Sometimes the whole world prefers a lie to the truth.

Jul 4, 2009 by

542px-Coat_of_arms_of_Honduras.svgThe recent arrest and removal from office of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was not a coup as believed by the whole world but rather a triumph of the rule of law.

To understand what happened you have to understand the Honduran Constitution. The current Honduran constitution was adopted in 1982, after more than a dozen previous constitutions. Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely changed or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed. It has endured because it responds and adapts to changing political conditions.

It also contains 7 articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address critical issues. These 7 articles include the form of the government; the extent of the borders; the number of years of the presidential term; a prohibition with respect to the reelection of presidents, and eligibility for the presidency. There is another article that penalizes the abrogation of the Constitution.

What happened during the “coup” was that a Honduran citizen was arrested and sent out of the country by soldiers obeying the constitution of Honduras. He had stripped himself of the presidency through his own actions.

President Zelaya had 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. The publishing of the decree to initiate an “opinion poll” contravened the articles of the Constitution that dealt with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term.

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 will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for 10 years. The poll to convene a national constitutional assembly was in order for Zelaya to extend his term as president, in violation of the Honduran constitution. This is the exact same thing that President Chavez of Venezuela did to illegally extend his term in office.

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely- is what happened in Venezuela and is what Zelaya was trying to do in Honduras. The instant sanction of Zelaya by the Constitution successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general of Honduras ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. The Honduran military acted entirely within the bounds of the Constitution.

Yet the world, led by President Obama, condemned Honduras, calling the proper functioning of the Honduran constitution a “coup”. Obama took sides with tin-horn dictators like Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and the Castro brothers. The United Nations chimed in on the wrong side, as it so often does, along with the Organization of American States.

It is particularly disturbing that the leader of the free world so readily condemned Honduras, ignoring the facts of the matter. Here is a President who was very reluctant to condemn Iran for its obvious sham elections and subsequent brutal suppression of its citizens who peacefully protested the illegal actions of their country. But he was quick to join the chorus of voices condemning Honduras for legally preventing another Latin America dictator.

There are some in the United States government who see the events in Honduras for what they really are and are voicing their opinion on the matter. One of them is US Senator Jim DeMint. The world should be praising Honduras and its brave people who stood up for the rule of law in the face of world condemnation and the threat to their freedom from another wannabe dictator. The world, and President Obama, should be ashamed of themselves for taking the side of tyranny over liberty and freedom.

(source – Christian Science Monitor)

read more

North Korea moons the world.

Apr 7, 2009 by

nkrocketWith the launch of yet another long range rocket North Korea demonstrated how easy it is to defy the world. Backed by Russia and China, as well as other member countries of the United Nations, North Korea continues with its policy of intimidation, threats and false promises. North Korea has promised time and again to abandon its nuclear ambitions for concessions which the United States and South Korea have been only too eager to concede.

The initial response of the United Nations to the launch was weak. It essentially only reaffirms Resolutions 1695 and 1718. Even before the launch U.S. Special Envoy Stephen Bosworth revealed that he was ready to visit Pyongyang and resume the six-partly talks. No wonder North Korea felt it had nothing to fear from launching its rocket. To make matters worse Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently announced deep cuts in the U.S. Missile defense program as well as the F-22 Raptor program.

While all this is going on you can be sure that Iran is carefully monitoring the responses of the United States as well as the United Nations. It would hardly be surprising if Iran decided to ramp up the pressure on the new administration in Washington. Iran sees an American president so ready to bend his knee for public favor in Europe that the mullahs’ push for U.S. concessions will rapidly grow.

