By Seneca

Frankly, President Obama does not seem like he was fully prepared to be President. His hubris may have gotten the best of him. He ignited real hope and became lucky: Hillary Clinton became overconfident, GWB became a bane as a lame duck, and John McCain self-destructed. Ergo Obama became the man. Like a true liberal, he relied on his brilliance and elite thinking with good intentions for being elected. This has now wrought him calamity. In politics, it can be most unforgiving.

Where is President Obama’s Carville or Rove or Atwater or kitchen cabinet like Reagan’s California friends and influential backers or even Carter’s Hamilton Jordan to be his path finder as the American political swamp begins to devour him? Obama, being a loner by nature, is now, as President, up against the forces of economic and political troubled waters. Who in his Cabinet or White House is taking hits for him?

The wrath and smite of an aggrieved people will shortly visit him unless Lady Luck returns. The sadness is his latent failure may beget or unleash the might of ugly extremists with all their mean-spiritedness, intolerance, bigotry, nativism, uncharitable attitude all wrapped around the flag and the visceral language of religious and patriotic righteousness. This is beginning to sweep aside even the responsible fiscal and security conservatives. Obama is no FDR, who was more a political animal of his day: a doer who surrounded himself with seminal thinkers at a time of dire crisis. Even President Lincoln, the self-educated loner at a horrific time, relied on his military chiefs to move forward to save the Union. His leadership flowed from the simplicity and genius of his words which reassured and guided his people. Whereas, President Obama sees himself as a true Athenian actor on a stage full of Wagnerian menaces and Cassandra-like shadows and at best some misguided Panglossian spirit.

Obama is not a disappointment. Perhaps he symbolizes a national frustration that the world is not an American ideal but a brutish reality. The Latino failure to understand the current national crisis will prevent us from being able to survive the impending vortex. Immigration as a litmus test and a primary political metric increasingly appears to be misplaced by many of our Latino leadership. For instance on Tuesday, Representative Gutierrez was arrested in front of the White House to protest the record number of deportations the Obama administration has executed. This kind of political statement in the middle of an economic meltdown may make it appear that we are singularly focused on immigration. Yet in this hour when the ship of state begins to list dangerously, where are the voices of our Hispanic chieftains on jobs, education and the general welfare? Their silence is impressive in opining on the national debt debate while the latest Pew Report alarmingly announces that Latinos have lost 66 percent of their wealth! This devastating statistic is clearly proof that our community is in a deep depression and not a recession. The hope can only be when and if our elected and non-elected leaders in fact open their mouths that they will readily improve the silence. The sound must be one of true LEADERSHIP not just cheering on the mismanagement of the nation.

Why do immigrants (legal or illegal) come to this country? In search of a better life of course. I am an immigrant myself [Bender Bending Gonzalez], and I came to the U.S. to obtain a better education, a better job, a higher standard of living, and if at all possible help my family that was left behind.  Such is the case with the millions of other immigrants that come from all over the globe. Contrary to what CNN, Fox News and my favorite Lou Dobbs may have you believe, not all immigrants come from Mexico. But what is an undisputed fact is that is that Mexican, Central American and South American immigrants create mini-economies by sending a large percentage of their annual earnings back to their home countries. According to the Inter American Development Bank (IADB), it is estimated that remittances from the U.S. to Latin America will exceed a staggering $100,000 million in 2010.

So what is the U.S. doing to make sure they get their share? Have a look at this announcement that was posted this week on the State Department’s website:

U.S. BRIDGE Initiative Commitments with El Salvador and Honduras

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

September 22, 2010

On September 22, 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signed separate Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with Honduran President Porfirio Lobo and Salvadoran Foreign Minister Hugo Martinez outlining the United States’ commitment to the Building Remittance Investment for Development Growth and Entrepreneurship (BRIDGE) Initiative in Honduras and El Salvador.

Led by the Department of State’s Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, the United States has committed through the BRIDGE Initiative to work with El Salvador and Honduras to develop and support partnerships with strong and reliable in-country financial institutions to maximize the development impact of remittance flows from the U.S. and to help establish strong foundations for sustainable, inclusive, and transformational economic growth.

Remittances have the potential to be a transformational asset in meeting the development goals of the Latin America region as they can enable greater access to the types of long-term capital required for the multi-year investments that will sustain growth. The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) estimates that U.S. $50 billion in worker remittances flow from the U.S. to Latin America and the Caribbean annually.

