The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

“Dignity does not have a price in our country.”

By

“We will not back down.  Dignity does not have a price in our country.”

Do you know who said this?  Is your first guess that it must have been a proud American?  Do you think it was someone who values freedom?  Perhaps someone who values the Constitution?

Guess again. 

Honduran President Roberto Micheletti told this to Honduran radio today.  Not only is the Obama administration strong arming its socialist agenda by cutting more than $30 million in aid to this poor country, now, in an attempt to pressure Micheletti to step down so that exiled Manuel Zelaya may be reinstated, the United States has revoked his visa.

You will recall that Zelaya is an ally of socialist and anti-U.S. Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez.  You will recall that Zelaya was forcibly removed from office after he attempted to put in place constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term.  A little Chavez-type trick that the Honduran constitution expressly forbids.

So, as we have already noted here at the Smoke Break, we have yet another idiot hoisted firmly on his own petard yet one who is deemed worthy of Barack Obama’s support.

This makes me shake my head in disbelief.  And it is wickedly sad.  It creates one of those “what the hell?” moments.  The kind we’ve experienced far too many of, lo these last 8 months.

The Unholy Trinity Taking Aim At Honduras

By

Though the ADD media did little more than their usual hit & run on recent events in Honduras before glomming onto more important things like the death of Michael Jackson, Accuracy In Media has posted a detailed report that connects some rather chilling dots between the U.N., President Obama, and Hugo Chavez, and poses legitimate questions of their real intentions.

This also begs the question of Obama’s loyalty to the United States, for interference in the fate of Honduras appears to also be tied to affairs in Iran.

The United Nations on Thursday begins a debate over a new U.N. military doctrine called the “Responsibility to Protect,” which would authorize the world organization to be used as cover to intervene in the sovereign affairs of a nation state, supposedly to protect the people of a country against their own government. The first target could be anti-communist Honduras.

In an ominous development, blogger Jason Poblete, an astute observer of Latin American affairs with excellent sources, reports that “The Obama Administration is considering a United Nations Security Council Resolution against the constitutional government of Honduras.” If true, anticipated U.N. sanctions against Honduras could be followed by the world organization being used as cover for outside forces to invade Honduras and reinstate Zelaya.

Zelaya flew from Costa Rica, where he was deported, to U.N. headquarters in New York, where D’Escoto, who is also a Communist Catholic Priest from Nicaragua, greeted him as a comrade. Since the crisis began and the U.N. voted to have him reinstated, the Obama Administration has been trying to figure out a way to get him back into power. Costa Rican President Oscar Arias recently hosted some negotiations to try to resolve the dispute but they appear to be going nowhere.

The U.N. may be the logical next step, if Zelaya’s allies in the region don’t act precipitously on their own and intervene. Chavez has already threatened to invade Honduras to put Zelaya back in power.

On July 13, the State Department spokesman confirmed that Chavez had called Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon to “discuss the current situation in Honduras and the ongoing negotiations mediated by Costa Rica’s President Oscar Arias.” The confirmation followed news of Chavez boasting about the telephone call on Venezuelan state TV.

This tends to confirm what former Marxist SDS radical Tom Hayden, leader of “Progressives for Obama,” has written about the Obama-Chavez relationship. Based on his own inside sources of information, Hayden said that he thinks Obama and Chavez are working together on Honduras and have an “understanding,” which he even describes as “collaboration.” The call Chavez made to Shannon suggests that Chavez is calling the shots.

Ultimately, according to a very detailed report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center, this would benefit Iran, a terrorist state developing nuclear weapons which is developing a vast network throughout Latin America. A recent report from the organization examines the deep Iranian connections to Venezuela as well as Bolivia.

We here continue to stand by the people of Honduras and their upholding of their constitution.  It is humiliating that our President refuses to do the same.

