Canadian abondoned in Kenya, while gov't officials go MIA and do nothing

The story of Canadian citizen Suaad Hagi Mohamud trapped in Kenya is shameful enough, but the pathetic reaction of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan simply adds insult to injury.

Here’s what happened.

Back in May, Mohamud – who lives in Toronto – was visiting friends and family in Kenya. When it was time for her to come home, airport officials in Nairobi said that Mohamud’s passport photo did not look like her, claiming that she was an imposter.

Even after Mohamud showed all of her ID – including other government documents, even a drugstore loyalty shopping card – Kenyan officials said Mohamud’s lips in person didn’t match those in her passport photo. (Some reports say the photo issue was a ruse, and really, Kenyan officials wanted a bribe. The silliness of the claims even had Kenyan officials ruminating that Mohamud was her own twin sister.)

When Mohamud’s case was then handed over to Canadian officials in Kenya, they did nothing. Mohamud’s Canadian passport was cancelled, she was charged with criminally falsifying her identity, and thrown in jail.

In order to end the ordeal, Mohamud volunteered for a DNA test to prove her identity and to show that she is indeed the mother of her teenage son (who was back in Toronto).

Even after the DNA result, Mohamud wasn’t free to come home, since her passport was cancelled. So she remained a woman without a country.

Finally last week, she was issued an emergency passport and allowed to travel home.

During this entire ordeal, the Canadian government did nothing – NOTHING – to help a Canadian citizen held hostage in a foreign country.

Van Loan – who as public safety minister is the Canadian equivalent of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano – dodged reporters and did nothing. Now, he has the nerve to announce a study to determine what went wrong. What went wrong? Mr. Van Loan, YOU are part and parcel of what went wrong.

Cannon – who as foreign affairs minister is the equivalent of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – then commissioned his own inquiry. Are these people serious? Just look in the mirror – there’s your answer.

Worst of all was Prime Minister Harper who, instead of aiding a Canadian in distress in a foreign land, gave this advice to all Canadian would-be travelers: “The Government of Canada does not control affairs in other countries. We do our best to aid those who are in various forms of difficulty, but ultimately we're not the sovereign government once people leave our territory.”

In other words, you are SOL. And this was the same week that former U.S. President Bill Clinton went to North Korea to rescue two American journalists. The contrast is startling.

This week, Harper not only said that his government would not apologize to Mohamud, but that he only learned of her case last week – even though it’s been making news for three months! This is as sad as Bush getting that memo about Osama bin Laden plotting to bomb the U.S., and then deciding to go golfing.

So what happened here? No need to wait for CYA government commissions. Either the Canadian government, as run by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, doesn’t care about Canadian citizens once they leave the country, or the Canadian government, under Harper’s Conservatives, only cares about some Canadians. Mohamud, after all, is a woman of color who was born in Somalia.

A letter to the editor in the Toronto Star even put it this way: “If hyphenated Canadians decide to go to obscure places in the world, they should do so at their peril.” (Ironically, the letter writer’s last name was McKenna, pegging him as a hyphenated Irish-Canadian.)

This is a sentiment that seems to permeate the highest levels of the current Canadian government. And a government that is so willing to toss one of its innocent citizens aside like this has clearly lost the right to govern.

Clinton “evolution” points to Obama hypocrisy

Former Bill Clinton – the man who gave us the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) back in 1996 – now supports marriage equality for same-sex couples.

This is a stunning reversal for Clinton. DOMA, after all, blocks the federal government from recognizing legally wed same-sex couples in states where it is permitted. The legislation also allows a state not to recognize a legal same-sex marriage performed in another state, a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s full-faith-and-credit clause.

Clinton made the declaration in response to a question at the Campus Progress National Conference in Washington, D.C. on July 8, and reported by The Nation magazine’s website.

“I think all these states that [legalize same-sex marriage], should do it,” Clinton said, according to The Nation. When asked about his personal feelings on the subject, he said, “I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it’s wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that.”