Under the BRIDGE Initiative, strong in-country financial institutions in Honduras and El Salvador will be able to partner with the United States and multilateral partners to help explore options to use their remittance flows safely and soundly as an asset to raise lower-cost and longer-term financing for infrastructure, public works, and commercial development initiatives that are currently lacking in these countries. USAID-supported market assessments confirmed the feasibility of BRIDGE’s goals in Honduras and El Salvador.

Based on previous successful efforts in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, BRIDGE will not impact the basic transfer of remittances. The millions of households in El Salvador and Honduras that depend on remittances as income and for basic daily living expenses will not see their regular payments disrupted by this effort.

So why focus on El Salvador and Honduras? In my opinion, it is because they are easy corruptible targets. Hillary (inherently Obama) won’t dare pursue the same agreement with Mexico, not after she dug herself a hole by comparing Mexico to Colombia and because Mexican financial institutions are currently strong, relative to how severely the economic recession has affected other Latin American economies and don’t need any sort of BRIDGE type agreement.  Perhaps most importantly, Mexican institutions and special interests won’t let anyone else take their share of the pie. Mexico is the largest trading partner with the U.S. so it’s best to leave them alone. We’ll get our share by imposing higher trade tariffs.

The Salvadorian Central Reserve Bank indicates that there are signs that remittances are on the rise and that El Salvador has received $1,728 million as of June 2010, an increase of $43 million compared to the same month totals in 2009.  The latest statistics from IADB also indicate that Honduras remittances have increased by 11.2% compared to last year. We are talking beaucoup bucks.

Here’s my favorite line of the memorandum “Under the BRIDGE Initiative, strong in-country financial institutions in Honduras and El Salvador will be able to partner with the United States and multilateral partners to help explore options to use their remittance flows safely and soundly as an asset to raise lower-cost and longer-term financing for infrastructure, public works, and commercial development initiatives that are currently lacking in these countries.” This basically means, we’ll tell you how to spend your money, what contractors to hire and determine the infrastructure you need; and we’ll legitimize it by partnering with your own financial institutions.

I’m sure the government of President Lobo will say “fine, if this is what you want in exchange for you leaving me alone and letting me run my corrupt regime.”  But who are the real victims in all of this?  The poor immigrants who come to this country to work hard and get blamed for every single ailment by Tea Baggers and Minutemen.

These immigrants work the fields, they work in sweat shops and factories enduring abuses for salaries well below minimum wage because of fear of deportation. They are robbed of their dignity while crossing the border. God forbid they run into a group of Minutemen or Sherriff  Arpaio and his goons. They work their butts off so we don’t have to pay $5 for an orange, and then they send their hard earned cash back home. Our response to their struggle, we don’t give their children access to a higher education, we’ll portray them as almost subhuman in the traditional media, and in the end you better believe that  Uncle Sam is going “get his” come hell or high water. We’ll blame them for everything, and gladly take their money!

I am disgusted that President Obama is entering these types of agreements with illegitimate governments and that the elite in these countries are getting richer at the expense of the poor.  This is dirty business that stinks to hell and back.

I remember growing up in Mexico and people saying, “It doesn’t matter who’s in power in the U.S. It could be Reagan, Clinton, or Bush. We are going to bow down to their will either way”….and boy isn’t that the truth!

One of the arguments frequently given in the comments of my most-recent Huffington post is, essentially, that “illegals should apply for entry into the United States and wait in line like everyone else.” In a perfect world, this argument makes sense. Historically the U.S. has been a harbor for “huddled masses yearning to be free.” These masses identified themselves, waited in line, and were eventually admitted and naturalized, ‘mericanized, etc.

However, if there is one consensus in the immigration debate it is that the U.S. immigration system is far from perfect. The system is broken, as it were.

In 2008, David Bennion noted the following in Citizen Orange (h/t kyledeb):

“Immigrants eager to apply for employment-based green cards often find themselves in a Catch 22. There is typically a wait of three to five years for an employment-based green card for a worker with a college degree or two years of experience. But the worker must remain in status or leave the country during that waiting period and, unless he/she has an H-1B visa or qualifies under Section 245(i) of the INA, usually cannot continue to work for the employer in the U.S. and still get a green card at the end of the wait. Most employers don’t want to sponsor someone who can’t work for them for the next three to five years. This means that many immigrants who are qualified to work in the U.S. and have an employer willing to sponsor them still find themselves unable to work lawfully.