It is also a dangerous walk on a very thin line.  Article III, section 3 of the United States Constitution states:  “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” 

…the Hayden article strongly suggests that the Obama policy is not the result of incompetence or inexperience but is deliberate in nature. 

Hayden, once a famous anti-Vietnam War protester in his own right and former official of the Marxist Students for a Democratic Society, claims that “something profoundly new began developing between Obama and Chavez at the hemispheric conference in April in Trinidad.

According to eyewitness sources, under the apparently blind eye of the global media, the two leaders had lengthy conversations. The media covered the friendly photo of the initial handshake between the two leaders, then made much ado about an apparently-impertinent Chavez handing Obama a book in Spanish by Eduardo Galleano. What has not been reported is that Obama, leaving his advisers behind, held lengthy private conversations with Chavez where only an interpreter was present.

In December 2007 his [Chavez’s] regime hosted a conference devoted to staging a communist revolution in the United States. The panel discussion on “United States: A possible revolution” was described as the central event at the third Venezuela International Book Fair.

According to an article in The Militant, the newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party, the forum included presentations by “Mary-Alice Waters, a member of the Socialist Workers Party National Committee and president of Pathfinder Press; Eva Golinger, a Venezuelan-American lawyer and author of The Chávez Code; Chris Carlson, a contributor to the venezuelanalysis.com website; and Tufara Waller, cultural program coordinator of the Highlander Center in Tennessee.”

Other panelists were identified as “Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela’s ambassador to the United States; former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill; August Nimtz, a University of Minnesota political science professor; William Blum, an author who has written a number of books opposing U.S. foreign policy; ex-Maryknoll priest Charles Hardy; and Dada Maheshvarananda, yoga instructor and founder of the Prout Institute.”  

The communist paper reported that, before there could be a revolution in the United States, Marxist forces would have to take control of Latin America. “Another idea frequently expressed by speakers from the floor and by a few panelists was that ‘change has to come from the South,'” referring to Latin America, the paper said.

Donkeys, Dictators, and Democracy

By

It’s a given that the vast majority of Democrats, particularly those in government, can be counted on to be little more than your basic hairball.  Traditionally unable to keep their hands where they belong – reaching into someone else’s pockets to take their money or reaching into someone else’s pants to have a little illicit fun – no one pays them very much attention because as a group they are as interchangeable as dandelion puffs waving in the prevailing wind of wants.  The word Democrat brings to mind at best the picture of a spoiled teenager; at worst stereotypical trailer trash living off of someone else’s hard-earned money in their double-wide, a beer belly sticking out from below a grubby tank top, guffawing between belches or through smeared lipstick while the neighbor’s kid ties firecrackers to the dog’s tail.

Republicans, on the other hand, have balanced the sociopolitical scales by assuming the role of “responsible adult”.  Steady, conservative, practical.  The businessman whose word is his bond and to whom you can turn for a job or a loan; the father who teaches you how to fix your car or the family doctor who knows you inside and out – literally – but keeps your deepest secrets a secret.

Truth is that the hands of Republicans today are just as dirty and they stink just as bad as their trashy Democratic counterparts.  (Witness the outing of the infamous 8 GOP “cap & traitors”.)  With few exceptions, politicians have become quite a useless lot, spouting whatever they think someone wants to hear just to keep their cushy job and perceptions of power and control.  As long as they bring home the pork they continue to be reelected, but this has become a dangerous game. 

President Obama campaigned on and took office determined to force an ambitious and incredibly naive agenda on Americans.  In direct contrast to the vow taken to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution, he and his administration are setting forth the systematic destruction of our most fundamental rights, twisting the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as he pushes America towards what is essentially a state of dictatorial tyranny.  And you can’t even give him credit for these ambitions, he is merely carrying forward the progressive ideology that took hold in America early in the last century.

