five years, I have managed to grow my business every year 20% on average and, although we are relatively small compared to some companies, this has meant increasing revenues from $10-20 million. We have, during this period, been able to increase our labor force from just 20 people to more than 80 in the busy season.

That all changed this past year.

I first noticed a fall-off early in 2008 when our long-established sales reps in Oregon and Seattle started missing their targets. This was offset by new business that I brought in from Canada so there was no immediate cause for alarm. In fact I didn’t know the full extent of the recession until one fateful day in Oct when Stretch Pelosi told the world that we were in a Great depression and there was nothing great about it…

During the summer I warned everybody on this blog that we were headed for the Obama collapse because I believe in self-fulfilling prophesies.

Namely, if you talk enough about class warfare, raising taxes on the wealthy, capital gains taxes, carbon taxes and punishing businesses, then what you get is a collapse of the economy. Yes, the financial and the sub-prime also had a lot to do with it, but Obama and his minions effectively spooked the market out of $30 trillion in equities, thus causing business to come to a complete halt.

Since October my business which has never declined has seen the bottom fall out. We are now 40% off our totals from last year and things seem to be getting even worse.

I supply all the lumber business which has seen a precipitous drop with mills closing everywhere. Gypsum board, roofing, windows, cement and all supporting industries and suppliers have all but ceased to produce.

What I’m also finding is usually reliable industries like fishing are unable to get the necessary financing to take their boats out this spring. They have told me that their boats have to just sit in the port not going to Alaska to harvest the fish.

What a loss for me! The biggest problem for me has been the dollar. Last year Canada bailed me out. Now that business is drying up because everything costs 30% more for the Canadians.They are just starting to feel the collapse and business has dried up considerably. Not too many places to escape to find additional work. we have laid off 60% of our work force and have cut the days for others.

As a result of this collapse I have been forced to look outside the box once again.

Those that do have the capital are buying huge blocks of product from me at basement prices which will allow them to resell once hyper inflation kicks in later in this year.

So where I stand right now is that I’m about ready to have my biggest month ever except the price will be at a deflationary levels which has cut profit margins considerably, but does have the benefit of keeping people working and not adding to the layoffs.

My company is in better shape than others in my industry. We will survive through this crisis but there are days and you have seen my posts where I haven’t been able to see the light at the end of tunnel and it gives me a big lump in my throat.

But wait a minute…..Enough is Enough!!!

I refuse to be a victim of a crisis other people have created. I started to think what is stopping people from buying at the very best moment to buy. I went into full battle mode, brainstorming and thinking of any industry that wouldn’t be affected by this collapse.

Then it came to me … Apples, Pears and Berries. These industries are affected only by the weather and not the economic conditions facing other aspects of the economy. I went to work and called every distributor and grower in the industry and this is what I told them on the phone.

“This is the trough..The darkest moment before the dawn…When fear and uncertainty grips the nation…When resin prices are at there lowest, demand has dried up and we need to keep employees on the line for the sake of their families.

The moment has come.. The very best time to buy!!!”

Because the stimulus package will be signed dollars will be printed,confidence will emerge and hyper inflation will be the next step in this process.”

Saying these words to my customers finally got them to buy!….All of them!

Now my extruders are filled with orders and the workers are smiling because there won’t be additional layoffs..I may have had to cut my margins but the company will keep going and I will find additional deals out there.

Checked with my Oracle today:

Deflation is almost over…I have sold all my cheap plastics within the last two days like a stampede, with folks wanting special terms. Now I’m looking at more expensive resins and higher prices despite the low demand. It’s hard to tell my future customers that we are having price increases when there is so little demand.

Spring will bring warmth and hyper-inflation which will be the beginning of the end of our buying power as a nation. The collapse of the American dollar will not be far behind. This may help my Canadian business but hurt everywhere else.

I want to thank everybody at No Quarter for their support. We are all in this together

Seattle Moss

This vid was passed on to me. I enjoyed it and thought that some NQ readers might enjoy it too.

BTW Have you ever seen Sean Penn in an interview? If so, have you ever come across anyone who gives a more boring, humorless interview? i find it hard to think of anyone even coming close.

That said, I hear his portrayal of Harvey Milk in the movie “Milk” is terrific, so I guess he can’t be all bad. But I get so tired of these Hollywood pseudo-liberals and their political associates pontificating and running down America.

This was the best laugh I had all day, until one of the creative readers at No Quarter, Obama Is A Fraud, posted this:

Please join us for this historical Inaugural Celebration for President Barrack Hussein Obama. It will be a day of great events for all!

Midnight - Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez drink champagne toast to their brother in communism Comrade Obama. Burning of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and fireworks display. Long live the US of Hussein!

It’s an Open Thread - how was YOUR day?

Just when you had wished you had indeed heard the last of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, it turns out they are publishing a new manifesto described in brief on Amazon.com.

What makes the book blurb - this one apparently not written by their long time, umm, colleague, co-education policy wonk, fellow intellectual and, yes, neighbor Barack Obama - worrisome is that it links what Ayers and Dohrn say is America’s continuing sin, racism and “white supremacy,” with their views on war. 

In other words just as Barack Obama moves to the White House, these two destructive figures out of the past are about to advocate an entire new world view for America built around their curious race-centric obsession. Presumably this will be an opportunity to peddle, one more time, their Third Worldist clap trap which mandates that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” 

This narrow and dangerous thinking is what led Ayers, Dohrn and others in their camp to embrace figures like Castro, Ortega, and Chavez even as they trample all over the civil rights of their citizens in order to maintain their authoritarian hold on power.  

[Editor's note: See Uppity Woman's October 28th article here, "RBO: Team Cuba” — Ayers, Dohrn, just “two political activists” from Obama’s neighborhood, visited Cuba in September 2008.]