If you are poor and unskilled, it is usually much more simple: there is no line whatsoever. Duke from Migra Matters had a good run-down a while back of the miniscule number of green cards made available in 2006 for unskilled workers: 147. The great majority of immigrants from Mexico and Central America fall into this group. Almost none of them can get a visa to come here lawfully in the first place, and they certainly can’t get one if they leave the country after having violated U.S. immigration laws.”

The simple(ton) answer here is, in essence, Well, tough shit! Then they should just say home! Unfortunately, this answer fails to take into account the increasingly-hellish world many Mexicans and Central Americans now call home.

Last October, a report issued by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) found that the overall homicide rate in Central America “(32 homicides per 100,000 persons) is tantamount to more than three times the worldwide rate, and it exceeds by seven points the rate for Latin America as a whole.”

“To put it bluntly,” the report concluded, “Central America is the most violent region of the World, with the exception of those regions where some countries are at war or are experiencing severe political violence.”

Since the UNDP report was released, narco-violence seems set to put Mexico on course to join Central America in the dubious “most-violent” distinction. On Wednesday, AP reported the mayor of El Naranjo became the third Mexican mayor in a month to be slain by hitmen believed to be working for drug cartels. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has remarked that Mexico is “looking more and more like Colombia looked 20 years ago.”

“How can I explain this,” writes Bennion, “For most undocumented immigrants, there is no line. There. Is. No. Line.”

But there could be, and needs to be, a line. And not just one line, but (at least) two.

The first “line” can be found in the Real Enforcement with Practical Answers for Immigration Reform (REPAIR) proposal released on 29 April of this year by Senators Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, and Bob Menendez. REPAIR offers a framework for a comprehensive immigration reform bill that secures our nation’s borders, reforms our immigration code, and offers a path to citizenship (or earned citizenship, or back of the line citizenship…whatever you want to call it) for undocumented immigrants already living in the United States. One provision of the REPAIR framework is the creation of an altogether new visa category (the H-2C visa) for “non-seasonal, non-agricultural workers to enter the United States” legally. In short, an H-2C visa category creates “a line” Latin America’s average Josés to apply for legal entry into the United States.

The second “line” can be found in the Refugee Protection Act introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy’s office in March. In some sense, those who wish to flee to the U.S. from the hellish violence in Central America and Mexico seek asylum. Unfortunately, not in the legal sense.

In order to qualify for asylum under current U.S. immigration law, an applicant must establish a “well-founded fear of persecution” due to their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Julia Preston notes in the New York Times that “American immigration judges, always careful not to open the asylum door to any flood, have made it more difficult for Central Americans running from gangs.” The Refugee Protection Act is designed to address this dynamic.

According to a press release by Sen. Leahy’s office:

“The bill eliminates the one year waiting period for refugees and asylum seekers to apply for a green card. The legislation authorizes the Secretary of State to designate certain vulnerable groups as eligible for expedited adjudication as refugees. The Refugee Protection Act also clarifies the law to ensure that innocent asylum seekers and refugees are not unfairly denied protection as a result of the material support and terrorism bars in law…”

In short, one thing the Refugee Protection Act would do is create a way for Latin Americans fleeing persecution from the violence plaguing the region to legally flee to el norte.

Unfortunately, the Refugee Protection Act remains stuck somewhere in the legislative pipeline and the H-2C visa remains two paragraphs in a framework, a draft, a outline of suggestions, and not somewhere immigrants can yet “line up and wait their turn just like everyone else” to come to the Land of the Free.

That said, until the U.S. immigration code is amended to create places where immigrants — and particularly, immigrants from Latin America — can line up, the argument this blog seeks to address remains, as Bennion noted in 2008, “a fabrication dreamt up by restrictionists to make their odious ideas palatable to an unknowing public.”