You’d think Americans would be smarter now and would be resisting with all their might.  Everyone knows you don’t get something for nothing and that you get what you pay for, yet every day we watch bloated and ineffective government programs continue to expand in number and size.  Well, at least some of us watch.  And there remains a small chorus of voices in Washington who seem to be attempting to pull back on the reigns, but reading through the daily Congressional session records one sees each attempt is met with a wall of resistence and summarily executed.  (Amusing when you remember the MSM has labelled the GOP as the “party of no”.)  We’ve got little more than giddy kiddie Democrats running what they see as the candy store; the current gang mentality has criminals coming out of the woodwork like ants attracted to the sweet fruits of hard-working American taxpayers and, as is so often seen with any group of lawless like-minds, one can only hope their infighting over turf and spoils will be their downfall.  But without taking down the entire country with them.

Some people are still saying we should give the President a chance, even as our economy continues to tank (responsibility for which, by the way, now belongs solely to Barack Obama and his administration).  But it seems to me that the elected leader of a free nation would not be ignoring the calls of the people for democracy elsewhere in the world, and they would certainly not stand up and give their visible support to someone like legally-ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya.  That particular stance should give anyone with a modicum of common sense pause for it explains, in large part, why we are seeing proven ineffective policy after proven ineffective policy being forced down American’s throats.  The case of events in Honduras is particularly telling, for it is a beautiful example of a people’s willingness to cling to democratic ideals and uphold their constitution.  Yet Obama unequivocably tells the world he believes – as do dictators like Venezuela’s Chavez – that someone who would wish to subvert them deserves America’s backing.  

If Obama’s silence on the Iranian election fallout didn’t make it clear, this should be the transparency he so lovingly promised.  We have a president who has now stated for the record that he prefers government by dictatorship to government by the principles of democracy.

No Support For U.S. Constitution So Why Respect Honduras’?

By

During my perusing of what our unrepresenting representatives were up to today in Washington, I happened to read the following statement by Jim DeMint (R-SC) in the Senate records.  For those who have perhaps paid little attention to or have perhaps even been a bit confused about the events in Honduras, since the news as we know it has disgustingly been overshadowed by the media’s piranhic feeding frenzy over the death of Michael Jackson, Senator DeMint elegantly laid out the facts and makes it quite clear this is another example that the administration’s idea of foreign policy leaves much to be desired.

In his own words (emphasis mine):

The facts on the ground in Honduras are neither disputed nor confusing, but they have been largely ignored by an international media distracted by the death of a celebrity.

   Let me read these facts into the record.

   Honduras is a constitutional republic and a longtime ally of the United States. It is one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere, especially since it was ravaged by the direct hit of Hurricane Mitch in 1998.

   In 2005, Hondurans elected as their President Manuel Zelaya, a left of center but seemingly moderate candidate from the Liberal Party. Given Latin America’s troubling history of military coups and self-appointed Presidents for life, the Honduran Constitution strictly limits Presidents to one term.

   So seriously do Hondurans take their Presidential term limits that in Latin America, the phrase–and I will butcher this Spanish, but I want to give it a try–“continuar en el poder.”  It means to continue in power.  It carries with it a dark connotation to the region for everyone living there.

   For a President to overthrow the Constitution and violate term limits is violating the constitutional form of government. So seriously that article 238 of the Honduran Constitution says any President who even proposes an extension of his tenure in office “shall immediately cease performing the functions of his post.’‘  So it is a de facto resignation of office in Honduras for a President to attempt to do what their President did.

   Zelaya’s 2005 campaign was supported by Hugo Chavez, the Marxist Venezuelan dictator bent on amassing power in the Western Hemisphere at the expense of what he calls “the North American empire.”  That is us.

   Zelaya quickly aligned his government with Chavez’s and joined anti-American socialists, such as the Castro brothers in Cuba and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, in Chavez’s economic cartel.

   With Zelaya’s term coming to an end early next year, Chavez convinced him to do as he has done in Venezuela:  to force a constitutional amendment extending his Presidential term.  This would be in direct violation of what their Constitution says.

