Rand Paul is Right

Rand Paul has been in the news this week with some controversial remarks. I think both of the remarks the media is talking about were correct. As a matter of a disclaimer, I don't claim to be a Rand Paul supporter. I am not a fan of his father, Ron Paul, and before Rand won the primary, I really didn't know much about him. However, when you're right, you're right.

Private businesses should be able to serve who they want.

The first comment that got him in trouble involved a discussion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rand Paul has said a number of times that he would not support overturning the Civil Rights Act, and that he would have voted for it. However, he said he had some concerns when the act is applied to private businesses. The quote that got him in trouble, as reported by the New York Times was:

Asked by Ms. Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to serve black people, Mr. Paul replied, “Yes.”

I agree with him. I believe a private business should be able to serve or cater to whoever they want. If a bar, diner, golf course, or electronics store wants to "not serve" blacks, Hispanics, whites, or any other group, they should be able to. However, I also believe they shouldn't complain when a large number of people don't shop there because of that policy. I would never personally shop at a store that excluded any specific racial group, but I would fight to allow them that right.

The Obama Administration is Un-American.

If there is anything that drives liberals crazier than insisting on personal rights and accountability, it's stating that a liberal icon is un-American. This is exactly what Rand Paul did when he was trying to clarify his remarks about the Civil Rights Act. Once again, citing the New York Times:

“What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,’ ” Mr. Paul said, referring to a remark by Interior Secretary Ken Salazaar about the oil company. “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I’ve heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be someone’s fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen.”

Again, I think Mr. Paul is correct. Ken Salazaar was the first to say it, but Robert Gibbs has repeated it so many times in press briefings that this has become the tag line for the President's handling of the BP oil spill. Ignore your personal feelings for President Obama, do you really think it sounds Presidential, or American, to say that your administration will keep,"...a boot heel to the throat..." of a private company? Then your administration repeats it over and over? Is that the picture we want to paint of our government? It sounds like something you would expect out of a politician who was so far removed from the average American that he doesn't even realize what he is saying is cause for concern.

I think the media is attempting to use the comments to paint Mr. Paul as a fire breathing racist and anti-government zealot. Truthfully, they should look at his comments and consider what he actually said. If the media was really concerned with racism and the civil rights act, they would bring Senator Robert Byrd on to discuss why he voted against the law in 1964. They haven't, and probably won't. They are much more interested in looking at a stereotype than at what was actually said. Now who sounds like the racist?

How Republicans are getting this wrong.

Finally, a number of Republicans, both elected and not, are trying to distance themselves from this discussion. I think they are wrong to do that, and wrong to criticize Rand Paul for answering a direct question. First, how many times have we as voters complained that we can't get an honest answer from a politician? Well, you may not like the answer, but Mr. Paul has given you one. Secondly, avoiding this discussion gives strength to Eric Holder's comments that Americans are cowards about race. Let's have the personal rights versus politically correct discussion. Lets be honest about it, and let's examine where we may have gone wrong in the past.

Obama Picks Mexico Over United States.

"...Obama showed solidarity with his guest of honor, Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who called Arizona's law discriminatory and warned Mexico would reject any effort to 'criminalize migration.'"

--Houston Chronicle

The President of the United States has sided with a foreign nation in criticizing a state in the union. He has decided that he would rather appear friendly to the Mexican government than the voters of Arizona.The President is worried that the new Arizona immigration law is racist. I would be interested to know how he came up with that opinion since a number of people in his administration have arrived at the same opinion, without reading the law. Who would do such an incredibly stupid thing? Especially when the bill is approximately 21 pages long.

As noted on Hot Air, Attorney General Eric Holder told Meet the Press that the Arizona law had, "...the possibility of leading to racial profiling," and that passage of this law was "unfortunate". He then admitted that his concerns were over what he had heard, and that he had not read the bill. This is the Attorney General of the United States. He should know that sometimes what a law says, and what the news says it says are two different things.

Of course, he wasn't alone. Secretary of Homeland Security (and former Arizona Governor) Janet Napolitano also criticized the law. According to Fox News:

"I believe it's a bad law enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in," Napolitano said. "When I was dealing with laws of that ilk, most of the law enforcement agencies in Arizona at that time were opposed to such legislation," she claimed.

She also admitted she hasn't read the bill. It's very interesting that senior officials in the administration believe they can pass judgment on a law that a state passed without actually reading the bill. Even more interesting, while critics of the Arizona law say that it will have the police in Arizona "checking papers", President Obama has already started. The President is scheduled to appear at Kalamazoo's Central High School commencement ceremonies next month. Ahead of his visit, students at the Michigan high school are being required to provide their birth dates, Social Security numbers, and (believe it or not) their citizenship status to Secret Service.

I hope there are no Mexican Nationals at Kalamzoo. I would hate for the President's new friend to criticize him for this.

Will the President Continue to Ignore Jobs?

We are currently at an important crossroads for President Obama's legacy. Typically, I would say a little over a year into a presidency is an odd time to evaluate the entire four years. However, President Obama has been embarking on a course that will truly define his presidency. The next few months may define his four years in office.

For his entire first year in office, and into this second, the President spent all of his political capital on health care reform. This reform, recently signed into law, will make the most sweeping changes to our health care system ever. It will do so to the tune of over $1 Trillion, and in spite of the fact that most Americans opposed it when it was signed into law, and continue to oppose it a month after its passage. Most Americans believed, and continue to believe, that fixing our economy was much more important than the push for Health Care reform. Trying to get some breathing room for reform, and trying to acknowledge that Americans wanted more of a focus on jobs, the President vowed in his first State of the Union address to focus on job creation. The Guardian UK started their coverage of the address with this:

"Barack Obama bowed to the wave of US public anger over unemployment and other recession-related issues when he promised in his first state of the union speech last night to make the creation of a million jobs the overwhelming priority for the coming year."

