A Okie look at all thing Politics, eCampaign, New Media and Warfare - - - I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. - John Adams
California, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, even Cuba and Canada are just some of the places Oklhoma Lawmakers went using our money. Lawmakers spent $1.5 million on travel, more than $155,000 to go out of state.
Senator Brian Bingman (R)
was one of the biggest spenders.
He filed travel claims for $7,661.33 worth of Energy Council conferences. Two of the trips were to Canada.
"It's quite an honor to, you know, represent my state," Bingman said. "We make recommendations, talk about policy that affects our state, other states and we send statements to the federal government, work with them you know, on energy policy."
In 2009, Bingman was the vice chairman of the group of energy producing states and Canadian provinces. He went on two trips while state revenue was down and two trips while state agencies faced a 5 percent cut.
When asked to tell about something he's done specifically after going to these conferences that people could see the benefit of, he said, "Uh, there's probably, I'd have to think about that."
Sen Charles Wyrick (D) traveled to Cuba in December of 2008 with the State Secretary of Agriculture and seven other people. The state paid for three people's trips, including Wyrick's $2,232.92 share.
"If you're trying to be critical of why I went, I think it's obvious why we went," said Senator Charles Wyrick.
Senator Earl Garrison's (D) trip to the National Conference of State Legislators Summit in Philadelphia, last July. The conference suggested 15 hotels but, Garrison chose to stay at the most expensive one, the Ritz Carlton.
Russia could use bases for its strategic bombers on the doorstep of the United States in Cuba and Venezuela to underpin long-distance patrols in the region, a senior air force officer said Saturday.
"This is possible in Cuba," General Anatoly Zhikharev, chief of the Russian air force's strategic aviation staff, told the Interfax-AVN military news agency.
The comments were the latest signal that Moscow intends to project its military capability in far-flung corners of the globe despite a tight defence budget and hardware that experts consider in many respects outdated.
Zhikharev said Cuba had a several air bases equipped with the long runways needed by the heavy bombers and said the facilities there were "entirely acceptable" for use by the Russian aircraft during long-distance patrols.
"If the will of the two states is there, the political will, then we are prepared to fly there", the agency quoted Zhikharev as saying.
The general also said that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had offered to let Russian strategic bombers use a military airfield on La Orchila island, a military base off the west coast of the country.
"Yes, there has been such a proposal from the Venezuelan president," Zhikharev said.
"If a relevant political decision is made, this is possible," he added.
Russia resumed patrols by its long-distance strategic bombers in August 2007 after a 15-year hiatus, noting at the time that it was mirroring the United States which never suspended its global bomber patrols after the Cold War.
Last year, Russia temporarily based a pair of Tu-160 bombers at an airbase in Venezuela in a carefully-choreographed display of force regarded by as a warning message to the United States.
A Russian flotilla led by the nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great also joined Venezuelan navy vessels for manoeuvres in the Caribbean late last year, timed to coincide with a visit to the region by President Dmitry Medvedev.
Last July however, a top US air force officer warned that Russia would cross "a red line" if it were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba.
"If they did, I think we should stand strong and indicate that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America," said General Norton Schwartz said on July 23.
The Interfax report said there were three types of Russian aircraft capable of long-distance bomber patrols: The Tu-95MS, the Tu-160 and the Tu-22.
It was Tu-160 strategic bombers that were sent to Venezuela for temporary basing last year. Each aircraft of this type is capable of carrying 12 cruise missiles that can be fitted with nuclear warheads.
Slave trade in Cuba began earlier and lasted longer than anywhere else in the Americas, 1521 to the late 1870's.
In 1868, a Creole farmer began a revolt for racial equality, freedom of speech and association. Spain spent ten years putting down the insurgency.
The independence movement grew and in 1895 Spain sent 200,000 soldiers who put tens of thousands of Cubans in concentration camps. Many died of starvation, disease and exposure.
The American public demanded President William McKinley intervene for peace, but on FEBRUARY 15, 1898, the U.S.S. Maine blew up in Havana Harbor.
President McKinley approved the Resolution of Congress:
"Whereas the abhorrent conditions which have existed for more than three years in the island of Cuba, so near our own borders, have shocked the moral sense of the people of the United States, have been a disgrace to Christian civilization, culminating, as they have, in the destruction of a United States battle ship, with 266 of its officers and crew, while on a friendly visit in the harbor of Havana, and cannot longer be endured...
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives...That the people of the island of Cuba are and of right ought to be free."
President-elect Barack Obama P.O. Box 8102 Chicago, IL, 60680
Re: Reexamining U.S. Cuba Policy
Dear President-elect Obama:
We would like to extend to you our sincere congratulations on your historic election to the presidency of the United States. (ASS KISSING !)
