I changed my mind about blogging today

I’ve finally gotten around to reading the news, and have nothing to say.  Obama is staying true to form and backing a dictatorship, this one in Honduras.  The Supreme Court is poised on a knife’s edge, with four justices thinking it’s perfectly okay to discriminate against people based upon their lack of color.  Iranians are dying in the street and our president says nothing.  Crap and Trade is set to destroy the American economy.  Health care “reform” is set to destroy the current American health system.  And the media is still clucking about the death of an anorexic drug addict whose heyday passed 20 years ago.

If you have something to say today, please say it.  I am retiring temporarily (24 hours or less) in disgust.  I need to kick some butt at the dojo tonight and then, maybe, I’ll feel more sanguine about everything.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Danny Lemieux

    I suspect that we are all wallowing in the same funk. Worse, the American public seems to have taken on an Alfred E. Neuman “What, me worry?” attitude to everything going on as they slavishly follow the Michael Jackson non-news. People really do get the government they deserve. Unfortunately, they have to drag the rest of us over the cliff with them.

    Kick some serious butt (and send us a video – 😉 ! Tomorrow is my night at the dojo but I think that I will need to kick some bag tonight, somewhere, somehow.

  • Mike Devx

    Some liberal acquaintances of mine, who watch TV, are utterly disgusted with the tsunami of Michael Jackson coverage. The only TV I’ve watched in the last month and a half was US Open golf. I’m relatively cool with things; I think the lack of TV makes a huge difference.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Hey, hey, keep striking away.

  • Gringo

    Instead of “Don’t stand there. Do Something,” our Democratic Party leaders would be advised to follow contrary advice: “Don’t do something. Stand there.” They have an inerrant instinct to choose harmful paths, and without forethought. Passing the Cap and Trade Bill without reading it. That says it all. But that is exactly what they did with the Stimulus Package. I better watch myself. I am working myself into a case of DPDS, not just ODS.

    Mike, I am reminded of my yellow dog Democrat sister-in-law, who watches a steady dose of MSNBC. Sometimes ignorance is better.


    “What, me worry?” – Good One, Danny.

    Might as well add:

    What, me think.
    What, me notices.
    What, me gives a damn.
    What, what…what isn’t it all about me, me, me.

    One can only imagine what it takes to stay, resist and carry on in the worst of times (I thinking of Iran at the moment), but I could just have easily said anywhere during WWII and anywhere in America during our Revolution. Of course, the distractions of Michael Jackass and Bernie Made Off with all the Money would have paled in comparison in the urgency of making history in other times and places.

    The realization that Book has to juggle career, children, husband, this blog and lest we forget those ‘bright Marin intellectuals’ while keeping her privacy is more than overwhelming.
    I have no idea what it would take for the Alfred E. Newman’s of this country to stand up, take notice, get p.o.’d and stay p.o.’d and then try to affect some healthy changes. I just hope/pray, it doesn’t need something more horrific than September 11, 2001, because even the residual anger and questioning of our enemies internally and externally withered on the vine in rather short order and in fact a ‘if we can’t fight’em – join’em’ mentality set in.

    Gringo (correction): It’s CRAP & TRAITOR. I renamed the bill in another thread on the subject (wink wink).

  • Gringo

    Sadie, I stand corrected. :)


    Where there is a will, there is a way!

    This short film of 7 minutes shows how Israelis defied the Brits on their own turf and stands as a perfect example of the opposite of the opposite ‘if we can’t fight’em – join’em’ mentality. Having seen the place with my own eyes, I can attest to it’s level of creativity and getting the job done.

  • Mike Devx

    Sadie, wonderful seven minute video (link in #7), indeed! Thank you for clueing me in.


    Mike, glad you enjoyed it.

    I don’t know if they made it clear enough or showed enough of the two buildings with the courtyard (clothes hanging). In building one, you walk in and there are two very large ovens (for baking bread). These ovens were massive in weight and size and were put on ball bearings so that they could be slid enough to get a man below. In building two were the washing machines, which also could be moved to drop a man below. The courtyard between the two buildings is where the bullets were made.

