Since the previous article, and before it, I have heard this "Summit of the Americas" that Presdient Obama is attending referred to as a trade summit. The Anti-American, Desicable Associated Press did not even hardly MENTION TRADE, as it described how the meeting was all about Obama "plying defense": trying to explain why the USA is "relevant" to either the leaders or people of Latin America anymore, when we are so out of touch with the more advanced thinking of Latin America's leaders and citizens. Okay, the despicable AP did not actually USE the phrase "more advanced", but otherwise I have fairly stated what teh AP described this meeting to be all about. The AP certainly did not consider this "summit' about TRADE. For example, what des the dispute between GreatBritian and Argentina over the Falkland Islands have to do with TRADE? But, again, the AP obviusly did not consider this stummit to be about trade, but rather to be about some set of grievances Latin America has with the USA over LEFTIST "issues" hardly related to trade.
Take Cubba, metioned several times in the AP article as a focus of the summit. Well, Cuba has a MINOR relationship to trade, since the USA still has a trade EMBARGO on Cuba. But does Cuba really have anyththing to do with the BIG "trade" issues in the "Americas"? Obviusly not. Cuba is all about LEFTIST IDEOLOGY. No, I fully understand taht you can argue tehe value of "opening up" Cuba--as Nixon did with Communist China--even though Cuba is now virtualy the ONLY country in the world sticking to ideological Cummunism. That does not change this simple fact: Cuba is NOT IMPORTANT to "trade" int he "Americas". But this is a complex issue for the USA, with so many AMERICANS having reason to HATE Castro's Cuba--only 90 miles off of our shore. Cuba is an ENEMY of the United States of America, and all we stand for. It has previously attempted (Che Guevara) to XPORT Communist "revolution" to the rest of Latin America, and has still NEVER renounced that goal. In other words, whether it is in the best interest of the USA to open trade with Cuba--in terms of opening up Cuba and "luring" tit away from teh rigid Communist ideology that makes Cuba more like the Stalinist Soviet Unioin than probably any otehr country has ever been--is not the pont for LEFTISTS (including the leftists of the AP). For leftists, the issue of Cuba is about IDEOLOGY. True leftists, like Michael Moore and the late Molly Ivins (who said in a clun that people of Cuba had it much better than African-Americans in American cities), Cuba is closer to what they want than the United States of America. The "issue' of Cuba is NOT about "trade". It is about leftist ideology, and bashing the USA. I am talking abut how this "issue" is brought up in something like this "trade summit", and NOT the way the issue could be discussed by reasonnable people.
In short, it is absurd to think taht Cuba is IMPORTANT, in and of itself, to the people of either the United States OR the people of Latin America. It is "importatn" ONLY as a SYMBOL. Is the Presdietn of the United States ging down to South America onlly to provide a means for leftists to BASH THEE USA over LEFTIST SYMBOLS? The despicable AP obviusly thinks so. But the AP is incompetent, as well as dishonest. But I am AFAID this is so, because leftists do not believe that President Obama has it in him to STAND UP for the United States of America. And I am afraid they are right. If The AP is righht about the way the "leaders" of Latin America are looking at this summit, it is a major mistake for an American President to go--UNLESS he is going to not just listen to a BASHING of the USA as part of leftist RELIGIN, but to PUSH THEM to IMPROVE THEIR OWN COUNTIRES, and really improve trade in teh "Americas".
It is CUBA that is IRRELVANT to the economic welfare of the other countgries of Latin America. Whether we "trade" with Cuba is IRRELEVANT to the economic health of the rest of Latin America, and certainly irrelevant to the economic health of the USA. The ONLYL thing trade with Cuba is really relevant to is the economic health of CUBA.
I stil can't get over it. The anti-American, Despicable Associated Press, representing--by most standards--the very essence of "mainstream journalism", actualy said that President Obama HAD to "convince" Latin American leaders and citizens that the USA is RELEVANT to them. Obvviously, the despicable AP considers CUBA more relevant to other Latin American cuntries thatn the USA> That is probably the LEFTIST position. But it is BASURD, and tells you all you need to know about the AGENDA of the desicable AP. No mamby-pamby talk abut 'trade" from the AP. With the AP, you get the HARD STUFF (I mix metaphors with the best of them): the HEROIN and COCAINED of LEFTIST IDEOLOGY. The implicit pun here is intentional, in hnor of the AP talking about one of those main"issues" at the summit being "drug legalization".