We are pleased that your promises of change include U.S. policy toward Cuba. It is time for the United States to rethink its approach to the Cuban government and the Cuban people. (SELLING OUT THE U.S. ?)
You have already indicated that you support suspending restrictions on family remittances, visits, and humanitarian care packages from Cuban Americans. These are excellent first steps but we urge you to also commit to a more comprehensive examination of U.S. policy, one that will have the power to transform Cuban society without costing U.S. taxpayers and one that will greatly benefit U.S. businesses.
When Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy initiated restrictions against Cuba, they did so in the face of clear national security challenges and with the support of much of the international community.
Today, the United States maintains the embargo despite the absence of an obvious national security threat and against nearly unanimous international opposition. Moreover, as countries like Venezuela and China invest increasing amounts of money in the Cuban economy, it is clear that the embargo is not having – and will not have – the type of economic impact that might influence the behavior of the Cuban government. It is time to consider new approaches that would benefit U.S. national security and economic interests, as well as the Cuban people.
Current policies are ineffective and costly:
Current policies towards Cuba have clearly not achieved their objectives. Without the support of our allies and the larger international community, U.S. sanctions serve only to remove the positive influences that American businesses, workers, religious groups, students and tourists have in promoting U.S. values and human rights. Sanctions are also blunt instruments that generally harm the poorest people of the target country rather than that country’s leaders.
There is no better example of the ineffectiveness of unilateral sanctions than the case of Cuba. During the Cold War, Soviet assistance helped bolster the Cuban economy in spite of U.S. sanctions. The Cuban economy struggled – but did not collapse – during the “special period” in Cuba following the end of Soviet aid, while Fidel Castro was able to blame shortages at the time on the U.S. embargo. Today, tourism from Europe and Canada, investment from China, Latin America, Canada and Europe, and a more diversified economy have helped to stabilize the Cuban economy and marginalize the impact of U.S. sanctions. Venezuelan financial assistance in the form of petroleum sold at below market prices has also helped prop up the regime.
While the current isolation of Cuba has far outlasted its original purpose, U.S. policies impose real costs on America. For American businesses, the U.S. International Trade Commission estimated in 2001 that the Cuba embargo costs American exporters up to $1.2 billion annually in lost sales.
The U.S. government focuses attention and resources on the Cuba embargo at the expense of more urgent pursuits such as halting flows of money to al Qaeda and keeping terrorists and criminals out of the United States. Using scarce resources to investigate and prosecute minor violations of Cuba sanctions ignores the infinitely greater challenge of securing the homeland from more serious national security threats.
The real cost, however, is the influence that the United States has lost by voluntarily isolating itself from Cuba during an important moment of transition. Far from providing leverage, U.S. policies threaten to make the United States virtually irrelevant to the future of Cuba.
A moment of opportunity:
Your administration has a unique opportunity to take steps to end nearly 50 years of isolation from Cuba and the Cuban people. We support the complete removal of all trade and travel restrictions on Cuba. We recognize that change may not come all at once, but it must start somewhere, and it must begin soon.
The United States could engage in bilateral discussions with the Cuban government. Beginning a dialogue on issues of mutual interest could begin the process of repairing the complicated relationship between the United States and Cuba, but that process will take time.
The United States should immediately remove travel restrictions and allow Americans to act as ambassadors of freedom and American values to Cuba. From farmers and manufacturers to human rights and religious groups, as well as a large and growing number of Cuban Americans, the American people increasingly recognize the unfairness and incongruity of restricting travel to Cuba. It is simply wrong that American citizens cannot travel freely to Havana but are not restricted by the United States from traveling to Pyongyang and Tehran.
Your administration should also consider removing certain restrictions on trade to allow American companies to help Cuba to respond more effectively and meaningfully to the devastating humanitarian crisis in the wake of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike. For example, the United States could exempt agricultural machinery, heavy equipment and other exports from the embargo which would provide the goods and technology needed to rebuild from recent storms. The United States could also license direct banking services in order to facilitate these sales.
American businesses stand ready to help Cuba rebuild and hope to play a constructive role in reaching out to the people of Cuba.
We urge you to support the immediate reconsideration of U.S. Cuba policy, and to convene a bipartisan commission tasked with looking at U.S. policies in their entirety. Continuation of the status quo could leave the United States isolated from the Cuban people for another generation. As you have said, the time for change is now.
Sincerely,
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Society of Travel Agents
Business Roundtable
Coalition for Employment through Exports
Emergency Committee for American Trade
Grocery Manufacturers Association
National Foreign Trade Council
National Retail Federation
Organization for International Investment in the United States
Two of the trips were to Canada.