  • Lulu11

    This is a succinct list. We need to keep a loud scorecard.
    I dislike everything this man and his administration are trying to do. I waver from believing he has a naive UC Berkeley college professor mentality (on my good days) to that he is a Manchurian candidate, secret Moslem US sabateur (on my bad). He masks dangerous plans behind a “cool” demeanor and in our uninformed and celebrity obsesed culture people eat it up- because so many really don’t understand the issues. Whew. I do feel better after that rant.

    Bookie, what about you keeping a big scorecard of Obama’s actions domestically and internationally? For example, which countries does he support and when is he silent, and who does he pressure? What are the costs of each of his domestic bills, and how quickly were they pushed through?

    My feeling after talking with people is that they hear what they want to hear- he is the master of double talk after all. We need to answer his duality with plain speak facts.

    PS- I guess one good thing about the Obama administration is that all of us Conservatives will be in ripping good shape becuase the need to exercise has really risen. I always feel better after kick-boxing.

  • BrianE

    Leaders from like Obama to and Chavez blast Honduras coup

    TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras – Police and soldiers clashed with thousands of protesters outside Honduras’ national palace Monday, leaving at least 15 people injured, as world leaders from like Barack Obama to and Hugo Chavez demanded the return of a president ousted in a military coup.

    Leftist leaders pulled their ambassadors from Honduras and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega said El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala would cut trade with neighboring Honduras for at least 48 hours. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called for Hondurans to rise up against those who toppled his ally, Manuel Zelaya.

    Fixed it.

  • Mahlon

    Book, et al. – Hang in there. The battle is not yet fully engaged. It is true that too many Americans cling to their ignorance like it is a virtue. Instead of a Nero fiddling while Rome burns, it is the Romans themselves who are ignoring the flames. But while some synapses are still firing there is hope. Hope in its true sense, not the drivel written by the current resident of the White House. We fight ignorance, and we have few allies. Remember, the Poles engaged Hitler’s infantry from horseback. They lost their battles, but the war was won.


    Hugo Chavez called for Hondurans to rise up against those who toppled his ally, Manuel Zelaya.

    I’ve never really understood S. American politics, hell…I have tough time with local and national intentions. As a kid in the 50’s I remember they changed leadership like underwear – on a daily basis. Some coups were quiet and others more violent.

    My initial knee jerk response is…any ally of Chavez can’t be on the ‘good guys’ side and if O joined in the chorus of nay sayers…I am starting to believe Zelalya’s absence is not a total loss.

  • Charles Martel

    This is the first time in my life that I’ve heard of a Central American coup that was carried out in DEFENSE of a constitution. That leftist p***k Zelaya should thank his lucky stars that the military flew him to a permanent vacation in Venezuela rather than murdering him in front of the TV cameras the way Bill Ayers would have done it.

    Can Obama sink any lower? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

  • Mike Devx

    Some of the reasons why we are saying this was not a coup, and why the removal of Chavez’ toadie Zelaya was in defense of the Honduran Constitution:

    First, some direct info about their Constitution. Regardless of whether any of these articles are good ideas, they do exist:

    -Article 42 strips citizenship rights from those who call for the re-election or continuing (beyond the term) of the President of the Republic.

    – Article 239 not only prohibits the re-election of a President of the Republic, but calls for the immediate removal from public office and disqualification from any political office for 10 years any person who calls for a change in that prohibition.

    – Article 373 gives the power to amend the Constitution solely to the National Congress, with no role for any “referendum”.

    – Article 374 prohibits any amendments to the prohibition of a multi-term President of the Republic.

    – Title VII, with two chapters, outlines the process of amending the constitution and sets forth the principle of constitutional inviolability. The constitution may be amended by the National Congress after a two-thirds vote of all its members in two consecutive regular annual sessions.

    Now, what happened:
    – Zelaya said he wanted a referendum on whether the people wanted him to seek a second term. Hugo Chavez had his ballots all printed up in Venezuela and ready to go, and shipped them to Honduras. What a nice guy!
    – The military has the responsibility for storing, protecting, distributing, and managing all ballots in any vote of any sort. They did so and protected the ballots.
    – The Legislature and the Supreme Court said No, no referendum.
    – The leader of the military told Zelaya he would obey the Supreme Court, as required by the Constitution.
    – Zelaya fired him
    – The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated 5-0.
    – Zelaya refused

    At this point we now have a genuine Constitutional Crisis in Honduras. Who is precipitating it? Clearly Zelaya – El Idiota Chavista.