Once exiles begin to take up residence in the new country they invariably manifest symptoms of Machiavelli’s sixteenth century observation on exiles. While speaking to the Prince, Machiavelli often cited the passage below:

From Discourses, Book 2, Chapter 31:

“It ought to be considered, therefore, how vain are the faith and promises of those who find themselves deprived of their country. For, as to their faith, it has to be borne in mind that anytime they can return to their country by other means than yours, they will leave you and look to the other, notwithstanding whatever promises they had made you. As to their vain hopes and promises, such is the extreme desire in them to return home, that they naturally believe many things that are false and add many others by art, so that between those they believe and those they say they believe, they fill you with hope, so that relying on them you will incur expenses in vain, or you undertake an enterprise in which you ruin yourself….. A Prince, therefore, ought to go slowly in undertaking an enterprise upon the representations of an exile, for most of the times he will be left either with shame or very grave injury.”

Examples of exiles intervening in our foreign policy include the Cuban exiles who started arriving in the early 1960s and began to take measures to have their host, the USA, take action to help recover their homeland. Prior to the 1959 Cuban Revolution, Mexican exiles sought to influence US public opinion and policy during the long Porfirio Diaz reign (1876-1911) and in the chaotic revolutionary period (1910-1920). They eagerly worked to organize and gain approval to topple the Porfiriato or the succeeding revolutionary regimes. A small Nicaraguan exile group appeared in the US during the 1980s, with limited but highly effective influence decrying the Soviet support of the Sandinista takeover of their homeland.

The Cuban exile community, which came in sizable numbers fleeing ‘communist’ Cuba, became a virtually permanent fixture in the American body politic. They incessantly sought countless ways to influence US policy to generate a ‘regime change’ in Cuba. The fact is in time the Cuban exiles became successful not in toppling Fidel Castro but in influencing US Presidential elections. The luck of these exiles settling primarily in Florida a ‘swing state’ in Presidential electoral politics resulted in an out-of-proportion influence. Since 1980, Florida has gone with every Presidential winner. This fact has allowed the Cuban exile community to cleverly claim credit for winning. Hence, US foreign policy toward Cuba has virtually become a ‘domestic’ or South Florida policy.

The new right-wing exile group beginning to be felt in our country’s politics is the wealthy and educated Venezuelan community fleeing the Chavista regime. Most appear to be settling in South Florida alongside many Cuban exiles. It seems only natural, that recently this new exile group borrowed a page from the Cuban exile playbook. The prominent Venezuelan exile leadership began to subtly suggest and insinuate itself into the sympathetic Republican Congressional staff.

When the new US Ambassador nominee to Venezuela, Larry Palmer, recently appeared before the US Senate for confirmation hearings it was widely and correctly expected that a discussion of the anti-American Hugo Chavez regime would come under fire. The Venezuelan exiles cleverly manipulated the whole process with the goal of inflaming US-Venezuelan relations to the ends of not sending a US ambassadorial envoy to Chavez. They were able to persuade, convince or enlist a key Republican Senate Foreign Relations Committee Staffer working for the Minority Ranking Member. Apparently, after the hearing but just before the Senate’s Committee Business Meeting was to vote out Palmer onto the floor for final vote for confirmation of his nomination as US Ambassador to Venezuela, he adroitly submitted several additional questions. At that point, the State Department’s Venezuela Desk crafted bluntly honest and unusually provocative responses to the rather pointed questions on the Chavez regime’s misconduct. The answers were appropriately cleared and unwittingly approved by State Department’s bureaucratic mattress mice. Palmer also casually approved, most likely thinking the answers would help getting him from under the Republicans’ stare.  However, one wonders if he considered that upon receiving the written answers, the staffer would go on to eagerly post them on the Senator’s (Lugar) website for the world to see. Subsequently, the staffer reportedly had Palmer’s name removed from the previously approved business meeting agenda where the final vote on his nomination was scheduled to take place. Hence, he ensured a delay of his confirmation. But the final step, in the hoped-for sequence, occurred when Chavez harrumphed and subsequently declared Palmer non-acceptable (withdrawing or countermanding his prior agrèment or approval by the Venezuelan government). As a result of the exiles skillful manipulation of the process, the Palmer nomination to Venezuela has been effectively scuttled. And even better, Chavez takes the hit for torpedoing Palmer’s nomination and US-Venezuelan relations are facing a nadir. One wonders if Friday’s editorial in the premier daily, the Washington Post calling on the US not to send an Ambassador to Caracas isn’t also part of the exiles campaign.

