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.

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)…

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.]

Here’s a shot of the “revolutionary” education conference that Ayers attended. The banner in the background reads “Bolivarian Education and the Defeat of Capitalist School.”

Lies, Damnable Lies, and Political Commentary | Corrente

_____________________

From my blog, Global Labor and the Global Economy.

About me: I am a law professor and political scientist on the faculty of Santa Clara University School of Law in Santa Clara, California, which is in the heart of Silicon Valley. I teach courses on the global capital markets, the international economy, corporate governance and international labor and human rights. Prior to joining the faculty I was in private legal practice in New York and in Palo Alto. I also have an extensive background in the labor movement and advise a wide range of unions, workers and institutional investors on financial and legal issues. This website is an independent project and hence is my responsibility and it is not affiliated in any other way with the law school or Santa Clara University.

Flush with cash, Chavez has sent money and material assistance to the FARC–i.e., the Armed Revolutinary Force of Colombia–a longstanding Marxist insurgent group responsible for more than three decades of terrorism in Colombia. The FARC is like a prehistoric bug frozen in amber. They are completely out of touch with the modern world and refuse to acknowledge that Colombia is no longer a nation dominated by a small group of elites bent on plundering the masses. No matter. The FARC believes it is true and therefore, by definition, it must be true.

According to an Associated Press report on Sunday:

Documents that Colombia says it recovered from a slain guerrilla leader give the clearest indication yet that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sought to arm and finance insurgents across the border.

The documents — more than a dozen internal rebel messages — detail several years of close cooperation between top officials in Venezuela’s government and military and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, including the construction of rebel training facilities on Venezuelan soil.

They also suggest Venezuela was preparing to loan the rebels at least US$250 million (euro190 million), provide them with Russian weapons and possibly even help them obtain surface-to-air missiles for use against Colombian military aircraft.

Most importantly, they outline a joint strategic project between Venezuela and the Colombian rebels, with Venezuela even seeking rebel training in “asymmetrical warfare” in preparation for a feared U.S. invasion.

This information is true. It is not fabricated. It is not planted. I also know, firsthand, from conducting undercover investigations in Colombia in the northeast Guajira peninsula, that a significant community of merchants with ties to Hezbollah, who lived and operated in Maicao, Colombia, have moved across the border and set up shop in Venezuela. I am not suggesting they are preparing terrorist attacks. These muslim merchants with strong family ties to Hezbollah in Lebanon are worried first and foremost about making money. A substantial portion of their wealth is obtained thru smuggling and grey market activities. They are willing to send money to Hezbollah but, so far, have shied away from supporting terrorist attacks on this continent.

Oh, and did I mention Hamas. A minority of the muslim merchants that moved across the border into Venezuela are tied to Hamas.
And Chavez, not missing a beat, rolled out the welcome mat for Hamas:

Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez looks decided to go ahead with his self-denominated “anti-imperialistic” foreign policy despite Washington’s open and shady threats. This week, Caracas made public two moves meant to help US foes in Middle East. Hamas leaders will be received by Mr. Chavez “with pleasure”, as the South American oil-rich country confirmed that counts Iran as “great ally of brothers”.

“If they come, it will be a pleasure,” Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel told reporters when asked by reporters whether the government would receive a Hamas delegation. What is the problem with that? Aren’t they going to be received by Russia, Brazil and Argentina? And what’s more, they have a majority with the Palestinian people; they just won an election.”

So what does this have to do with Barack Obama. Let’s start with Bill Ayers again. You know, the guy Barack barely knew but also the same guy who named Barack as President of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative (The Annenberg Challenge). Ayers is a frequent visitor to Venezuela and also enjoys a relationship with Chavez. Here is part of what Bill Ayers said in November 2006:

President Hugo Chavez, Vice-President Vicente Rangel, Ministers Moncada and Isturiz, invited guests, comrades. I’m honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout North America. Welcome to the World Education Forum! Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana!

This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane. Thank you, Luis, for everything you’ve done. . . .

Totalitarianism demands obedience and conformity, hierarchy, command and control. Royalty requires allegiance. Capitalism promotes racism and militarism – turning people into consumers, not citizens. Participatory democracy, by contrast, requires free people coming together voluntarily as equals who are capable of both self-realization and, at the same time, full participation in a shared political and economic life.

Education contributes to human liberation to the extent that people reflect on their lives, and, becoming more conscious, insert themselves as subjects in history. To be a good teacher means above all to have faith in the people, to believe in the possibility that people can create and change things. Education is not preparation for life, but rather education is life itself,an active process in which everyone— students and teachers– participates as co-learners. . . .

Let those of us who are gathered here today read this poem as “The Teacher’s Obligation.” We, too, must move in and out of windows, we, too, must build a project of radical imagination and fundamental change. Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education– a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation. This World Education Forum provides us a unique opportunity to develop and share the lessons and challenges of this profound educational project that is the Bolivarian Revolution.

That, boys and girls, is classic marxist bullshit. Capitalism, baaaaddd. Communism. Goooood. The “Revolution” lives.

Oh, did I mention that one of Barack’s big fundraiser also hearts Chavez. Jodie Evans, bundler for Barack, also made the pilgrimage to Caracas to engage in the verbal equivalent of buttocks smooching.

So here is the question for Barack–many of your followers, fundraisers, and longtime advisors believe that Hugo Chavez’s revolution is something superior to the capitalist model followed in the United States. Do you agree with them or disagree with them?

