U.S. Envoy To Haiti Resigns Over Inhumane Deportations

The U.S. Special Envoy to Haiti has resigned. The letter above is the resignation letter he sent to Secretary of State Blinken. Special Envoy Daniel Foote was just appointed to his position in July by President Biden.

He is right! The current administration policy of deporting people back to Haiti is cruel and inhumane. We are sending these desperate people back to a country in turmoil -- a country that is mired in poverty and lawless disorder. Sending them back puts them in danger.

It would make more sense to give these people permission to stay in our country. They are truly refugees, and deserve the chance to make a life for themselves and their families. The truth is that we need more immigrants to keep our economy healthy (since our own population is not growing enough to do so). And these people, willing to brave numerous hardships to get to the U.S., are the kind of hard-working people we need here.

I have no problem with weeding out the dangerous criminals and sending them back, but the rest should be allowed to stay in the United States. They will help our economy by taking the low-wage and dangerous jobs that U.S. citizens don't want.

We are a nation made up almost completely of immigrants and their descendants. It makes no sense to dent entrance to this new group -- especially when sending them back may well cause their death, either through violence or neglect.

I support President Biden, but the U.S. needs a more humane policy toward the Haitian refugees.

Deporting Haitians At The Border Is WRONG! Let Them In!

 

There are 15,000 or so Haitians on our border, and the Biden administration has started a process to deport them back to Haiti. I disagree with this policy. Haiti is already a country in trouble -- having recently suffered another earthquake and having just had their leader assassinated. Sending these immigrants back just compounds the misery of both them and their country!

I know that letting immigrants into this country is not currently politically popular, but we should do it anyway. Even double or triple the number wanting in is a drop in the bucket compared to our population of over 330,000,000. The white supremacists won't like it, and will whine about letting more non-whites into the country, but the truth is they would make almost no difference at all in the population ratio.

And they would help the country. We currently have many jobs that need filling, and these immigrants would take the lowest paying and most dangerous of those jobs -- not the high-paying jobs that American citizens want. They are desperate, and will take what's available to them. And letting them take those jobs will help them to start building a better future for themselves and their families.

Giving them green cards will not only allow them to work, but also to begin paying taxes. By taking the lowest-paying jobs, them won't immediately pay much in income taxes, but they will be paying Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes. And with those programs needing more money coming in, that would help them.

The truth is that our population is not growing enough to take care of the economy. We need more immigrants -- not less -- just to maintain a healthy economy. And these people, who have endured numerous hardships to get here, are the kind of people we need.

We should weed out the violent criminals and drug dealers, but the rest should be admitted. It's the decent thing to do, and it's needed. Stop compounding the misery! Do what's best for these people and our country!

U.S. Should NOT Interfere In The Politics Of Haiti Or Cuba

The nation of Haiti has some serious political problems at present. Their leader was assassinated in a coup attempt and there is much unrest and violence over what is to be done (who will replace him). The current leader is barely hanging on, and has asked for U.S. troops to be sent -- and some in this country agree with that.

There are also some serious demonstrations going on in Cuba -- thanks to a food and vaccine shortage and a repressive government. Some in the United States (especially among Cuban immigrants) want the U.S. to take action against the Cuban government.

The U.S. government should not do either. It should stay out of the politics of both nations, and let the people of those countries decide their future. And the U.S. should definitely not send troops or take military action to either country.

Frankly, the United States does not have a good record of trying to cause regime change in other countries. We have either made the situation worse, or failed to get anything accomplished. We need to learn from our mistakes.

The nation of Iran had a democratically-elected government, but our CIA caused that government to fall (because they were going to nationalize their oil reserves). We installed the Shah in power, and that country suffered many years under his dictatorial rule. When he was finally ousted, he was replaced by the religious regime of the Ayatollah.

The nation of Chile had a democratically-elected government, but our intelligence services help the military stage a coup (because they were going to nationalize the copper mines). That nation then suffered many years under the dictatorship of General Pinochet (who simply murdered his opponents). Thankfully, the people of Chile finally ousted Pinochet (with no help from us) and re-established their democracy.

When the French left Vietnam, we sent our own troops to prop up a corrupt South Vietnamese government (because we were afraid the communist North Vietnamese would take over). We accomplished nothing but the deaths of thousands of people on both sides of the conflict -- and then withdrew when it became apparent that we could not "win".