Unfortunately, The Obama Administration foreign policy-makers simply demonstrate scant diplomatic or political savvy to counter or even detect such Machiavellian capers. Latin exiles have once again masterfully proven their skillful reading and manipulation of US policy. The Obama/Clinton entourage should read carefully what the master political cynic of the 16th century wisely appreciated. “A Prince, therefore, ought to go slowly in undertaking an enterprise upon the representations of an exile, for most of the times he will be left either with shame or very grave injury.” If the GOP takes over Congress this fall, the encouraged and devious exiles will be difficult to contain.

Two questions kept running through my mind as I spoke to Gaby. One is: Why would we not want these motivated young people in our society? The other question is: Why should we limit young people who have persevered despite the odds being stacked against them?

As I have explained previously, DREAM Act students are undocumented individuals, who were brought to this country as children. They didn’t have any choice in the matter, but their parents were seeking a better future. Some may have been legal at one point and their status lapsed, and others may have entered the country illegally. However, children traveling with their parents are rarely ever in the driver’s seat. They travel with their caregivers, similar to how other youngsters have been traveling throughout time.

Gaby Pacheco has completed three degrees at Miami Dade College. She holds two associates degrees and a bachelor’s degree in education. She told me that if the DREAM Act became law tomorrow that she would apply for her master’s or another graduate program that would allow her to continue on to earn a Ph.D. so that she could practice music therapy. More specifically, Gaby wants to work with autistic children to teach them how to survive and be productive in the world. In expressing her dream, Gaby told me, “I want to teach them how to live. When I was in 12th grade, I saw a lot of kids in group homes who didn’t need to be there.”

It’s obvious that Gaby has the motivation and existing education to achieve a graduate degree, but her undocumented status is holding her back. In trying to figure out why the US would not want a motivated young person like Gaby fully contributing to our country, I did a little research on special education teachers with some data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment for special education teachers is expected to increase faster than average for all occupations because there is a shortage of people who specialize in working with youth who are disabled. Gaby could most certainly work with special needs children, but she could also train others to work with this population as well if she had her graduate degree(s).

Sadly, I know young people who have the benefits of legalized status who don’t even have half the motivation or ambition that Gaby and her fellow DREAM walkers have. Despite not being able to work legally, to pursue advanced studies, qualify for financial aid, or even live without having to worry about other family members and their immigration status, many of these students have achieved more and shown more motivation than some of their documented peers. It doesn’t make sense to further limit these student by not regularizing them into our society, and it really isn’t realistic to assume that they would fit in back in their countries of origin. This country has become their home.

I asked Gaby what President Obama and his administration could do right now to help alleviate the situation for the DREAM Act students, and she gave me two suggestions. She said, “He could encourage the congress to pass the DREAM Act, which he indicated that he supported back in the primary debates between him and Hillary Clinton. And he can stop the deportation of DREAMers or undocumented people who have a legal spouse or child.”

Some immigration rights advocates have pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, similar to the bill in the Congress that has been introduced by Representative Gutierrez (this does include the DREAM Act). Furthermore, some have suggested that the approach to immigration reform must be a whole one and not piecemeal since coalitions that support various parts of it could be broken or rendered less effective in parts. However, sometimes policies are implemented incrementally. I think that the DREAM Act could be the first piece in a larger comprehensive immigration reform if we don’t see more movement from congress before the summer.

When asked what she thought about the whole comprehensive approach versus implementing immigration reform in pieces where the DREAM Act might be passed before other elements of the existing proposal, Gaby offered this, “My parents came for us (their children). I think they would be fine with that. The dream of this country is to better yourself and that has typically been done through the children.”

When I asked Gaby about elected politicians who have expressed support for their walk and work to advocate on behalf of the DREAM Act, I was told that Rep. Mario Diaz Balart has personally congratulated her for her effort. Regarding the candidates for Florida’s hotly contested senate seat, Gaby also expressed that Governor Charlie Crist has been supportive of the DREAM Act students, as has Representative Kendrick Meek, while Marco Rubio has not indicated support for the DREAM Act or commented about the students on this walk. Congressman Alcee Hastings also issued a written proclamation in support of the DREAM Walkers while indicating that he is a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act when they commenced on their long journey in Palm Beach, Florida. The local support expressed for these students has truly been bipartisan.