   Earlier this year, Zelaya called for a referendum to initiate a constitutional convention. In the ensuing litigation, the Honduran courts ruled the referendum was unconstitutional and illegal, as the Honduran Constitution explicitly gives only its Congress the power to call such a vote.

   Zelaya forged ahead, calling his referendum a “nonbinding survey.”  This, too, the supreme court found unconstitutional.

   Zelaya then ordered the head of the Honduran military, General Vasquez, to conduct the election anyway. Vasquez expressed concerns about the vote’s legality, so Zelaya fired him.

   The supreme court ordered Zelaya to reinstate Vasquez, and Zelaya refused. The supreme court ordered the military to seize the referendum ballots to prevent Zelaya from going ahead with the illegal vote.  Zelaya then personally led an armed mob to steal back the ballots, which, it should be noted, were suspiciously printed in Venezuela.  Zelaya ordered his government to set up 15,000 polling places to conduct the referendum for June 28.

   On Friday, June 26, the Attorney General of Honduras, Luis Rubi, filed a complaint before the Honduran Supreme Court petitioning for an arrest warrant for President Zelaya. The court issued the warrant unanimously and, according to the Constitution, ordered the Honduran military to execute it.

   Early in the morning of Sunday, June 28, the day of the vote, the military arrested President Zelaya at his home. They put him on a plane to Costa Rica, as Honduras has no prison capable of withstanding a mob riot of the sort they feared Chavez and Ortega might whip up.  So they did it for his safety.

   That same day, the Honduran Congress, controlled by his Liberal Party–his own party–voted 125 to 3 to replace Zelayawith their speaker, Roberto Micheletti, as a member of the Liberal Party. This transfer of power was strictly in keeping with Honduras’s constitutional line of succession as the Vice President had recently resigned.

   The regularly scheduled general elections remain set for this November, and interim President Micheletti is not a candidate.  The previously nominated candidates from the two major parties remain on the campaign trail, and both candidates and parties overwhelmingly approved the ouster of Zelaya.

   At every step in the process, the legitimate democratic government strictly adhered to the Honduran Constitution and civilian leadership of the military remained intact.  The military did not execute a coup.  It thwarted the coup plotted by Hugo Chavez and implemented by Manuel Zelaya.

   Honduras’s democratic institutions are operating today, and its government functions are secure. The only aggrieved party in this process is Mr. Chavez, whose brazen attempts to corrupt Honduran democracy was thwarted by what has now been nicknamed “the little country that could.”

   The people of Honduras stood up to Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, the Castro brothers, and they stood up for freedom and the rule of law. For their courage, President Obama has condemned them. He has called the constitutional ouster of President Zelaya not legal, claiming an expertise in Honduran law over and above that of a unanimous Honduran Supreme Court and a nearly unanimous Honduran Congress.

   Secretary of State Clinton lazily joined the international media in calling the removal of President Zelaya “a coup,” a term fraught with dark memories of military juntas and banana republic.  Of course, this is the same administration that insists on calling the recent fraud in Iran an election.

   The Obama administration joined Chavez’s preposterous Soviet-style propaganda resolution in the Organization of American States condemning Honduran democracy. Hondurans I have spoken with–I have spoken with a number of folks who have missionary groups there, medical groups.  I have talked to Miguel Estrada who was born and raised in Honduras and is now a constitutional expert in this country. This morning I talked to former Honduran President Ricardo Maduro. They are all totally befuddled at the strange response they are getting from the supposedly free world, including our own administration. Why are we siding with Hugo Chavez?

   This morning in Russia, President Obama reiterated his support for Zelaya, the would-be dictator, as the rightful President of Honduras. According to ABC News, he said:  “America supports now the restoration of the democratically elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies.” 

   Continuing with the quote from President Obama:  “We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not.”