We then made the same mistake in Afghanistan. We went to war with the Taliban government there because we wanted to capture or kill Osama bin-Laden. But when that became difficult, we changed our goal and decided to establish a "democracy" in that country. The government we established was corrupt, and after twenty years of war it became obvious that, like in Vietnam, we could not "win".

Frankly, with our tack record, we should not get involved in either Haiti or Cuba. We would likely just make things worse and cause a lot of unnecessary deaths.

Is Trump Trying To Make Florida A Blue State ?

(Caricature of Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

Florida is a purple state, and has been for a while. That means that both Republicans and Democrats have a good chance of carrying the state. It is also a state that Republicans must have to win the presidency.

But the words/actions of Donald Trump could be pushing Florida into being a blue state -- one that Democrats can count on in the future. How is this happening?

Here's how Cameron Joseph at Talking Points Memo describes it:

President Trump’s comments about “shithole countries” like Haiti could hurt him most severely in his winter home of Florida, a state that’s also home to a large Haitian community. And it’s just the latest time he’s singled out a key voting bloc to antagonize in the state.

His racially charged comments add insult to injury to the community, just weeks after his administration ended temporary status protection for 60,000 Haitian refugees living in the U.S.

And that’s nothing compared to how much he’s infuriated the state’s fast-growing Puerto Rican community with his administration’s shoddy response to Hurricane Maria, which devastated the island. . . .

There are more than 300,000 Haitian-born people living in Florida, including roughly 100,000 American citizens who are registered voters. . . .

That’s a big voting bloc — as many people as Trump’s margin of victory in the state in 2016. But it’s nothing compared to the more than 1 million Puerto Ricans living in the state, a population that has more than doubled since 2000. Trump’s handling of the hurricane that devastated (and continues to devastate) the island territory has caused a major uptick in the Puerto Rican exodus. As of November, a whopping 200,000 Puerto Ricans had moved to the state since the hurricane — a number that’s undoubtedly increased since then. All Democrats need to do is register those American citizens to further hurt Republicans’ chances in the state.

Shameful! - The Obama Administration Helped American Corporations Abuse Poor Workers In Haiti

(This image of Haitian garment workers is from the website Haiti Chery.)

I am beginning to understand why the U.S. government was so upset at the secrets being exposed by WikiLeaks. It had nothing to do with any Americans being put in danger (because they just didn't happen). But it did expose some really shameful exploits engaged in by the government of this country. I would love to tell you that all of those shameful exploits were done by the Republicans, but sadly, that is not true. Consider the following example of an action by the Obama administration -- an action that should embarrass all true Democrats.

Back in 2012, the minimum wage for a Haitian garment worker was 24 cents an hour (about $1.92 a day, or $9.60 for a 40 hour week). Even in a poor country like Haiti, those are some dreadful wages. The Haitian government decided to help those workers by raising the minimum wage to a whopping 61 cents an hour (about $4.88 for an 8 hour day, or $24.40 for a 40 hour week).

Now that may sound like a huge raise in pay to some of you, but the truth is that it would still leave many of those workers in poverty. It takes $12.50 a day for a Haitian family with two children to meet their expenses. But the American corporations doing business in Haiti (like Hanes and Levi Strauss) showed they don';t care about their workers. They weren't happy with just keeping those workers in poverty -- they wanted to continue shamelessly abusing them. So they complained to the Obama administration.

And the Obama administration listened to that outrageous corporate whining -- and put pressure on the Haitian government to stop the minimum wage raise to 61 cents an hour. And that pressure worked. The Haitian government capitulated and granted a raise to only 31 cents an hour (about $2.48 for an 8 hour day, or $12.40 for a 40 hour week).

Frankly, I'm shocked. The United States government had no business interfering in the economic affairs of another country. We certainly wouldn't let Haiti (or any other country) tell us what our minimum wage should be, and we shouldn't be telling them. If anything, we should be encouraging them to mandate a wage that would lift workers out of poverty (and our government should be mandating a wage in our own country that does the same).

It just goes to show what many claim may be true -- that we no longer live in a democracy, but a corporatocracy. And both parties are to blame. The Republicans encouraged the outsourcing of these American jobs and even provided corporations with tax breaks to do it (tax breaks which are still in effect). Now we learn that Democrats are caving in to corporate wishes to help them continue their abuse of foreign workers. Is it any wonder that the American middle class is disappearing and American workers can't get an even break? It's because that's what our corporate masters want.