And lets not forget what kind of message the lack of any significant U.S. or U.N. response is sending to Israel. The new administration in Israel is probably drawing the conclusion that it should look our for No. 1 first and not hold its breath waiting for Mr. Obama to do anything about Iran. If the U.S. and the U.N. continually use only the carrot and never show North Korea a big stick, it will only embolden the criminal regime in North Korea while at the same time send a dangerous message to other countries in the world like Iran, Russia and China that they have little to fear from either the United States or the United Nations.

read more

U.N. – United Nations against the U.S. and Israel

Mar 5, 2009 by

BoltonOnUN Once again the United Nations is showing that it is little more than a collection of states that hate the United States and Israel. There are many member states that need to go back and read the U.N. Charter to remember what the true mission of the United Nations is. Article 1 of the Charter states the purposes of the United Nations. They are:

  1. To maintain international peace and security.
  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
  3. To achieve international co-operation in solving problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character.
  4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

I wish someone would tell me which of the above purposes was being served when a top official of the U.N. accused the United States of committing inhuman “atrocities” in Iraq and Afghanistan during a speech Wednesday to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva. U.N. General Assembly President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann ranted during his speech that:

The aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan and their occupations constitute atrocities that must be condemned and repudiated by all who believe in the rule of law in international relations.

D’Escoto claimed that U.S. actions have directly led to more than a million Iraqi civilian deaths since 2003, a vastly inflated figure that does not correspond with the U.N.’s own vastly overstated estimates. The U.N.’s health and medical agency, The WHO, says 151,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion while puts the death toll between 90,000-99,245. D’Escoto goes on to scream that these violations “must be addressed to bring an end to the scandalous present impunity.”

This clown is a top U.N. official and stands in front of the United Nations making these outrageous statements without a hint of condemnation from any U.N. official. Again I ask which of the stated purposes of Article 1 of the U.N. Charter is being served by a U.N. official making such statements? What really makes his statements so outrageous is the fact that D’Escoto was once the foreign minister for the Communist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

The Sandinista government had a long record of human rights violations, one in which D’Escoto played a prominent role. Included in these violations were the murders of 800 Miskito prisoners, the disappearance of hundreds of detainees every month for years, the discoveries of 60 common graves of individuals who were executed by the Sandinista People’s Army or the State Security and the torture of many others. In 1997 R.J. Rummel in his book Statistics of Democide estimated that the Sandinistas were responsible for 5,000 non-battle related deaths.

I find it outrageous that someone with D’Esconto’s past history of association with human rights abuses could not only be a top U.N. official today but have the gall to stand in front of the world and falsely accuse the United States of the murder of a million Iraqis and Afghans. Rhetoric like this against both the United Sates and Israel is all to common with many top U.N. officials and should be recognized for what it really is. And what it really is is a blind and unreasoning hatred of countries like the United States and Israel and everything that they represent. Could someone please explain to me why the United States is still a member of the United Nations?

read more

UK Double Standard on Free Speech

Feb 13, 2009 by

web.0203islam6 The recent detention at London’s Heathrow airport of Dutch politician Geert Wilders points to an apparent double standard when it comes to the subject of free speech. Wilders, whose documentary “Fitna” portrays Islam as being a violent religion, was denied entry into the UK by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In a letter from the UK Border Agency the Secretary of State stated that Wilders presence in the UK would (due to his statements about Muslims and their beliefs):

Pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.

Wilders was invited to show his documentary in the UK by a member of the British Parliament. Wilder is a member of the Freedom Party which holds nine of the 120 seats in the Dutch Parliament. His documentary and statement that Islam is a violent religion has stirred much controversy around the world. Britain’s Home Office said that it “opposes extremism in all its forms” and would work to “stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming into our country.”

Wilder’s response to the ban on his traveling to the UK is:

Threat to society? I’m an elected member of Parliament; I have done nothing wrong. I’m a normal, law-abiding democrat. You might agree or disagree with my political point of view, but I’m no threat to anyone.

Wilder defends his documentary by saying that the only hate speech in the movie comes from the preachers and texts it is documenting. Brooke Goldstein, a human rights attorney with the Legal Project said in Wilder’s defense:

I think it is ironic the majority of the film is composed of quotes from the Koran and scenes of radical imams preaching death to the Jews and death to infidels.

