Tag: Washington DC

Don't believe the hype on the Coup in Honduras

That is what Octavio Sánchez is saying, and he should know; he’s there:

Tegucigalpa, Honduras – Sometimes, the whole world prefers a lie to the truth. The White House, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and much of the media have condemned the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this past weekend as a coup d’état.

That is nonsense.

In fact, what happened here is nothing short of the triumph of the rule of law.

[….]

Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly.” In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: “No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], 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.”

Notice that the article speaks about intent and that it also says “immediately” – as in “instant,” as in “no trial required,” as in “no impeachment needed.”

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. The Constitution’s provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day.

Don’t believe the coup myth. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution. The military gained nothing but the respect of the nation by its actions.

via A ‘coup’ in Honduras? Nonsense. | csmonitor.com.

But yet you have idiot douche bag Communist Liberals, like Hillary Clinton, Like President Obama and the U.N. trying to tell the people in Honduras; that this man was right for doing this. I guess Senator McCarthy was right after all. The Democratic Party has been taken over by the Socialists, who are basically Communist light.  So, to this writer; is no big surprise that President Obama and his right hand lady Hillary Clinton took sides with the Communists.

Franken-Gate Continues

It now seems that the Conservative owned and funded WSJ has bad case of sour grapes and in the process shows it’s horrid case of bias in the process.

The WSJ Writes:

The Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of last year’s disputed Senate race, and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman’s gracious concession at least spares the state any further legal combat. The unfortunate lesson is that you don’t need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.

Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat’s strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total. The Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman.

But the team’s real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman’s lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs.

What Mr. Franken understood was that courts would later be loathe to overrule decisions made by the canvassing board, however arbitrary those decisions were. He was right. The three-judge panel overseeing the Coleman legal challenge, and the Supreme Court that reviewed the panel’s findings, in essence found that Mr. Coleman hadn’t demonstrated a willful or malicious attempt on behalf of officials to deny him the election. And so they refused to reopen what had become a forbidding tangle of irregularities. Mr. Coleman didn’t lose the election. He lost the fight to stop the state canvassing board from changing the vote-counting rules after the fact.

This is now the second time Republicans have been beaten in this kind of legal street fight. In 2004, Dino Rossi was ahead in the election-night count for Washington Governor against Democrat Christine Gregoire. Ms. Gregoire’s team demanded the right to rifle through a list of provisional votes that hadn’t been counted, setting off a hunt for “new” Gregoire votes. By the third recount, she’d discovered enough to win. This was the model for the Franken team.

Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don’t end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.

Uh, Sour Grapes much guys? Look, I am about as happy about Al Franken being a damn Senator; as I would be about getting a root canal. But this petty whining and crying, because you lost a legal challenge is just downright childish. Besides, Norm Coleman was most likely out of money and just could not afford to keep fighting. Not only this, The G.O.P. most likely told Coleman to drop it, because the G.O.P. was already bruising from the Mark Sanford scandal.  Not only this, but the G.O.P. is looking towards 2010 and 2012, and the last thing they need; is to be viewed by the General public as a party desperately trying to grasp for power.

Patrick Stack makes a valid point, but in the process dredges up old Democratic Party conspiracy theories and sour grapes of his own:

First, Norm Coleman’s concession was hardly “gracious” — he drew out the process in court for seven months, leaving Minnesota down one senator the whole time. And if anybody is the model for election legal street fights and sketchy vote-count maneuvering through the courts, I think that would have to be the guy who “won” in the 2000 Presidential election.

Glass houses, yo.

Patrick (Nice name, by the way! :D) makes a point in the first part of that, but in that second part, he drags out the old dead tired conspiracy theory that  Bush stole the election.  There is absolutely no valid proof that Bush stole that election, if there was, how come John McCain did not steal this election in 2008? That’s because there was no election fraud at all. The SCOTUS made that decision based upon one big factor, there was no way those votes could be counted down in Florida accurately, in a reasonable amount of time and Bush won more states than Gore; so, the Court decided in Bush’s Favor.  Now am I happy about that? Quite frankly; No, I am not. Bush economic polices proved to be a disaster for this country, his authorizing the bailout of all these banks. The War in Iraq; which Bill O’Reilly himself even has said was a waste.  I could go on and on about that, but I think you know what I mean. I never was a Bush Cheerleader, anyone that reads this blog knows this to be a fact.

Chris Cillizza over at “The Fix” has a nice explanation of how Coleman won, sans the Conservative Sour Grapes.

Which brings me to my final and most important point. I was over at HotAir last night and I happened to watch this video here:

Now, first off this video is supposed to be what MSNBC calls “Fair and Balanced.” If that is fair and balanced, I think I want to move to another Country.  Secondly, If Markos and crew over at DailyKos think that the Democrats are going to now do every little thing that the “Nutroots” wants them to; they are going to be in for a HUGE surprise and letdown.  The Democratic Party establishment looks out for one person and one person alone; itself.  The only difference between the Establishment of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party; is the name.  Sure, the Grassroots or in this case the “Netroots”; may have some limited influence, but when the “Goodyear hits the Asphalt”, so to speak, the Establishment calls the shots and if Markos and company think that this 60 votes myth is going to change that, they are going to be in for a big surprise.

Change?: President Obama ready to sign order to Executive Order to Allow Indefinite Detention of Terror Suspects

This broke last night and the Liberal Blogosphere about went nuclear.

Via The Washington Post:

Obama administration officials, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

After months of internal debate over how to close the military facility in Cuba, White House officials are increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may be impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the prison by the president’s January deadline.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that there is no executive order and that the administration has not decided whether to issue one. But one administration official suggested that the White House is already trying to build support for an order.

“Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order,” the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released.

The Justice Department has declined to comment on the prospects for a long-term detention system while internal reviews of Guantanamo detainees’ cases are underway. One task force, which is assessing detainee policy, is expected to complete its work by July 21.

In a May speech, President Obama broached the need for a system of long-term detention and suggested that it would include congressional and judicial oversight. “We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can’t be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone,” he said.

Shall we start calling him President George W. Obama? It sure sounds like it. When the Conservatives AND Liberals are calling this plan a disaster; something is dreadfully wrong.

Should be interesting to follow.

As always Memeorandum has the round up.

Is America turning Japanese?

This comes via Reason.tv:

Article mentioned in this video is Here

Cue the Music!

Video: Something to make you think

This an excellent video: (Via True Conservatives on Facebook)

The Southern Avenger on "The Problem with Sotomayor"

Yeah, I know what I wrote here, But Jack does bring up some vary valid points.

—

How President Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, will place identity politics and liberal ideology above the Constitution.

The Southern Avenger Says "Obama and Cheney Make Us Less Safe"

In the ongoing debate between President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney on torture, former CIA terrorism expert Michael Scheuer points out how both leaders’ refusal to address U.S. interventionism as the primary catalyst for terrorism makes us all “less safe.”

The Southern Avenger’s Blog

The Southern Avenger @ Taki’s Magazine

The Southern Avenger says "Just Say No" to Government

When South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was attacked by Republican state leaders for not accepting federal stimulus dollars, it was worth pointing out the utter uselessness of GOP politicians who refuse to follow through on their conservative rhetoric.

The Southern Avenger on "Lindsey Graham Republicans"

When Lindsey Graham denounced Ron Paul-style libertarianism and advocated for George W. Bush-style neoconservatism during a speech at the South Carolina Republican Convention, it was worth pointing out that Graham’s suggested GOP path is the road to nowhere.

The Southern Avenger says "Partisans Make Us Less Safe"

How support for both “financial security” and “national security” reveal partisan hypocrisy and make us less safe.