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 Of its original 379 articles, seven have been completely changed or partially repealed, 18 have been interpreted, and 121 have been reformed.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It also contains 7 articles that cannot be repealed or amended because they address critical issues.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

The right to keep and bear arms is the cornerstone of our freedom.

Feb 2, 2009 by

1132007infringers The constant erosion of our right to keep and bear arms as defined by the Second Amendment of the Constitution is something that threatens our future freedom and liberty. Every citizen should be alarmed by this attack on this right that our founding fathers were wise enough to add to the Constitution. Even if you do not own a firearm and never plan to, you should still be concerned with the history of legislation that has been passed in recent years that severely restricts our rights as stated in the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment clearly states our rights and is not subject to interpretation. Any law passed that infringes on these rights is unconstitutional. I will not get into the history of gun control legislation but if you would like to read more about this tragic history you can go here. In words that clearly define these rights the Second Amendment states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Could it be any clearer? Any law that infringes on our right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment was adopted by an emergent republican ideology founded upon the view that:

To deny arms to some men while allowing them to others was an intolerable denial of freedom.

English and American political writers stated that society and government rests upon the popular possession of arms, that arms are the primary means by which individuals affirmed their social power and that arms are necessary for an individual to protect himself from vicious fellow citizens, corrupt authorities and to defend themselves against tyrannical rulers.

The concept of a militia in the United States dates from the colonial era. Based on the British system, colonial militias were drawn from the body of adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies. This rules out the argument by some that the term militia refers to organizations like the Army Reserve and the National Guard. The arms provided to members of the Army Reserve and National Guard are controlled by the government. This sort of defeats the whole purpose of one of the main justifications for the Second Amendment, to defend against corrupt authorities and tyrannical rulers. If the government controls access to arms the militia is basically defenseless. A key element in the concept of “militia” was that to be “genuine” it not be a “select militia”, composed of an unrepresentative subset of the population.

If you look closely at the relationship between gun control and crime you will see that gun control has done nothing to make Americans safer. Right after World War II many schools in the United States had firing ranges in their basements were basic firearms skills were taught to students. You could buy a firearm by mail and have it delivered directly to your door. The military would even sell firearms to citizens. An America where most of its citizens owned firearms was much safer and had far less crime than an America of today where its citizens are being slowly but surely disarmed. I defy anyone to provide statistics that prove that more gun control legislation and fewer citizens legally owning firearms has led to a decrease in crime.

The right of private citizens to keep and bear arms led to our very independence from tyrannical British rule. The militia that fought the British consisted of private citizens who provided their own firearms. The founding fathers recognized this fact,  which is why the Second Amendment was later added to the Constitution. How far west do you think this country could have expanded if the settlers had not had firearms to protect themselves from Indians and outlaws? The military at the time certainly did not have the resources to protect them. A large portion of the United States would still be owned by Mexico if there had not been armed private citizens and a militia present to defeat Santa Anna and the Mexican Army. Our very existence today is founded on the words of the Second Amendment. Our future existence and freedoms likewise still depend on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

So the next time you see legislation introduced whose aim is to further weaken the rights guaranteed to you by the Second Amendment, stand up for those rights so that you will be able to defend yourself against the threats to your freedom that the Constitution empowers you to protect against.

read more