I find it ironic that while the British Home Office opposes extremism in all its forms and vows to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages, apparently that opposition applies only non-Muslims. Radical Islam has grown in the UK at an alarming rate, infiltrating colleges and universities and society as a whole. Yet little is done to oppose that growth. Street protests are a common sight in the country, with extremists shouting death to Israel, death to the US and death to the infidels, all the while being protected by British bobbies. Apparently that speech is OK as long as it is coming from Muslims. But let a non-Muslim point out that type of behavior and suddenly the British Home Office swings into action.

I am opposed to all hate speech and it should not be allowed to go unpunished. But there is a difference between expressing your opinion that Islam is a violent religion and saying “butcher all those who mock Islam”. Saying “butcher all those who mock Islam” is not an opinion but a statement of hate and violence . If you are going to crack down on a Dutch politician for his documentary and his views on Islam, then you better crack down on the hate speech that is being uttered on the streets in your own cities. You also had better crack down of the ideas and beliefs of hatred and intolerance that are being spread among the youth of your colleges and universities. Until you do that, your condemnation of Wilder comes across as nothing more than a dangerous and unfair double standard.

read more

Obama takes first steps towards losing the war with radical Islam

Jan 22, 2009 by

President Obama signed several executive orders today directing the CIA to close its network of secret foreign prisons, close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp within a year and limit interrogation standards to only those outlined in the Army Field manual. These executive orders are only the first of what I am afraid will be many executive orders issued by Obama that will systematically dismantle the infrastructure to fight radical Islam that former President Bush put in place during his administration.

The fact that it is this infrastructure that has prevented any radical Islamic attacks on American soil since 9/11 is one that most liberals and apparently President Obama have either ignored or refuse to acknowledge. How President Obama’s moves to dismantle this infrastructure are going to keep America safe is beyond me. I think Obama’s main motivation is to appease foreign governments and ‘restore’ America’s stature with Muslim and other countries.

The problem with this is that Obama should not be concerned with winning a popularity contest but rather be concerned with winning the war against radical Islam and keeping America safe. If you are wondering why I use the term ‘radical Islam’  instead of ‘terrorism’ it is because I believe in accurately describing what we are actually at war against. As Pat Dollard says on his blog:

Enough with the pseudonyms. Western civilization isn’t at war with terrorism any more than it is at war with grenades. Western civilization is at war with militant Islam, which dominates Muslim communities all over the world.

If President Obama thinks that actions like the ones he is ordering are going to garner us favor with Muslim countries around the world and put America in a more favorable light he is sadly mistaken. While his actions may be well received by the leaderships of some Muslim countries they will not mitigate the hatred that radical Islam has for us and all of Western civilization. Let’s take of the blinders and see the threat that radical Islam poses to us in the light of reality. They don’t hate us because of our support of Israel. They don’t hate us because we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They don’t hate us because of Britney Spears.

They hate us because we are infidels and we stand in the way of their plans to wage a war of aggressive expansion and spread of their beliefs. They hate us because we are not Muslims and do not share their particular twisted version of Islam. They hate us because we are not like them. Radical Islam is anathema to everything our country represents. To quote Pat Dollard again:

We don’t lose our souls when we treat our enemies as enemies. We don’t redeem ourselves when we close Guantanamo Bay or try terrorists in civilian courts. When it comes to war, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

When terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and killed more US citizens than the Japanese did during the attack on Pearl Harbor the gloves came off and they need to stay off until radical Islam is no longer a threat to us. Many people, apparently including President Obama, have forgotten that the US firebombed Tokyo and dropped two atomic bombs on Japan before we defeated them . Yet we can’t seem to stomach a little water boarding to save American lives.

