Honduras - When Is A Coup Not A Coup?

When it’s in Honduras and the Military is acting under the orders of the Honduran Supreme Court.

It’s just a shame that our own President and Secretary of State didn’t take the time to investigate the facts before running off for some face time before the cameras.

In her Wall Street Journal opinion piece today, Mary O’Grady writes;

“Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution.

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused". (Ms. O’Grady’s complete article may be found at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623220955866301.html)

And that’s when the Honduran Supreme Court stepped in, ordered the military to escort Mr. Zelaya and his family to the airport and sent them packing to Costa Rica.

This was probably more than they deserved and definitely better treatment than if they had been an opposition party of, say, their friend Mr. Chavez. If that had been the case, we’d most likely be sending flowers to the next of kin via Danny Glover.

However, the reaction from the Washington Post, in lock step with the administration, was the same as Hillary Clinton and the President; return President Zelaya to power now!

When does the soverniety of a nation’s constitution take precidence over partisan politics? When do we as Americans, say enough, to what appear be Marxist tears for foreign leaders, who despise us, from our own leaders?

Suppose President Obama decided he wanted to abolish the Twenty Second Amendment, limiting him to a maximum of two terms. Would the Washington Post, Secretary of State Clinton, Hugo Chavez and the OAS protest? Hopefully, we’ll never know.

Civility Or The Lack There Of

Somewhere between the hitching post and the internet we, as a society, seem to have forgotten a few basic tenants that our parents and grandparents were taught from childhood. The main one being civility.

When was the last time you heard a child say “yes ma’am or no ma’am or yes sir or no sir” to an adult? As old as I am, there are numerous times when I use ma’am or sir, to those considerably younger than me, just as a sign of respect.

We’ve all recently heard or read about the debacle with Barbara Boxer, when she virtually demanded that a General address her as Senator. Civility would have dictated that Ms. Boxer not even mention how she was addressed.

On the other side we have folks like Perez Hilton. He spews forth vitriol like Cheerios flowing from an upended box. Civility? Respect? Not in his barnyard. Hilton's stock in trade is to appeal to the lowest common denominators and there appear to be enough of them to fill a pig trough to overflowing.

Then, when one person takes umbrage at what is said and finally does something about it, well, you’d think they’d taken poor old Perez out and nailed him to a cactus. You could hear the squeals, whining and crying all over HimTube and the rest of the internet. How dare someone stoop so low as to touch a hair on the back of his head? Civilized people don’t do that, they settle their differences with words.

HORSE APPLES! When we were truly civilized, the likes of Perez Hilton wouldn’t have gotten past the first minute in his diatribe before there would have been a knock on the door, and someone would have shown him that when you defame there are consequences. In today’s genteel society it just took a little longer.

There are not many times when I long for days past. I really enjoy the internet, 250 channels on TV, not to mention the wide screen to watch them on. I do miss the muscle cars of the 50’s and 60’s.

I believe John Wayne summed it up best when he said: “I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them." The Duke had it right.

What Do The Following Have In Common?

Inflation, The Great Lakes, climate, cyber space, cars, Federal Tech, energy, Iran, bank bailouts, urban areas, borders, drugs and compensation? Give up? They all have a Federal Czar! What’s more there are eight others I couldn’t immediately identify.

If you changed Washington, D.C. to St. Petersburg and Pennsylvania Ave. to Nevski the Romanoff’s might feel right at home. At least one of them might.

Nicholas II, unlike his father, ruled with an iron hand and would brook no deviance by his standard bearers.

Hmm, didn’t we just hear about an Inspector General who was asked to resign by the White House and when he refused he was fired? And for what, a personal affront to one of the President’s friends and an impending investigation?

When Nichols II was informed that the rope had broken during the attempted execution of one of his enemies, his response? “Take a new rope and finish the execution”. Wow, have we come a long way or what?

Fast forward a couple hundred years. This administration and its czars are attempting to do something they are uniquely unqualified to do, have the Federal Government run private companies, their executives, executives salary, the internet and even automobile companies.

Never, in the history of our country has government fixed a problem within the private sector. The private sector fixes these problems itself. If a car company cannot sustain itself, it either goes bankrupt or gets rearranged (in layman's terms), or it goes out of business. It’s time they were left to their own devices. They’re in this mess because the unions have counted on the Federal Government to step in.