Here’s another question. Hugo Chavez is using his money to support terrorists that are attacking democratic nations and is welcoming the representatives of terrorist groups to come to his country. At the same time, your former boss, Bill Ayers, and one of your key fund raisers, Jodie Evans, are embracing Chavez and praising his leadership. Will you repudiate their actions and return the Code Pink money you have received?

And what about Venezuela’s subversion in Colombia? Will you insist that Venezuela respect Colombia’s borders and end its support to the FARC?

I am guessing that Barack will say no to the first two. I don’t know his position on the last question. What do you think?

Oh, and one last item. A significant portion of the oil we consume comes from Venezuela. What happens when Venezuela tries to use oil as a weapon against us? Saudi and Iraqi oil has little relevance to our daily lives. Not so with Venezuelan crude. But that’s a topic for another day.

Special thanks to a veteran who is for Hillary. He put so much work into this! Also check out his YouTube version, which features a very sophisticated menu.

Are members of the U.S. military panicking at the prospect of Commander in Chief Barack Obama? It seems so. I’ve been panicking; I can only imagine how true military experts feel about the prospect.

Along with the breaking news (link to come) that the 29th and 30th flag officers have endorsed Hillary Clinton — Vice Admiral Donald C. Arthur (JD, PhD, MD, and 35th Surgeon General of the U.S. Navy) and Rear Admiral Stuart F. Platt (Deputy Commander of the Naval Sea Systems) — come these statements from Hillary Clinton and the campaign:

Hugo Chavez’s order yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is unwarranted and dangerous. The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By praising and supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security of the region. Rather than criticizing Colombia’s actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups. After reviewing this situation, I am hopeful that the government of Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in closer cooperation with Colombia on this issue. Hugo Chavez must call a halt to this provocative action. As President, I will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to support democracy, promote an end to conflict, and to press Chavez to change course.

BELOW: “New Ad: Hillary Promises Never to Be Too Busy to Defend Our National Security” (with VIDEO) and “Why Hillary Clinton is Ready to be Commander-in-Chief” (and why Obama isn’t):

New Ad: Hillary Promises Never to Be Too Busy to Defend Our National Security,” featuring this new ad:

AND THIS:

To: Interested Parties
From: Mark Penn
Date: Monday, March 03, 2008
Re: Why Hillary Clinton is Ready to be Commander-in-Chief

In the last few days, serious and significant question about Senator Barack Obama have been raised, which have made this election a test about who is ready to be Commander-in-Chief on day one. We believe that after the votes are counted tomorrow, only one candidate will have passed that test, and that will be Hillary Clinton.

In fact, just by raising the issue, we have seen a defensive reaction from Sen. Obama and his campaign. The bottom line: If Sen. Obama can’t convince voters in his own party that he is the best able to protect our country, how will he convince all Americans in a general election against Sen. McCain?

Just over three years ago, Barack Obama was a state senator in Springfield, Illinois. During that time, in 2002, he delivered his Iraq speech at an anti-war rally. That’s the same speech Barack Obama is using as his major qualification to be Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

In 2004, when he was running for the United States Senate, Barack Obama struck a very different tone. He said that his position on the war was the same as George Bush’s. Then, after he arrived in the US Senate, Obama voted the same way as Hillary Clinton. In fact, it took him 17 months to deliver a speech in the Senate against the Iraq war.

When it comes to the war in Afghanistan, Senator Obama has said that we should be doing far more, and that the United States has abdicated responsibility in Afghanistan. Obama made this claim while he was in charge of the subcommittee with oversight over NATO in Afghanistan – and yet he didn’t hold a single meeting. When asked about his inaction, Obama admitted: “I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So, it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.”

National security is the first and most solemn duty of the President. Every president makes that pledge when they take the oath of office – to protect and defend our country. Our next president has a job to do – to end the war in Iraq and win the war in Afghanistan, while keeping our nation safe.

Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to give our country a better and safer future. She has the support of 30 generals and admirals. They believe she has met every test to be Commander-in-Chief on day one. Senator Clinton has received five endorsements in recent days, including those of General Henry Hugh Shelton, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Owens, the former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba. Overall, Sen. Clinton has the endorsement of two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and five admirals and generals at the four-star rank. They are in addition to over 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton’s national and state veterans’ steering committees.

Hillary’s record speaks for itself. In the Senate, she has had years of experience on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She sponsored comprehensive legislation to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Hillary is the only Senator serving on the U.S. Joint Forces Command’s Transformation Advisory Group. She was a leader on the recovery effort after 9/11 – and implementing steps to prevent another terrorist attack. Hillary understands the strains on our armed forces and has worked to ensure they are ready and equipped.

Hillary’s record during the Clinton Administration speaks to her judgment and her ability to lead our nation through times of national security crises. Hillary represented America in more than 80 countries. She worked to open borders in the Balkans, bring peace in Northern Ireland and stood up in China for women’s rights and human rights.

If Barack Obama says it’s fear mongering to talk about how Senator Clinton will protect America, he is going to have a rough time up against John McCain. This is not a debate he can duck with two wars going on. Hillary is best prepared to go toe-to-toe with John McCain. She is the best candidate to end the war in Iraq, keep us safe, and restore our credibility around the world on day one.

###

What else is going on in the world?

Annoying: CNN hasn’t been airing “Your World Today” at noon ET. They’ve replaced it with an hour on the economic crisis. That’s cool. But it was great to hear some international stories. I guess my only resource now is BBC World News and BBC World News America, aired on BBCAmerica.