I wish you would read the entire article that Pat Dollard wrote about this. It explains far better than I can how misguided actions like the ones President Obama is implementing will not only endanger our lives but threaten the very existence of our country. I know a lot of people will disagree with what I am saying. I can only pray that President Obama will find the wisdom and courage to do what is right and necessary to protect our country from radical Islam. President Bush did so at the cost of ridicule and scorn from many of the very people he so ably defended.

radical islam threat

read more

United Nations Human Rights Council once again shows it’s anti-Semitism

Jan 12, 2009 by

663px-Judenstern_JMW The United Nations Human Rights Council has once again shown it’s anti-Semitism by approving a resolution condemning Israel’s military offensive in Gaza saying it has “resulted in massive violations of human rights of the Palestinian people.”

Anti-Semitism is defined as  prejudice against or hostility toward Jews as a group. The prejudice or hostility is usually characterized by a combination of religious, racial, cultural and ethnic biases. The council’s 47 members voted 33 in favor and 1 against the resolution that also accuses Israel of systematically destroying Palestinian infrastructure and of targeting civilians and medical facilities. Only Canada voted against the resolution with European Union countries abstaining.

While the resolution urges an end to the rocket attacks it never mentions Hamas nor violations of Israeli civilian’s rights by constant rocket attacks and suicide bombings of civilian targets. The United Nations has a long history of passing resolutions that condemn Israel while never condemning any of the internationally recognized terrorist organizations that constantly threaten Israel’s citizens.

The United Nations Human Rights Council apparently does not recognize Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense that it is exercising by attacking Hamas military infrastructure that supports the launching of Hamas terrorist attacks in the form of rockets loaded with ball bearings launched against Israeli civilian targets for years. The Councel also ignores human rights violations that Hamas perpetrates against it’s own people by using them as human shields against Israeli attacks.

There is a large body of evidence that shows that Hamas regularly uses mosques, hospitals, schools and other civilian structures to store weapons as well as launch rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli civilian targets. It has been reported that Hamas is using Gaza’s Shifa Hospital as a meeting place and even distributing salaries to its operative there. The majority of civilian casualties that have occurred during Israel’s attack against Hamas have come from Hamas’ strategy of using human shields. I have seen many Israeli defense videos that show Israeli pilots steering their missiles away from legitimate Hamas targets when civilians have have been spotted near the targets. Israel drops leaflets warning civilians to stay away from Hamas infrastructure and even calls by phone to warn people out of targets before they are struck.

The argument put forward by countries like France that Israel is using “disproportionate” force is absurd. Israeli is trying to destroy Hamas’ ability to launch attacks against Israel. Is Israel supposed to do this by building crude rockets like the ones Hamas uses and launch  them indiscriminately at Gaza like Hamas does against Israel? Israel has over a million citizens living under the constant threat of rocket attack by Hamas and is simply trying to protect its citizens. If the Council is truly concerned about the killing of Palestinian citizens it needs to condemn Hamas for using them as human shields as well as to call for a stop  to targeting Israeli civilians.

A recent poll showed that only 14 percent of Palestinians support Hamas. Only when Hamas is no longer in control of Gaza can the Palestinians have any hope of peace and a normal life. Calls for a cease fire make no sense as long as Hamas still controls Gaza. Hamas has constantly signaled that it has not interest in peace talks or peace. Hamas is repressive to its own citizens and has passed legislation which ushered in whipping, dismembering and execution as standard punitive measures. But apparently the United Nations Human Rights Council does not see these as human rights violations.

Israel has exhausted all avenues of negotiations with Hamas and has been forced to act to protect its citizens. How can you achieve peace with an organization whose own charter (Article 13) states that:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavor.

With no partner to engage with diplomatically and with no truce in place, Israel had no choice but to protect its citizens by force. Yet the United Nations Human Rights Council sees this instead as an act of “massive violations of human rights.” Israel has withdrawn completely from Gaza and only controls access to Gaza from Israel to prevent Hamas from launching suicide attacks and smuggling weapons into Gaza. The United Nations Human Rights Council  has once again shown that it is an organization that is basically anti-Semitic and should be condemned by the world for its anti-Semitism.

read more