    – Note that last Tuesday the Congress passed a law preventing the holding of referendums or plebiscites 180 days before or after general elections. Congress has also named a commission to investigate Zelaya.
    – Zelaya’s mob stormed the military garrison where the ballots were being held and took them, and began their own distribution of the ballots, in direct violation of the law.
    – The Supreme Court ordered Zelaya was in violation of the Constitution and, as expected. The Attorney General then requested that Congress oust Zelaya.
    – The morning before the referendum, the military took Zelaya into custody.
    – During the day, they flew him to Costa Rica. The legislature agreed to appoint an interim President prior to the official elections, which will occur soon.

    The official Obama statement:
    “I am deeply concerned by reports coming out of Honduras regarding the detention and expulsion of President Mel Zelaya. As the Organization of American States did on Friday, I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference.”

    Now, I don’t know that expelling him from the country was the best possible choice. But from everything I read, it was one of the legal choices available. There’s nothing wrong with it; and everything wrong with Zelaya’s creation of the constitutional crisis. Where was the UN, where was Obama then? Why are they siding with him now? Why is Obama concerned about “the detention and expulsion” of Zelaya, but not about Zelaya’s egregious, anti-Constitutional actions?

    This next news excerpt doesn’t apparently have multiple sourcings, but it’s juicy:
    The Obama administration worked in recent days to prevent President Manuel Zelaya’s ouster, said a senior U.S. official. The State Department, in particular, communicated to Honduran officials on the ground that President Barack Obama wouldn’t support any nondemocratic transfer of power in the Central American country. “We had some indication that a move against Mr. Zelaya was afoot,” said a U.S. official briefed on the diplomacy. “We made it clear it was something we didn’t support.”

    Read that again. Wouldn’t you say that constitutes *meddling*??? Direct involvement and communication to influence the outcome???

    So Obama DID meddle, in an attempt to protect Chavez’ Lefty Statist buddy, a fellow who was preparing his way for a permanent dictatorship. This meddling, then, was in direct action *against* the forces of law and genuine democracy in Honduras.

    Yet Obama refused to meddle in support of the democratic forces in Iran. Tacitly, especially during the first week of the Iranian crisis, in which the vote and the entire voting process was shown to be clearly fraudulent, Obama sided with the Mad Mullahs.

    What a shining beacon of freedom and democracy we have, in Our Great Leader, Our Chosen One, Our Obama.

  • Mike Devx

    It would be an interesting intellectual exercise to try to construct a “United States scenario” in which our equivalent actors acted in a manner similar to the way they acted in Honduras.

    We’ve never had a President of the United States directly refuse to follow a decision of our Supreme Court, have we? And then, not only to not act, but instead to openly act in defiance of that decision! During the segregation battles in the South, we had at least one governor, to his everlasting shame, act in defiance of a Supreme Court decision. But never a President.

    Suppose President Nixon had not resigned during Watergate, and had in fact been impeached, and then refused to step down. That could be considered similar to what Zelaya was up to! What would the responsible actors in the United States have had to do, if Nixon had pursued that approach? An interesting twist is that our president is also Commander in Chief of our military, so what precisely might the role of our own military be in such a U.S. Constitutional crisis?


    Mike, thanks so much for the finely detailed layout of all the legal and constitutional ins/outs.

    I wonder if the POTUS is nearly as well informed as you are.
    Oh, never mind, he would be the buffer between reality in fact and on the ground and his ‘fuzzy reality’ has nothing to do what’s grounded in fact.

    “It would be an interesting intellectual exercise to try to construct a “United States scenario” in which our equivalent actors acted in a manner similar to the way they acted in Honduras”.

    Now, there’s food for thought. Know any constitutional lawyers we could bring into the discussion? We could ask Charles to book any necessary flights and destinations for discussion purposes, of course.

    Note to Lulu11: We’re all keeping score and storing all the facts right here. The dossier has begun.