If the unions knew the Government wasn’t going to intervene, do you think they would allow companies to cease to exist? Or, do you believe they would renegotiate terms. If they didn’t, the company could either file Chapter 11 or cease to exist. Either way the union is kaput.

The same applies to the banks. There is a tremendous hue and cry about banks not following the rules and ‘look what they’ve done and look how they’ve ruined people’. Who told them to abandon established rules of lending under threat of Federal intervention (make that trumped up discriminatory lending charges)? Look no further than......drum rolls please, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

These same folks NOW tell us they’re outraged, I mean they’re livid and they’re going to do something about it. Hopefully the voters will beat them to the punch in the mid-terms.

Czars are proliferating in Washington as if the Administration and Congress were on Czaragra. If they pop any more of that brand of little blue pill, the czar’s salaries will necessitate another tax just to cover it.

You’re the doctor. Say no to any refills on this prescription in 2010.

Boycotts & You

Boycotts don’t work. Whoever told you that, it probably wasn’t your mother or father. They use boycotts all the time and so do we all. Think not? When you go to buy a pair of shoes and you try on pair X and they’re not comfortable, you buy pair Y. That’s a form of boycott. You’re taking your money and putting it where it will do the most good, into a comfortable pair of shoes.

We boycott products and companies all the time for one reason or another. We buy from companies who manufacture in this country because we’re proud of products made here. We avoid certain products because the companies that manufacture them have policies regarding labor, the environment, politics, social issues etc. that we disagree with.

Boycotts are not bad. They let companies know how we feel. Just think back to the Ford Pinto or the Edsel! We can also let politicians know how we feel by boycotting them come election time. Remember when the Republicans swept into power in ’92? Voters in both parties were so dissatisfied they didn’t care what party they voted for, they just wanted change, any change.

Seventeen years later it’s Deja Vu all over again. This time the Democrats are in power. They rule the roost from top to bottom. The President has put forth spending programs unprecedented in the history of the country and Congress is more than happy to go along with him.

In addition to this nightmare, we have an Attorney General who would be thrilled to re-enact the assault weapons ban and add a myriad of additional restrictions to it. Congress would be overjoyed to go along with this except that midterm elections are coming and they know that this is a poison pill they are not prepared to swallow. So much for standing up for ones beliefs.

So, what’s a freedom loving citizenry to do? Simple, enact a boycott. As your grandfather probably would say, “throw the bums out”. Now that we’re in a more genteel time, we phrase it thusly, boycott these gentlemen and gentlewomen and withhold your support (votes). Choose instead anyone who offers an opposing view point.


Please, don’t be swayed by last minute appeals of “.....if you re-elect me I can get things done next time. I promise it’ll be different”. They lie. They lied to you before and they’re lying to you now.

The Bad Guys Just Won't Show Their Colors

When Paul Helmke, of the Brady Organization, keeps harping on that old saw that we need more gun control laws he mentions how horrible it is when law abiding citizens carry handguns, concealed or openly in public. What Paul fails to mention is the crime rate at these functions. Let me mention it for him, ZERO.

What Paul also fails to mention is the fact that he, and the Brady Organization are not in the least interested in more laws to control crime. That's a red herring for their real purpose which is the eventual elimination of private handgun ownership in the United States.

Now, Paul, the Bradys and others of their ilk are pretty sneaky. They hide behind the tried and true flag of "we're doing it for the children" or some other such garbage. Truth be known, they'd eliminate the Second Amendment with the flick of a switch today if given the chance. But, they can't, so they hide, like a bunch of (what used to be called) bushwackers. They wait for an opportune moment and then they strike. They use other people's misery to promote more misery and pain.

They give not a wit if women are raped, robbed and murdered and can't defend themselves. After all, it's for the better good. Just ask him if he'd rather have one college student, in a class, with the means to defend him/herself against a deranged killer or have the entire class murdered. See what kind of response you get.

I know what the response will be because I asked a police chief that exact question. His response: "We'd rather have them killed than risk a shootout". My response to him was, "you are a disgrace to the badge and uniform you wear".

There is a light in this tunnel. That light is common sense. The regular folks are seeing it every day. They are coming to realize more and more that their safety rests solely with them. That the police will be the last to show up.

The next time the Brady Organization or a politician starts speaking, ask them why don't you support my right to self defense and why are you making it more difficult for ME to defend myself?