This comes after he told an audience at Toronto’s Convention Centre this past spring that his position on same-sex marriage was “evolving.”

Evolving, indeed.

Of course, it’s somewhat safe for Clinton to say all this now, nine years removed from office. Clinton won’t suffer any of the political consequences he faced back when he was in the Oval Office.

At the same time, however, same-sex marriage was merely an idea then – not the reality that began in 2004 in Massachusetts. So it was much easier in the ‘90s to oppose marriage equality – and the tide continues to turn.

In fact, a recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of Democrats favor equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Which brings us to Barack Obama.

The current president not only opposes same-sex marriage (opting for separate-but-not-really-equal civil unions), but his Justice Department filed a vile brief in support of DOMA despite once promising to repeal the legislation. (See FredBlog entry “Obama the marriage-equality hypocrite,” June 18, 2009.)

Other high profile Democrats have recently come down on the side of marriage equality, including Howard Dean, who signed the nation’s first civil unions law back in 2000 as governor of Vermont.

Interestingly, Vermont’s new law allowing same-sex couples to marry goes into effect on Sept. 1. Other states joining the marriage equality club this year are Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Iowa.

That’s a lot of evolving. President Obama, the ball is now in your court.

FREAK OF THE MID-WEEK: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford

Usually, the FredBlog presents its Freak of the Week on Sunday. But freakiness knows no timelines. Therefore, the FredBlog presents its first-ever Freak of the Mid-Week.

On this special occasion, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Mark Sanford, yet one more Republican “family values” hypocrite to reveal that he’s cheated on his wife. (What, did he get jealous of the press coverage John Ensign was getting?)

Not only did he admit to the affair, but Sanford also disappeared – yes, disappeared – for almost a week. No one knew where he was. He didn’t tell anyone he was leaving. He just up and left.

Let’s address the hypocrisy first. Sanford is your standard “pro-family” social conservative who, whaddya know, was a big critic of Bill Clinton’s during the Monica Lewinsky affair.

At the time, Sanford called Clinton’s affair and the subsequent cover up "very damaging stuff.” He then noted, "I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally [to resign] ... I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he'd be gone."

So will Sanford follow his own advice and resign? Of course not – it’s not the Republican “family values” way.

Sanford also told CNN back in the ‘90s: "The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything."

And Sanford’s lies were doozies. But he seems less concerned about his own attacks on democracy. Special rights for one’s own indiscretions – that’s the Republican “family values” way.

That brings us to Sanford’s disappearing act based on lies and deception. For a full account, see http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/the_missing_governor_a_timeline.php. But here are some highlights:

* Last week, state officials realize Sanford is missing and unreachable.

* The governor’s office issues a statement that Sanford is in a secret undisclosed location in order to recover from a brutal legislative session.

* The governor’s office later says Sanford is hiking on the Appalachian Trail. This, of course, means spending time away from his family over Father’s Day weekend as well as hiking on National Naked Hiking Day (really, it was Sunday).

* The governor’s office issues yet another statement saying Sanford has contacted his office and says he is surprised that his disappearance has caused so much reaction. (He really thought people wouldn’t wonder where he went?)

* Once reappearing at Atlanta’s airport, he said that he considered the Appalachian hike, but instead went to Argentina to experience something more “exotic.” He also said he spent his time alone.

* At a Wednesday press conference, he said he was in Buenos Aires with his mistress. He cried, too, but don’t cry for him, Argentina.

Perhaps the worst part of the whole thing is that he never took the necessary steps to ensure that Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer would act as governor in his absence. So in essence, while Sanford was doing his disappearing Evita act, NO ONE WAS RUNNING SOUTH CAROLINA.

And to think, this guy wanted to run for president in 2012. Then again, does the GOP have much better to offer?