The Occupation Of Haiti

It's been a while since most people thought of Haiti in this country, but they are still trying to recover from the disaster of a few years ago -- and they are still occupied by troops from other countries. Why are those troops still there? When will they leave? Surely the need for them has long since passed.

Uruguayan writer and historian Eduardo Galeano recently gave a speech to a forum held in Montevideo about Haiti, and I really like what he had to say. Here is part of that speech:

Look it up in any encyclopedia. Ask which was the first free county in America. You will always get the same answer: the United States. But the United States declared its independence while it was a nation with 650,000 slaves, who continued being slaves for a century, and in its first constitution established that a black was the equivalent of three fifths of a person.


And if you ask any encyclopedia what was the first country to abolish slavery you will always get the same answer: England. But the first country to abolish slavery was not England but Haiti, which is still atoning for the sin of its dignity.


The black slaves of Haiti had defeated the glorious army of Napoleon Bonaparte and Europe never forgave them for this humiliation. For a century and a half, Haiti paid France an enormous compensation for being guilty of its own freedom, but even that was not enough. That black insolence is still offensive to the white masters of the world.

Currently the armies of several countries, including my own, still occupy Haiti. How is this military invasion justified? By claiming that Haiti puts international security at risk.

Nothing new.


Throughout the 19th century, the example of Haiti constituted a threat to the security of countries that still practiced slavery. Thomas Jefferson had already said it: the plague of rebellion came from Haiti. In South Carolina, for example, the law permitted the jailing of any black sailor while his ship was in port because of the risk that he might spread the anti-slave pestilence. And in Brazil, that pestilence was known as Haitianism.


In the 20th century, Haiti was invaded by the marines because it was an unsafe country for its foreign creditors. The invaders proceeded to take charge of customs and handed the National Bank over to City Bank of New York. And once there, they stayed for 19 years.


How long will foreign soldiers stay in Haiti? They arrived to stabilize and to help, but they have been there for seven years, unhelpful and destabilizing this country that does not want them.


The military occupation of Haiti is costing the United Nations more than 800 million dollars a year.


If the United Nations were to spend those funds on technical cooperation and social solidarity, Haiti would receive a strong boost for developing its creative energy. And it could thus save itself from its armed saviors, who have a certain tendency to rape, to kill and to spread fatal diseases.


Haiti does not need anyone to come and multiply its calamities. Nor does it need anyone’s charity. As an old African proverb says so well, the hand that gives is always above the hand that receives.


But Haiti does need solidarity, doctors, schools, hospitals and genuine collaboration to make possible the rebirth of its food sovereignty, destroyed by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other philanthropic societies.


For us Latin Americans, that solidarity is a debt of gratitude: it will be the best way to say thank you to this small great nation that in 1804, with its contagious example, opened the doors of liberty to us.

More Bad News For Haiti ?

A little over a year ago Haiti was already known as the poorest country in the western hemisphere.   Haiti had a rich history, being the only country founded by a successful slave revolt, but had been unable to establish a lasting democracy or a strong economic system.   Then the massive earthquake hit almost exactly one year ago and things got even worse.

After the earthquake, many developed nations promised to help rebuild Haiti.   However, one year later, little has been done in the way of rebuilding.   Only about 38% of the money pledged has been received and spent  -- most of it for food and medical care.   Those left homeless by the quake are still homeless and may be living in tents for years to come.

Adding to the Haitian problems is a recent election which is still being disputed, and a cholera outbreak that has claimed thousands of victims.   In the midst of all these problems, a figure from the nation's past has returned to the island -- Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier.   Duvalier and his infamous father, Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier (both pictured above), ruled Haiti with an iron hand for nearly 30 years.   Papa Doc seized power in 1957, and his son took over in 1971 (after his father's death).   They ruled through terror -- mainly from their secret police, the Tonton Macoute.

These two dictators ruled with the approval and support of the United States (two of many right-wing tyrants the U.S. has supported over the years -- under the supposition that a right-wing dictator was preferred over an elected left-wing president who might nationalize the property of U.S. corporations).   Baby Doc Duvalier was finally ousted in 1986 and fled the country after the U.S. government finally withdrew its support.