Finally, if you believe in the DREAM Act and realize the benefit that our country could benefit from such diligent and motivated young people, I encourage you to assist the Trail of DREAMS walkers. Gaby expressed to me that they are most in need of money for food to keep them nourished and healthy, in addition to gas money for the RV that follows the walkers with their supplies.

There are a few items that I will be blogging about this week, but in the never ending search for new material, I came across this piece regarding Latinos and the “tea party movement.” Essentially, Latinos have become the perfect scapegoats for the Tea Partiers. Here’s the latest video from the Facebook group “Cuentame” exposing some of the hate being spread around at these tea parties:

In California politics, Mayor Villaraigosa’s cousin, John Perez was sworn in as the new Speaker of the Assembly. Perez is the first openly gay speaker to serve in this role. Today he expressed that his sexuality does not define him, but he gave a nod in acknowledging gay political leaders who came before him. Perez also distinguished himself from his cousin, Mayor Villaraigosa, when asked about the possibility of following his older cousin’s career path:

“It’s not my goal in life,” Perez said in a recent interview with the Times. “You never rule anything out but it’s as close to a rule-out as you can possible do. I love my cousin. We’re very different people in many ways. Just because he did it doesn’t mean I want to do it.”

You can read Speaker Perez’s swearing-in speech here. I particularly liked the part about public-private partnerships in the community colleges and his expressed commitment to fight for higher education in California.

In regards to the recent earthquake in Chile, I have come across some interesting pieces about why Chile is poised to recover more quickly from this disaster than Haiti was. Most notably, Chile has more modern building codes, but its economy is considered one of the “best run” in all of Latin America. Also, this week, Secretary Clinton will be hand delivering the first American assistance to Chile in the form of satellite phones.

Secretary Clinton is even utilizing GWB rhetoric about not intending to “cut and run” from Afghanistan. Frankly, I’m disappointed in both Obama and Clinton for beating the war drums like this. This isn’t the change I voted for, but I also realize the grip that the military industrial complex has on both parties. The US has been geared for war since WWII, and unfortunately, despite peace movements, we haven’t been able to move away from this reality.

Finally, if you are unsure about the situation in Afghanistan, then I would urge you to not support it. There is no point in supporting something that you don’t wholeheartedly believe in, especially when lives are on the line. The people at Brave New Films have some great resources that are worth examining. Please check them out, and let us know what you think:

In the meantime, the de facto leaders of Honduras have waged a war at home against any opposition to its rule and one abroad with a successful public relations effort, led by Lanny Davis, a Clinton supporter in 2008 and pro-Israeli spinmeister. Lanny Davis has ties to the pro-Isreali lobby, is the treasurer of a pro-Lieberman PAC, and has even referred to himself as a “good friend” of George W. Bush. With credentials like these, it is no wonder that the current government in Honduras tapped Davis to run its PR effort. He is firmly planted in the neocon political establishment, and in doing so, he made it more plausible to connect Zelaya to South American, socialist boogeyman Chavez, even though evidence from the Millennium Challenge Scorecard, utilizing data from the World Bank, UNESCO and Heritage Foundation, shows that the country had relatively high scores for economic freedom. And if the connection of Zelaya to Chavez wasn’t enough to earn the minds of people on the fence in supporting the coup, Davis could also connect Zelaya to Ahmadinejad in Iran, citing Chavez’s support of the Iranian President in his own election woes this spring, which fits nicely with his pro-Israeli portfolio.

Back in Honduras, there have been mass arrests, illegal detentions, violations of women’s rights and the blocking of media that is not favorable to the de facto government. Groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have documented these abuses, which have yet to be investigated or prosecuted by the Honduran attorney general’s office. Furthermore, many candidates who are running for public office, including one presidential candidate, have removed their names from the ballots for tomorrow in protest against the existing government, likely producing lopsided results. And the current state is coercing workers into participating in the election by informing them that they must show documentation indicating that they have voted or else they may lose their jobs. So far only Panama, Costa Rica, and Peru have indicated that they will recognize the election results, along with the US, as signaled by State Department official Thomas Shannon earlier this month.