FREAKINESS THROUGH SEXTING

Like the cherry on the sundae, the topper of this scandal is the swath of emails traded between Sanford and his lady friend, who goes only by Maria. To read them all, go to http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/839350.html

But here’s one highlight from Sanford: “I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificently gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curves of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of night’s light — but hey, that would be going into the sexual details we spoke of at the steakhouse at dinner — and unlike you I would never do that!”

Sexual details at the steakhouse? That Sanford is a class act.

FREAK OF THE WEEK: U.S. Sen. John Ensign of Nevada

This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on John Ensign, the latest in a long line of Republican hypocrites who love to talk about “family values” while gettin’ a little somethin’ somethin’ on the side.

Ensign, a “pro-family” Nevada Republican, came clean this past week by admitting to an extramarital affair. But not only did Ensign cheat on his wife, he did so with a woman who was a campaign staffer at the time. Even better, the woman’s husband was also a campaign staffer!

Frankly, I don’t give rat’s hoo-ha about Ensign’s sex life, but his recent revelation certainly doesn’t sound like the act of someone who professes to uphold so-called “family values.” In fact, he is a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage because, as he sees it, gay couples being legally wed undermines the sanctity of marriage.

But cheating on your wife with an employee, right under the nose of the other woman’s husband? That’s A-OK!

Worse, Ensign is a member of the Promise Keepers. That’s the Denver-based men’s Christian evangelical ministry. And according to its own website, “A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.” Good job keeping THAT promise Ensign.

Ensign has also been quick to publicly flog other politicians who have cheated on their spouses. He was one of the Republicans who vociferously went after then-President Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky affair. In 1998, he told the Las Vegas Sun newspaper that Clinton “has no credibility left.”

Well, Mr. Ensign, now neither do you.

Ensign also went after fellow Sen. Larry Craig, a Republican from Idaho, who had his own sex scandal after being arrested in an airport men’s room in 2007 – around the same time Ensign was having his affair.

At the time, Ensign didn’t call on Craig to resign, but said, “I wouldn’t put myself, hopefully, in that kind of position, but if I was in a position like that, that’s what I would do.” Well then, Mr. Ensign, feel free to follow your own advice.

Then again, Mr. Family-Values-Anti-Gay-Promise-Keeper doesn’t seem very good at following his own advice.

FREAKY ENSIGN, PART DEUX

As if all this weren’t enough, the press conference Ensign held to say, “I had an affair,” took place at an odd locale. It was outside of a men’s room, with the “restrooms” plaque hanging over Ensign’s left shoulder.

Was this an homage to Sen. Craig’s cheatin’ restroom woes? Was he planning on meeting Craig there to get some sex-scandal advice? Was Ensign hoping to get some foot-tapping action of his own? We will never know.

Obama the marriage-equality hypocrite

Many gay and lesbian Americans feel double-crossed by President Barack Obama – and rightly so. After all, it was Obama’s clear stance against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that led many to side with him over Democratic primary rival Hillary Clinton.

Let’s travel back to the summer of 2007, a time when no one was expecting the battle royale to come between Clinton and Obama. In fact, Clinton was all but assumed to be the next president.

Logo, the gay cable network, held a gay-focused presidential primary debate along with the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay civil rights organization. Inevitably, the issue of marriage for same-sex couples came up.

While both Obama and Clinton agreed on separate-but-equal civil unions over full marriage equality, they differed on DOMA. That legislation, infamously signed into the law under dark of night by then-President Bill Clinton, does two critical things:

1.   It says the federal government does not have to recognize a legally wed same-sex couple, even if they are legally wed in their home state.

2.   It says that other states don’t have to recognize a couple legally wed in their home state. (This is clearly unconstitutional because of the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause, which means – among other things – that if a straight couple elopes to Vegas, when they go home to Idaho, their Nevada marriage must be recognized.)

At the Logo debate, Clinton – ever the pragmatist – said that as president, she would advocate repealing part of DOMA, but not the portion dealing with full faith and credit. She explained that it would not be politically feasible to repeal DOMA fully over the next presidential term.