No one knows why the 59 year-old former dictator has returned at this critical time in Haiti's history, but it is unlikely that he was just homesick.   He still has some support on the island, and may have visions of regaining his former power.   With the massive problems being currently faced by Haiti, it would be a prime time for an old dictator to seize power.

Duvalier says he returned "because I know the people are suffering.   I wanted to show them my solidarity, to tell them that I am here, I am well disposed and determined to participate in the rebirth of Haiti."   Frankly, that sounds ominous.

Duvalier's return is not good news for the people of Haiti, and the situation will warrant close observation.

Kidnappers To Be Released

I hope this is not true, but I suspect it probably is. An unnamed source in the Haitian judiciary is saying that the presiding judge of the case of the 10 American christian kidnappers is going to release all ten and drop the charges -- probably today (Thursday).

The unnamed source says, "One thing an investigating judge seeks in a criminal investigation is criminal intentions on the part of the people involved and there is nothing that shows that criminal intention on the part of the Americans."

Frankly, that's just ludicrous! If that reason was taken to its logical conclusion, then very few crimes could be prosecuted. How can a court prove "criminal intentions"? It seems to me that the very fact that a person committed the crime should be sufficient to prove criminal intentions. And these nuts tried to smuggle 33 children out of the country illegally.

These "christians" could have determined if these children were really orphans, but they didn't. They could have secured the necessary paperwork to take the children out of the country if they were truly trying to help, but they didn't even try to do that (and they had been told by Dominican authorities not to enter their country without that paperwork). They even lied to the children -- some thought they were going to camp.

What these people did was illegal, and would be illegal in any country on any continent. They are kidnappers on a large scale and should be prosecuted. If they were not Americans and "christians", they would have been prosecuted. I suspect this release is just a political act by the Haitian government to please the American government (and get more aid and considerations in the future from the United States).

It reduces the kidnapped children to nothing more than political pawns, and that is wrong. These criminals are lucky that the Haitian government is willing to play this as a political game. If they'd tried this in the U.S. (or many other countries), they'd be spending a lot of years in prison.

Not Even Christians Can Ignore The Law

Sometimes christians get a little carried away with their religion and they idea that what they are doing is good and is approved of by god -- and that idea allows them to think it's OK for them to ignore some laws that everyone else are expected to obey. After all they think, shouldn't god trump human laws?

Take for example, the ten missionaries arrested in Haiti. The odds are better than average that they went to Haiti to try and help out in the tragedy, but somewhere along the line their religious zeal overcame their common sense and they broke the law. They gathered up 33 Haitian children they believed to be orphans (although not all of them were) and tried to smuggle them out of that country.

They claim they were just taking them to a new orphanage being set up in the Dominican Republic, but who knows what would have happened to the children once they got there. Would the children have been "trafficked" out from there as the Haitian government thinks was possible? We don't know, because I doubt these American christians would have hung around to see what happened to them.

The Haitian prime minister says they "kidnapped" the children. He went on to say, "It is clear now that they were trying to cross the border without papers. It is clear now that some of the children have live parents. And it is clear now that they knew what they were doing was wrong." The christians arrested denied that, saying they did not know they were doing anything wrong. The PM's statement has more of a ring of truth to me.

How could these people not know they were breaking the law? They gathered up the children and then tried to take them out of the country without any kind of permission from the Haitian government. It's not that they were denied permission -- they never even asked for it. They'd have to be incredibly stupid to not know they were breaking the law.

There is no country in the world that allows people to smuggle their children out of the country without first asking for and receiving government permission. They would never have tried to do this with American children, so what made them think it would be OK to do it in Haiti. Were they trying to take advantage of Haiti's tragedy to put some children in the christian adoption pipeline?

Those arrested are now afraid that the Haitian (and maybe American) government is going to try and make an example out of them. That's exactly what should happen. Taking children illegally and without permission is indeed "kidnapping" -- and that's what they did.

NOTE -- The picture is of Jim Allen from Amarillo, one of the 10 arrested.

Finally - A Bipartisan Bill !

I was just beginning to think the current Congress was so divided that it would be impossible to actually have a bipartisan bill. But last week, the Democrats and Republicans in Congress proved me wrong. Of course, it took an unprecedented disaster to make it happen.

Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow contributors of cash to Haiti disaster relief to take that contribution off their 2009 taxes, instead of having to wait and take it off their 2010 taxes. The bill had been introduced by leaders of both parties, and passed by a wide margin. On Thursday, the Senate also passed the bill -- unanimously.

They bipartisan move was to encourage Americans to donate to cash to Haiti relief efforts (so far, over $200 million has been donated by Americans). Donations that are made between January 12th and February 28th can be used as a deduction on 2009 taxes. Text donations would also be deductible with a phone bill showing the contribution.

But don't get too excited, especially if you only made a small donation and will be filing either the 1040EZ or the 1040A form. The contributions must be a part of itemized deductions on the 1040 long form, and you'll need a significant amount of deductions to make it worth your while to file the long form and itemize.

But even though this deduction won't actually be available to most tax filers, it is nice to see that Democrats and Republicans can agree about something. Now if they could only carry this over to health care reform, climate change, energy policy, job creation and reform of financial regulations, we would all be better off.

But I'm just dreaming. That could never happen.

Ron Paul - Voting No Just To Be Mean

I think Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) has probably voted "no" more than any other member of Congress. In fact, he has become famous for voting that way and many times is the only member of Congress voting in the negative. It's almost as if it doesn't matter what's being considered or which party is pushing it, Paul can be counted on to vote no.

Now I'm not saying it's always bad to vote no. I've even agreed with some of his no votes, like when he voted against the sending of troops to invade foreign countries like Iraq. Iraq posed no danger to the United States and Paul's vote against the invasion made a lot of sense.

I can even understand some of the no votes that I don't necessarily agree with, because these votes are about some action or expenditure by the government. After all, there are going to be opposing views on nearly every action or expenditure by the government, and all that proves is that people have differing political points of view.

But every now and then something comes along that it just makes no sense to vote against -- unless it's just to be mean. One of them is the resolution on Haiti just passed by the House of Representatives. This innocuous, but important resolution was a non-controversial and non-binding sense of Congress statement "expressing condolences to and solidarity with the people of Haiti."

The nonpartisan resolution was passed by the House on a 411 to 1 vote, and yes, that single "no" vote belonged to Rep. Ron Paul (pictured). He actually voted to NOT send condolences and express solidarity to the people suffering a terrible tragedy in Haiti. What a jerk!

Paul's spokeswoman, Rachel Mills, tried to justify his mean-spirited vote by saying it was more than just sending condolences and includes support for "government-to-government aide and he's just not comfortable with that." What a smelly load of horse crap that is!

The non-binding resolution would not send or prevent the sending of a single penny to the government of Haiti. It was simply a statement saying the government of the United States cares about the people suffering in Haiti.

Paul's vote was not a vote of conscience. It was just a mean-spirited and self-aggrandizing action aimed at his uncaring and anti-government base. He should be ashamed, and so should the people who keep sending him back to Congress.

Why Won't We Give Cuba Its Props ?

The excellent web site Common Dreams brought up a topic about the Haitian tragedy that I hadn't thought about -- but it deserves a lot of thought from all of us. Do we really have a free and independent media? Or does our supposedly independent media only give us what the government wants us to hear -- especially about countries that are supposedly our "enemies"?

I am thankful for the internet, because many times our mainstream media only seems to see one side of a story (especially Fox News). Usually that point of view is rather middle-of-the-road. Almost never is a true left-wing viewpoint aired or written about. Although the right-wing would have us believe most of our media is "left-wing", that is simply not true. As a true left-winger, I can tell you that the "liberal" mainstream media are really timid middle-roaders.

It gets even worse when the media is writing about international affairs. They seem totally incapable of writing about another country except in terms of them being good (agreeing with American policy) or evil (opposing American policy). Take Cuba for instance. How many stories have you read in the mainstream media about the good that Cuba does? None. We only hear about how bad their leaders are (because they won't bend to our will).

Did you know that the first country to respond to the Haitian tragedy was Cuba? Immediately after the earthquake they sent a team of 30 doctors. And they did not have to send someone to evaluate the situation first. They just sent help.

But this was not covered by the mainstream media, except for two sources. The Christian Science Monitor wrote about the Cubans sending doctors (and their doctors are top-notch). The other source was Fox News who simply wondered why the Cubans weren't helping. In other words, they LIED so they could get in a shot at Cuba.