  • Mike Devx

    Thanks, Sadie (#17). I hope I was accurate; inaccuracies should be corrected if someone sees them! I was gathering info as I browsed throughout the day…

    I’m sure I left out quite a bit even if accurate. For example, there was a comment that after the military took Zalaya into custody, they presented him with a letter of resignation which he promptly signed; an honorable action that indicates that he would have been following long-standing traditions of civil disobedience: claiming a higher moral authority while recognizing the necessity of punishment via established law; as was true of Thoreau, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc…

    Univision reportedly displayed this signed letter of resignation. But then Zelaya claimed, no, he never signed a letter of resignation, and furthermore, he was not only “morally right”, but legally right, and that this was a coup. So I left all that out.

    And, there goes any attempt to assign to Zelaya even a moment of grace under pressure for what he was doing. What a lowlife. But then, what would you expect from a Chavez-crony dictator-for-life-wanna-be?


    Mike..the letter of resignation was something I had read during the day and also that he claimed that his signature was a forgery. Also, that he was flown to Costa Rica (tch tch and during the rainy season, too). These are the little details that do not alter the course of events.

    “What a lowlife. But then, what would you expect from a Chavez-crony dictator-for-life-wanna-be”?

    Now that’s a description that fits more than one man.



    This one is for you and anyone else who wants to read it. :Paul Krugman has dared to challenge our patriotism by calling the no voters TRAITORS to the planet.

    Me thinks, I owe Krugman a brief note (smirk, smile, grin and wink-wink).


  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    We’ve never had a President of the United States directly refuse to follow a decision of our Supreme Court, have we?

    Andrew Jackson.

  • Danny Lemieux

    It’s clear that Obama does believe in meddling…as long as the countries are allies or conservative. It’s only Left-Wing enemies of the U.S. that he believes should be left alone…nay, enabled. This is simply part of the long-time Lefty/Liberal tradition of “bite your friends, love your enemies”.

  • Pingback: Things I didn’t know about the fracas in Honduras « lookingforlissa()

  • BrianE

    [Jonathan Adler, June 30, 2009 at 9:57am] Trackbacks
    Is Justice Thomas “Now Our Greatest Justice”? Tom Goldstein has a thoughtful and interesting post on SCOTUSBlog summarizing the just-sortof-concluded Supreme Court term and looking forward to the next. I think Goldstein overstates the conservative trajectory of the Court; the judiciary’s inertial momentum to the left remains strong, and the Roberts Court, as a whole, is less conservative than many claim. That disagreement aside, I think Golstein makes some very good points, and his analysis is informative.

    I was particularly struck by his discussion of Scalia and Thomas, which I excerpt below:

    I think that the most interesting Justices, by far, were Justices Scalia and Thomas. Both remain the most principled members of the Court. They joined the defendant-favoring majorities in Gant in Melendez-Diaz, as they consistently have done in the recent lines of jury-right and confrontation cases. Justice Scalia joined the left to provide a majority in Cuomo and Spears. Justice Thomas did the same in the maritime punitive damages case, Atlantic Sounding. There is no counter-example in which a member of the left joined the Court’s four most conservative Justices to provide a majority.

    Justice Thomas, in particular, remained willing to front new theories on critical questions, often writing only for himself, as in NAMUDNO. No other member of the Court is so independent in his thinking. The irony of course is that there remains a public perception, rooted in ignorance, that he is the handmaiden of other conservative Justices, particularly Justice Scalia. I disagree profoundly with Justice Thomas’s views on many questions, but if you believe that Supreme Court decisionmaking should be a contest of ideas rather than power, so that the measure of a Justice’s greatness is his contribution of new and thoughtful perspectives that enlarge the debate, then Justice Thomas is now our greatest Justice.

    Posted at:
    The very fact that a blog discussing legal issues would even suggest such an idea must be giving liberals apoplexy. Is that smoke or steam rising from liberal enclaves all over the country?