The US should reconsider recognizing tomorrow’s elections in Honduras not only because of the widespread abuses of the existing government but to show that things can be different in the region – that there can be full participation in elections by all factions, not just the elite or the usual suspects. Additionally, Secretary Clinton should pay closer attention to the situation and not merely assume that her pal Lanny Davis has it under control. Lanny Davis has credibility issues and is too tied to business interests and neocon factions. If the current government truly represents democracy, it would not abuse those who disagree with it and would allow freedom of the press. Last month a US polling firm surveyed Hondurans and found that 54 percent of the respondents favored a constitutional assembly to resolve the current crisis. This is what ousted President Zelaya was calling for: a constitutional assembly. The US could support dialogue that would lead to a constitutional assembly and not recognize the new government until they restore civil liberties and human rights, while promoting more transparency. Doing so could help restore the credibility and faith that many hoped would accompany the Obama administration, instead of the business as usual approach that the US has taken for decades, contributing to the distrust and skepticism that our neighbors have of US intentions. We wouldn’t tolerate elections under these oppressive conditions, why should we expect the Hondurans to do so?

Several prominent members of the de facto government in Honduras are members of the elitist, ultra-conservative Catholic Opus Dei movement, who were upset that ousted President Zelaya vetoed the ban the “morning-after” pill, which is essentially high dose birth control not to be confused with the Mifepristone “abortion pill.” The legislation was passed by the Honduran Congress under the leadership of now de facto executive Roberto Micheletti and was proposed by then Congresswoman Martha Lorena Alvarado, who today serves as the Deputy Secretary of State of the de facto regime. One day after the coup on June 29, a ban on emergency contraception was enacted, which just went into effect this month.

Honduras has the highest adolescent birthrate in Central America, and one half of women 20-24 give birth by the age of 20. Moreover, some 70% of the population lives in poverty and 40% of those live in extreme poverty. Early motherhood has been linked to extended poverty, higher infant mortality, and often perpetuates a lower standard of living as mothers have difficulty resuming school and focusing on occupational advancement. The availability of birth control and the morning after pill would help prevent unwanted pregnancies and allow Honduran women the opportunity to gain more education to better position themselves to provide for their families.

The new coup government has a documented history of violence against women. In August, an international human rights fact-finding mission found that over 400 cases of violations of human rights against women were registered. One of the first people to be killed was a transgender woman Vicky Hernandez Castillo, who was out on the night that the new government assumed power, and happened to be unaware of the imposed curfew. She was shot in the eye and strangled, and the state has refused to perform an autopsy on her.

There have been reported physical assaults, beatings that aim at women’s reproductive organs, breasts, and hips. And there have been reports of gang rapes carried out by the police to “punish” women for being involved in anti-coup demonstrations. These rapes appear to have been premeditated, as police used condoms. The victims, fearful of retaliation, have reported what has happened to human right’s organizations, but not with the current government Human Rights or Women’s Rights offices. Finally, women leaders who are opposed to the de facto government have received death threats from the police and military via e-mail and voicemail. Some women have received threats that name them specifically, along with their profession, to make them aware that the authorities are expressly tracking them.

The irony of the coup government cracking down on women’s rights is that it has sold itself as a defender of freedom. It certainly is a paradox for the de facto government to not allow women some privilege in exercising reproductive freedom and basic civil liberties, while presenting itself as democratic and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to top US lobbyist and PR firms to build them an image that purports to be respectful of the rule of law. Secretary Clinton should seriously explore these rights violations before blessing the results of the upcoming Honduran election.

This morning I heard this clip on YouTube, where a journalist even suggests that Obama should consider replacing Clinton as Secretary of State because of the mixed signals:

Seneca has offered this in response:

Obama is not going to boot Hillary out over the Honduras fiasco. But the cumulative unsettling evidence of this foreign policy team begins to define the Administration: actions (or pratfalls) in Latin America over the recent Colombian-US agreements on military cooperation have become muddled, the contradictions to 40 years of US policy on the Israeli settlements issue resulted in Hillary backtracking to recover, the Cuba policy was not seriously addressed before the President stumbled onto it at the US-Latin Summit last spring nor has the administration (nor the previous two administrations) ever defined Chavez as a national security threat if in fact he is, the Plan Merida to help Mexico appears to have fallen into the doldrums of policy fatigue, the corrosive effects of the Afghanistan war (“where empires go to die…”) are increasing, the Iraq pull-out has been turned over entirely to Secretary Gates. The most intriguing question is: How can an inspirational and uplifting leader on the world stage choose some of the best and the brightest of Americans to handle foreign policy fall so short too often by carelessness or lack of focus?