    The President appears to think his support for Zelaya is based on some principles of self-determination. He speaks as if opposition to Zelaya is based on partisan political differences. Zelaya was not ousted by political enemies; he was ousted by a government controlled by his own party. He was ousted by a unanimous supreme court operating in accordance with the Honduran Constitution and in conjunction with the nation’s attorney general and Supreme Electoral Tribunal. These folks followed the rule of law.

   The Honduran people have chosen their own leaders. Those leaders–in a constitutional, bipartisan, and nearly unanimous process–removed Manuel Zelaya from office. The Honduran people have upheld our President’s so-called universal principle. The people seeking to undermine that principle are Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers, Daniel Ortega, Mel Zelaya, and–unbelievably–the Obama administration.

   This is not about politics. This is about the rule of law, freedom, and democracy, all of which are being defended by the Hondurans right now against their enemies–of which we appear to be one. Why are we not standing with them?Blood was shed in Iran while we stood idly by.  Zelaya’s return to Honduras on a Venezuelan jet and with the moral authority of the United States will almost certainly lead to more bloodshed. What are we doing on the side of tyrants and sworn enemies of freedom; going as far, on their behalf, to threaten economic sanctions against one of our poorest and bravest allies?

   Secretary of State Clinton is reportedly planning a meeting with Mr. Zelaya in Washington this week. I implore her to reconsider that meeting. Elevating an impeached and disgraced autocrat is more than an insult to Honduran democracy, it is a green light to other would-be Chavezes around Latin America. It is a signal to the enemies of democracy and freedom that the United States no longer stands as a beacon of liberty. It is a signal that the rule of law is now passe in Latin America and that Hugo Chavez and his corrupt and brutal idealogy has free rein to meddle wherever he pleases in the Western Hemisphere.

   What do we stand for, if not for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law? Where is the spine of the administration to stand up to anti-American and antidemocratic thugs in our own back yard? Where is the intellectual clarity to see the facts on the ground as they are? Manuel Zelaya is a criminal, a constitutionally removed former President of a proud and noble country. To my knowledge, no administration official has refuted or even grappled with the facts regarding Zelaya’s attempted coup.

   Given those still undisputed and documented facts, on what basis does the administration demand Zelaya’s reinstatement? His removal from office was no more a coup than was Gerald Ford’s ascendance to the Oval Office or the election to the Senate of our newest colleague, Al Franken. It is bad enough that the President’s ad hoc and highly personalized foreign policy seems to be less about supporting the rule of law than it is about supporting particular rulers. But the last 4 weeks suggest that the President cannot even be counted upon to support our legitimate allies.

   What happened in Honduras last week was not a tragedy, it was a triumph of democratic courage and the unyielding determination of a free people to stand up to despotism. The tragedy has been the failure of the West and of our own government in Washington to stand up for justice and freedom in Latin America.

   It is not too late. I have written to Secretary Clinton, and there is growing congressional support for the legitimate government in Honduras. Everywhere I go someone comes up to me and tells me to stand up for freedom in Honduras. There is still time to look at the facts, even to visit Honduras itself. Call down there, talk to the people, even Americans in the Peace Corps or on missionary work, and ask them if they are living under an oppressive military junta. They will laugh and tell you they are living under an independent and vibrant democracy, with a representative government led by people they elected. They will tell you about the free and open debate in the ongoing Presidential campaign and whom they are supporting in the November elections.

   There is still time to correct our position and support our true allies. And because we can, we should. We must. Because today–and I will try my Spanish again–“un amigo de libertad es un amigo de Honduras”–a friend of freedom is a friend of Honduras.

If your head now hurts, imagine how the people of Honduras must feel.  Betrayed is one word that comes to mind.  I’d say I just don’t get it, but unfortunately this support of dictator-style government is exactly what President Obama promised on the campaign trail.

I wonder just how many allies we’re going to lose over the next 3 1/2 years?  According to even the Wall Street Journal, certainly not Obama’s buddy in Venezuela.