Posted on 07/06/2009 4:50:43 PM PDT by Frankusa
As I noted in my previous post, State Dept. spokesman Ian Kelly on Monday issued a statement saying the US "deplores the use of force against demonstrators in" Honduras. He then added, "We're very focused on the need for a dialog to restore [Manuel Zelaya] back to office and restore the democratic order."
It has also been reported that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to meet with the former dictator [Mr. Zelaya] on Tuesday.
Of course, as I noted previously, Ian Kelly, in typical hypocritical fashion, refused to condemn the brutal suppression of protesters in Iran.
Nevertheless, there are some additional questions that need to be answered:
Where was the Obama administration on March 23 when Manuel Zelaya issued a presidential decree calling for a national referendum, in violation of Honduras' constitution? [scroll down for video] The Attorney General of Honduras, the Supreme Court and the supreme electoral tribunal all declared the intended referendum illegal. Dozens of national institutions and associations joined in condemning the proposed referendum as unconstitutional. Why was there was no condemnation at the time from the Obama administration? And why didn't the administration intervene and try to block Mr. Zelaya from illegally holding on to power?
On June 25, Manuel Zelaya issued a second degree calling for a survey, which was also illegal. On the same day, the Supreme electoral tribunal and the Attorney General confiscated the ballots, but Zelaya and his thugs broke into the warehouse and seized the ballots by force. Why didn't the Obama administration issue a condemnation then?
The Honduran constitution explicitly states that any president who attempts to serve more than his allotted term shall immediately be removed from office [for a period of 10 years]. Honduran constitution does not provide for a process of impeachment, consequently, Mr. Zelaya was removed from his post. - h/t - Honduras Sprouts [video]
The Obama administration refused to condemn Mr. Zelaya's illegal referendum and did nothing to prevent him from extending his term in office, illegally.
Instead, State Dept. spokesman Ian Kelly now asserts that the administration is "very focused on the need... to restore [Manuel Zelaya] back to office," despite the fact that this would be in violation of Honduras' constitution.
Thus, the question arises: Should Obama and his minions be condemned for attempting to reinstate Mr. Zelaya into office, in violation of Honduran law?
I don't see why not.
Admittedly, Mr. Kelly said that he wishes to reinstate Mr. Zelaya into office by means of a dialog. But bear in mind that Mr. Zelaya violated his country's constitution, and according to Honduran law he is to be removed from office for at least 10 years. Thus, I believe the administration is attempting to skirt Honduran law and is deserving of a scathing condemnation.
Article 239 - Honduran constitution: No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.Sen. DeMint, Rep.Ros-Lehtinen, the ball is in your court, how about a congressional condemnation, please?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.
US Senate, contact information
US congress, contact information
Request condemnation.....
Condemned? Hell yes!
Barry fails as POTUS.
Fails as Commander-in-Chief.
Fails as a Constitutional Law Professor.
No doubt, failure should be condemned.
Could we process this in a US court, using foreign law? After all, these liberals seem perfectly happy to apply international law to our servicemen.
Hmmm, interesting.
“Change you can believe in!” Heh, heh, heh.
Show off! I mentioned before that I think you’re a genius with the computer. Don’t rub it in.
Are you able to see the image with “Change you can believe in”?
I’m getting a “Bandwidth exceeded” image over here.
This is the first and only image in my new photobucket account, created it just a few days ago, and it’s already had 20,000 hits and over 30gb of traffic. Limit says 25gb, so I don’t know what’s going on.
I may need to get some domations to upgrade to a Pro account.
Well, the Mullahs have been raiding the universities in Iran, and that doesn’t seem to be a problem with Obama. So I guess that means everywhere else, but Honduras (and Chavez’ backyard) is game.
Condemned? Yeah....among other things!
This is just one of LOTS of things Obama should be condemned for. It is, especially when juxtaposed with his response to Iran, crystal clear evidence of how Obama feels about individual freedom and political liberty.
If there was EVER a question in ones mind about about Obama’s firm belief that government MUST rule the people it should be long gone by now. There is NOTHING “American” in the methods and ideologies that Obama supports and espouses.
During the campaign I kept telling myself that there was no way he could be as bad as we were making him out to be. Well, mia culpa, I was SOOOO wrong about that. Obama has no idea what individualism is. He has no respect for the institutions upon which this nation was founded and flourished nor can he identify those institutions in another nation. He sees ONLY more grist for his mill yet, half a nation continues to worship him.
This must be the way many German, Polish and Russian Jews felt 70 years ago.
We’re from the government, may we come in?
Heck! Demonstrators in the U.S. aren’t even allowed out of the pens the authorities set up for them.
Your post is everything I’ve been thinking. Way worse than my darkest suspicions. No concept of what it is to be an American.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.