Obama, however, went all in. He not only called for the full repeal of DOMA, but also noted that this has been his position since he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006.

After that exchange, many LGBT Americans took a second look at the race – and while many still sided with Clinton, more and more jumped to Obama.

DOMA, therefore, was a decisive issue for a large number of gays and lesbians looking at the presidential race.

It’s no wonder so many are angry with Obama right now.

Not only is he dragging his heels on high-priority LGBT issues such as repealing DOMA and the military’s anti-gay “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (which he promised to overturn), but his administration’s recent defense of DOMA is nothing but despicable.

In a brief submitted in the case of Smelt v. U.S. challenging the constitutionality of DOMA and California’s anti-gay Proposition 8, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is a “cautious policy of federal neutrality.” What!?!?! During the campaign, Obama called DOMA “abhorrent.”

As pointed out by the New York Times in a June 16 editorial, this “neutrality” argument is “an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits – such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns – that heterosexual married couples receive.”

Then there’s the brief’s comparison of same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia. As the Times put it, “The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the ‘traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.’ In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s ‘full faith and credit’ clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.”

And to top it all off, the brief argues that DOMA does not discriminate against gays; it merely limits federal benefits to those in opposite-sex marriages. So the Obama administration is saying that a gay man isn’t being discriminated by DOMA because he could go off and marry a woman to get the benefits!

This is twisted and shows ignorance and the kind of wedge-issue politics that Obama spoke out so strongly against during the campaign.

Then after all this odious offense, Obama has the nerve to throw crumbs in the form of partner benefits for federal employees only.

This is hypocrisy and anti-gay demagoguery worthy of George W. Bush. Is this really the change we can believe in that a majority of Americans voted for?

FREAK OF THE WEEK: U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg

This week, the FredBlog shines the freaklight on U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who just couldn’t decide whether or not he wanted to be President Barack Obama’s commerce secretary.

At first, Gregg wanted the job. He knew Obama was looking to create a bipartisan cabinet, and so Gregg reached out to the president. As Obama told the Springfield (Ill.) Journal-Register, “Mr. Gregg approached us with interest and seemed enthusiastic.”

This was odd enough since, in 1995, Gregg voted to abolish the Department of Commerce. When that didn’t work, Gregg worked to block then-President Bill Clinton’s effort to increase funding for the department.

OK, so Gregg’s “interest and enthusiasm” was weird enough, but then Gregg insisted he would only take the job if he were given a guarantee that his seat would be filled by another Republican. You see, if Gregg were to become commerce secretary, he would have to give up his senate seat. Under normal circumstances, Gregg’s replacement would be chosen by his state’s current governor – Democrat John Lynch, who would be expected to appoint a fellow Democrat.

But Obama talked with Lynch, and they worked it out. Lynch agreed to appoint a Republican, just to satisfy Gregg’s condition.

Everything was set. Gregg talked up the need for bipartisanship as Obama would get more bipartisan cred for appointing Gregg. And the balance of power in the Senate would not be disturbed because Lynch agreed to appoint a Republican replacement. In fact, Lynch had already chosen New Hampshire’s next Republican senator.

So what did Gregg do? Pull out!

That’s right. Noting that he has too many policy disagreements with Obama – “irresolvable conflicts,” Gregg called them – he changed his mind.

First off, Gregg is a fiscal conservative, and he had to know from the get-go that he would be at odds with the Obama administration over economic matters. But secondly, after all of Gregg’s talk of bipartisanship, he withdrew over what amounted to partisan differences over issues including the stimulus package – which Gregg voted against.

He was a dope for wanting the job at the start. He was dopier for wanting his Senate seat to get special treatment. And he was the ultimate in dopiness for flip-flopping on bipartisanship and withdrawing his nomination.

As part of his withdrawal statement, Gregg said, “I will continue to represent the people of New Hampshire in the United States Senate.” Ain’t they lucky.