What can you say about a "nerws' organization that actaully seems to say, in the beginning of a LONG article, that the FALKLAND ISLANDS are much mroe "relevant" to Latin America than good trade relations with the USA, and rational, common sense trade policies throughout Latin Americ? In this context, again, Cuba is IRRELEVANT, even if you argue that if we could trade with the old Soviet Union, and Communist China, then we culd trade with Cuba. Taht last ignores, again, that Cuba tried to EXPORT Communist ideology, BY FORCE, throughout Latin America. Indeed, it is still trying to do so, if no lnoger in the way that Che Guevara tried to do it (Che Guevara still being a HERO to some in the AMERICAN left).
I know why President Obama is going to South America, and to this sdummit", without--likely-"standing up for the USA. nfortunately, I also KNOW why the AP wrote the article it did. For too many in the AP, CUBA represents closer to their "ideal" than the USA. More imporantly, to the AP, and much of the mainstream media, the USA represents the MAIN source of EVIL in the world, and therefor anything that tears down the USA is a good thing. Yes, I am afraid President Obama is pretty close to this view--having learned the very same view from Reverend Wright for 20 years. But I have DCOUMENTED the Anti-American, Despicable Associatgted lPress, in this blog, for about a DECADE. I know them like I know every inch of my glorius, naked body (stealing a Rush Limbaugh line). I have "reported on the AP, for a decade, more extensively than any other person. There is just no doubt; The AP is ANTI-AMERICAN in its fundamental orientation. I know. They would say that they are not realy 'anti-American", but only want to IMPROVEW the USA. That is the leftist line, and it really jsut means that they are ANTI-AMERICAN in terms of the USA that IS. No, it is not "anti-American" to favor oopening up trade with Cuba. But to say that an American President HAS to "convince" Latin America that the USA is RELEVANT to its leaders and people exposes you as fundamnetally ANTI-AMERICAN.
That is what I have documented for a decade, with regard to the despicable AP and the rest of the mainstream media, and it is absolutely true.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Oh, I have not forgotten my FORCED "coming out of the closet" again as a FEMINIST, althoguh I admit that the SHAME of it makes me PROCRASTINATE in writing the articles. Maybe tomorrow I will get into the amazing truth taht leftist "feminists" are not really "feminists" at all, but LEFTIST IDOLOGUES wh out leftist ideology above all else (definitely including "feminism"). These LEFTISTS only try to USE women to advance theirEXTREME leftist idology. Readers of this blog know that my view of the female sex, as a whole, is not that high--desite my being forced to "come out of the closet" perodically as a FEMINIST (the SAHME of it still almost destroys my self-image every time I think abut it). You know--how could you help it--taht Presdient Obama and the LEFT are relying upon WOMEN to contnue them in power Tis idea that the left has the best interests of women at heart is simply absurd. That they EXPECT women to continue to buy into it, and to SELL OUT THEIR COUNTRY for "FREE" CONTACEPTION, shows they have much more contempt for woemn than I do. "Free" contraceptioin will COST women--of teh non-leftist kind--more than they could ever afford. What is it that the left is really telling women? Rigth. They are telling women, as they are telling every other GROP they can target: We weill TARGET those MEN trying to REPRESS YOU, and we will TAKE THEM OUT for you. Problem: How many women and girls have theri economic intersts intertwined with MEN (husbands, fathers, evetn brothers, etc.). If the left is going to PREFER women, as they seem to PROMISE, then women whose interests are somewhat intertwined with men (most of them) are ong to be HURT. It is, of course, worsrste tahtn that. This is where I agree with Mitt Romney.--even as I stil cnanot vote for him. If leftist ideology TAKES DOWN THIS COUNTRY, do women "benefit" from having FREE CONTRACEPTION? As I said, this "ree" BRIBE will COST women more than they could ever afford. Having been forced repeatedly to come out of the closet as a FEMINIST, I feel entitled to tell women this. Readers of this blgo know that I SUPPORTED not only Sarah Palin (and now Ann Romney), but taht I supported HILLARY CLINTON for Presdient (once McCain was the GOP nominee). I feel my feminist credentials, to my everlasting shame, are more than good enough to tell women these truths.