  • BrianE

    It is my understanding that the situation in Honduras constitutes a coup due to the timeline of events. The military removed Zelaya before the legislature had acted to remove him from power.
    The Honduran consititution is based on Spanish law, so I don’t know how much it varies from ours, but in this country, the military would be wrong to remove president even with the support of the supreme court, since only the legislature can remove the president.
    The criticism in this case, I believe, is that the legislature didn’t strip Zelaya of the presidency and install a new president, who would then be able to order the military to take the former president into custody if he refused to step down.
    The legislature did appoint an acting president and promised elections soon, but the argument could be made that the military coerced the legislature into that action.
    If this is all true, would it be necessary to reinstate Zelaya as President, have the Honduran legislature remove the president based on Honduran constitutional procedures and then deport him, or could the legislature affirm after the fact that that was there intention anyway, and just ignore the action taken by the military?


    Afghans blame U.S.-led coalition for police chief’s killing

    In the land of poppy plants and birkahs, Who is my brother’s keeper?

    Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack, and his younger brother Ahmed Wali Karzai , the head of the Kandahar provincial council, and other officials in Kandahar charged that the guards worked for a private security company that had been hired by coalition forces, but offered no specifics.

    As our forces draw back in Iraq to a supporting role, the gloves come off in Afghanistan.
    Karzai’s chutzpah is not to be overlooked or set aside as rhetoric. This country functions at the same level as Saudi Arabia before the House of Saudi and without the oil.


    Anyone care to take a ‘crack’ at this topic. Oh yes, pun is most intended. When a country’s greatest resources is growing heroin, terrorists and suppressing women back to year one – should they be casting aspersions in any other direction than internally.

  • BrianE


    Good article on the Honduran situation. Apparently the person, Micheletti, chosen to succeed Zelaya is from the same Liberal Party, and supported the ouster.

    This in the comments section at Commentary Magazine.

    Viva Honduras Libre Says:

    June 29th, 2009 at 6:23 AM
    This is a legal removal of a president that is in violation of the Honduran Constitution.
    Zelaya’s actions of the past 5 months have been in blantant disregard for the Honduran Constitution, which he sought to rewrite, the Honduran Supreme Court, which he has undermined, the Honduran Congress, which he has tried to delegitimize, his own party that has resisted Hugo Chavez, and 72% of the Honduran public, that feel disenfranchised by Zelaya. This was not a coup. Zelaya was legally removed by the military at the request of the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court that have the following two articles of the Honduran Constitution as the legal authority to do so

    ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Designado.
    El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos, y quedarán inhabilitados por diez años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.
    TRANSLATION Article 239 The citizen that has been the head of the Execute Branch cannot be President or Vice-President (again).
    Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
    ARTICULO 205.- Corresponden al Congreso Nacional las atribuciones siguientes:
    15. Declarar si ha lugar o no a formación de causa contra el Presidente
    20. Aprobar o improbar la conducta administrativa del Poder Ejecutivo, Poder Judicial y
    TRANSLATION – Article 205 – Congress has the following authority:
    15 To indict the President
    20 To approve or disapprove of the administrative conduct of the Execurive Branch, …

    Why is Obama now meddling in the internal affairs of a soveriegn nation and why is he siding with Hugo Chavez against the nation of Honduras?

  • Mike Devx

    Brian #25 and 27:

    I agree that the military surrounding the Presidential House (whatever it is called in Honduras) and taking the President into custody is, on the surface, sordid and looks like a coup. I appreciate your point about the fact that Honduras’ Congress had not stripped Zelaya of the presidency (yet), and that that fact could make of these events a coup.

    But I did notice that the Attorney General had directed that the military take Zelaya into custody, and that they did then take him into custody.

    Article 239 states:
    The citizen that has been the head of the Execute Branch cannot be President or Vice-President (again). Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

    So I assumed that the Attorney General’s action in directing the military sufficed for legality. Admittedly, I know next to nothing about Honduran or Spanish law, so I am winging it here, of course. I didn’t see anything in the text of the various articles of their Constitution that indicated that their legislature had to be the legal body to direct these actions.

  • BrianE

    Sadie #26
    Who knows what happened there.
    I know I have a son that will be heading over there next year, and as supportive as I was of Iraq, I’m equally against us attempting to “civilize” Afghanistan. I don’t profess to know how the new rules of engagement in Afghanistan will affect my son’s tour, but it make me nervous.