In addition to the 30 doctors they sent after the tragedy happened, Cuba already had 400 doctors in the country giving free health care to that poverty-stricken country (even though the Haitian government is pro-American). In fact, Cuba does more than any other country, including America, to help poor people all over the world receive quality medical care. But you would never know that by reading or watching the American media.

And did you know that when Hurricane Katrina struck and devastated New Orleans, Cuba was one of the first countries to offer aid? They were willing to send doctors and other types of aid, and you can bet it would have been there on the first day. But George Bush turned them down, even though he was doing nothing to help himself. It was more important to him to maintain the illusion of Cuba being our enemy, than it was to get help to the people of New Orleans -- many of whom died waiting on Bush to send help.

I don't know about you, but if I was in a disaster I would accept help from anyone who offered it, and I wouldn't care what their politics were. The middle of a disaster is a lousy time to be playing politics -- whether it's our government or our media.

By the way, Venezuela has also responded quickly with help for the Haitians. Has our media reported that? In fact, Hugo Chavez has been very generous about sending doctors, teachers and financial aid to many other Latin American countries. But all our media wants to report is that he is a "dictator", even though he was elected by a large majority of Venezuelans.

I think we used to have a free and independent media in this country, but today's corporate-owned media conglomerates are only interested in selling advertisements and passing on government and party public relations releases. Real news coverage of all sides of important questions would cost too much and eat into their huge profits -- and might anger one of their corporate sponsors.

I miss the days when the mainstream media brought us real news from all pertinent angles. If it were not for the internet, we'd get no news at all except for corporate-approved pablum.

NOTE -- The picture above is of a Cuban-trained Haitian doctor. In addition to the 400 Cuban doctors in Haiti, Cuba has, with their scholarship program, trained at least 544 Haitian doctors.

Fox News -- Where's The News ?

I have to hand it to CNN. They have shown themselves to be a news organization that can be depended upon to cover the real news. They were broadcasting about the Haitian disaster just minutes after it had happened, and by the next morning they had several reporters on the ground in Haiti. Their coverage has been excellent, and it would not surprise me to see some awards coming their way for the great (and very tough) job they are doing.

MSNBC has not equaled the excellent coverage by CNN, but they have also done a credible job of covering the tragedy in Haiti. They can also be proud of the coverage they are providing. But there is one self-proclaimed "news" organization that has virtually ignored the terrible story in Haiti -- Fox News.

Speaking of the lack of coverage Fox has given to the Haitian story, professor of communications at Indiana Wesleyan University Randall E. King said, "When a real crises comes and there's an opportunity to really serve as a leading news organization, to make a conscious decision not to cover this is an abandonment of journalistic responsibility."

Mr. King is absolutely correct, but what he doesn't seem to realize is that Fox News has never had any journalistic responsibility. The truth is that they are not now, and have never been, a news organization. A news organization covers news, ideally in a transparent and unbiased way.

What Fox News is really is the propaganda arm of the ultra-right and its bastard child -- the Republican Party. The only "news" that Fox covers are stories that can be twisted to make right-wing Republicans look good and liberal Democrats look bad. For them, if a story cannot serve that purpose (like the Haitian tragedy), then they have no use for it.

This should end the ridiculous fallacy that Fox is a news organization.

(A tip of my hat goes to Jolly Roger of Reconstitution 2.0 for bringing attention to this.)

Haiti

I feel like I need to write something about the enormous tragedy happening now in Haiti, but every time I get to thinking about it I just want to cry. No country in our Hemisphere was less prepared than poverty-stricken Haiti for something like this to happen. I won't try to give you the facts, because the situation is very fluid and you can get that at CNN or many other news outlets.

I just hope that President Obama does a much better job of reacting to this tragedy and getting help there quickly and in sufficient quantities, than Bush did with the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans. Bush should be eternally shamed at his inability to react swiftly and appropriately in New Orleans.

So far, it looks like President Obama is doing what can be done and doing it quickly. I certainly hope so, and I hope he realizes that after the Bush fiasco in New Orleans, many people will judge the Obama presidency by how he handles the Haitian tragedy. Nobody (of any political persuasion) is willing to put up with another New Orleans.

But President Obama is not the only one who needs to come forward and help. We all need to do that. With this recession most of us may not have much, but we need to give what we can. Remember, many small donations are just as good as one large donation. Even $5 or $10 will help.

I urge you to find a relief charity that you trust and give what you can.