    This address was probably delivered at Camp Leatherneck:

    Where the U.S. Marines are preparing to take on an insurgency as well-entrenched as it was in the Anbar Province. This information is valuable as a followup to our previous analysis of the new ROE. Four more points are in order.

    First, General McChrystal has essentially laid out the new insurgent strategy in Afghanistan. This strategy is even more sure than it was in Iraq where staying among noncombatants yielded little succor, especially against the Marines in the Anbar Province (we’ll also remind you at this point that al Qaeda and the indigenous insurgency lost in Anbar – the Anbaris and the Marines won).

    Second, it is bizarre in the extreme for General McChrystal, having spent his time in raids, high value target killings and other dark operations, to be telling the Marines (who not only did that, but spent time among the people too) what will and won’t win a counterinsurgency. As the saying goes, he is trying to teach his granny to suck eggs.

    Third, there is no possible way for Soldiers or Marines to know with certainty if noncombatants are in any particular location or domicile. General McChrystal’s words were “if there is any chance.” Without comprehensive knowledge of the situation, there is always a chance. Thus the decision-making is biased in favor of disengagement.

    Finally, protecting Afghan civilians involves killing Taliban. One won’t be possible without the other. Young Marines in Camps Lejeune and Pendleton preparing to deploy to Afghanistan must be wondering “just what kind of mess are they preparing for us? I think I’d rather go on a float where I can shoot back.” At Camp Leatherneck there must be young Marines staring in disbelief at their COs. In the halls of the Pentagon the Marine Corps Commandant surely must be preparing an exit strategy for Afghanistan.


  • BrianE

    I haven’t run across any procedure in the Honduran constitution for removal of a president either. And I guess it would be presumptuous to assume they have an impeachment trial similar to us.

    “Article 239 The citizen that has been the head of the Execute Branch cannot be President or Vice-President (again).
    Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.”

    I suppose it depends on how this phrase is interpreted. What functions must they cease– the function as President or the function of supporting any action that violates their constitution?

  • Mike Devx


    will immediately cease in their functions

    I think this must include breathing, as well. :-)

    It is terribly worded and ambiguous phrasing, isn’t it?
    As bad as that damned comma in our Second Amendment.

    Seems clear to me that any such person loses all political power “immediately”. But you can’t just wave a magic wand. Either there are provisions I haven’t seen for how, legally, the Honduran President is to be stripped of all political power… or its understood, within their system of law, how that is to work, and I’m simply ignorant of how it occurs.

  • BrianE

    Good one!

    Honduras’ President Is Removed from Office
    Posted by Juan Carlos Hidalgo

    Honduran President Manuel Zelaya is just the latest democratically elected Latin American leader to violate his country’s constitution in order to achieve his political goals. Both he and the practice of democracy in Honduras are now paying the price.

    The removal from office of Zelaya on Sunday by the armed forces is the result of his continuous attempts to promote a referendum that would allow for his reelection, a move that had been declared illegal by the Supreme Court and the Electoral Tribunal and condemned by the Honduran Congress and the attorney general. Unfortunately, the Honduran constitution does not provide an effective civilian mechanism for removing a president from office after repeated violations of the law, such as impeachment in the U.S. Constitution. Nonetheless, the armed forces acted under the order of the country’s Supreme Court, and the presidency has been hastily bestowed on a civilian figure — the president of Congress — as specified by the constitution.

    Restoration of stable democracy in Honduras could benefit from two things: one, the Electoral Tribunal and Congress calling for general elections earlier than they are scheduled in November; and two, an international condemnation of moves by strongarm figures like Zelaya to undermine democratic institutions and the rule of law.

    This over at the CATO blog.
    Looks like something the Honduran legisature might want to look into.

    “international condemnation of moves by strongarm figures like Zelaya to undermine democratic institutions…”

    This could give Obama cover, while condemning the Honduran’s united move by all the branches of government, including an overwhelming majority of the electorate, our president might also condemn leaders, any leaders who “undermine democratic institutions and the rule of law.”

    Kind of reminds me of Gore taking money from the Budhist monks. Apparently Honduras has “no controlling legal authority” to do anything about a president trashing the constitution.