What we didn't know then is that job creation would take a backseat to politics in order to get Health Care Reform passed.

Once health care reform passed, many thought President Obama would move to job creation. However, the President seems to have ignored jobs, and forgotten his promise from the State of the Union. Once again, the President has dashed the hopes of American voters. In the month since health care reform passed, the President has tried to pass a new financial regulation bill, has discussed resurrecting the job killing "Cap-and-trade" bill, and has now launched a major campaign aimed at immigration reform. None of these policies will create jobs, and some, such as "cap and trade", will actually cost jobs.

No one is predicting Democrats will gain seats in November. The question is whether or not Democrats will hold onto their majorities in one or both houses. Without the super majorities the Democrats hold, it's going to be very tough to pass any of President Obama's agenda after January of 2011. With the elections about seven months away, there may not be time to pass any major legislation between now and November. This means, after the President's first four years in office, he may look back and only have health care reform to show for his efforts. If Republicans campaign on repealing that reform and win, he may not even have that.

The President campaigned on uniting the country. During his first State of the Union, he promised to focus on job creation. It's time for the President to live up to his promises. He should stop trying to pass an ultra-liberal agenda, and start working to put Americans back to work.

Keep Your Enemies Close And Reject Your Friends

In 2008 Senator Barack Obama campaigned on cleaning up our image internationally. This appealed to a lot of people who believed our image had been tarnished by the eight years of President Bush. What they didn't know is that this would be another broken campaign promise.

The "Obama Doctrine" appears to consist of two points:


1) Never meddle in our enemies affairs.


2) Insult our allies whenever possible.

When a pro-democracy protest began in Iran after fraudulent elections, demonstrators were looking to the West for support. The words of encouragement our President gave them were, "Now, it's not productive, given the history of the U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections". While President Obama faltered in Iran, other nations stepped up. For example, French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated the clear message Obama should have said, "These elections are an atrocity." Perhaps President Obama simply has a blind spot for Iran. He did commit to meeting them without precondition during the campaign. Perhaps he didn't want to be hamstrung by such pesky things as morals during that meeting.

In our nation's history, we have considered England a special ally. They share our history, and we have worked with them to solve many world problems. We worked with Churchill in World War II to defeat the Nazis, and Margret Thatcher during the Cold War to stop the spread of Communism. How does our global-celebrity-commander-in-chief treat this ally? Shortly after being sworn in, our State Department told England that they were no longer considered any different from any other nation on the planet. If this wasn't bad enough, the Obama administration has slapped the British government in the face by refusing to acknowledge British claims over the Falkland Islands. This is a serious issue as the citizens of the Falkland Islands are British citizens, and have decide for themselves they wish to remain part of Britain. Argentina is attempting to claim the Falkland Islands. They argue that the citizens of the Falkland Islands have no right to self determination. This could become a serious issue as Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982. Britian is believed to be considering military options. Into this tense situation, our country has stated officially:

We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognizes de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.

This is a slap in the face of the British, and it is not the way we should treat one of our most trusted allies.

Recently, there was a lot of news of Vice President Biden's trip to Israel . His trip coincided with an announced Israeli settlement plan in Jerusalem. This embarrassed the Vice President as he was there to try and further the peace process. Biden felt Israel was working against his efforts with the settlement in Jerusalem. The Israeli's argued that this settlement was going in an area that must remain in Israeli control in ANY peace agreement. The Israeli Interior Minister tried to apologize saying,"We had no intention, no desire, to offend or taunt an important man like the vice president during his visit...I am very sorry for the embarrassment. We need to remember that approvals are done according to law even if the timing was wrong...next time we need to take timing into account." This apology should have ended things. However, days later Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let it be known that she spoke with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for 45 minutes. She stated that she berated him for the settlement decision the entire phone call, thus further embarrassing Israel. Both Biden and Clinton used the word "condemn" when disusing the US view of the settlements in Jerusalem.

When all of this happened, Fatah and the Palestinian Authority dedicated a public square in the West Bank to a woman who helped carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel's history. Neither Biden nor Clinton appear to have voiced concern of how this might impact President Obama's attempt to bring peace to the Middle East.

President Obama has definitely ushered in a new image for the United States globally. Unfortunately, I don't believe it was the image voters thought they were getting back in November 2008.

President Ahab

According to the New York Times, President Obama, "...will put forward comprehensive health care legislation intended to bridge differences between Senate and House Democrats ahead of a summit meeting with Republicans next week...". According to Presidential aides, President Obama intends to get his bill attached to a budget bill so that it can pass the Senate under reconciliation. Reconciliation will allow it to pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of the filibuster proof 60 votes. The President plans on placing his bill on the White House website Monday morning. This will be four days before his meeting with Republicans to discuss health care reform, or the President's own personal whale.

The only other details that have been released about the President's bill is that it would attempt to cover 30 Million Americans by 2019 (thus still not providing health care insurance for everyone), would cost about $900 Billion, would require Americans to buy health insurance or be fined, would make it illegal for insurance companies to exclude pre-existing conditions, and provide tax subsidies to "moderate-income" people to buy insurance. The New York Times quotes "Officials" as saying the President's bill will also tax "high-cost, employer-sponsored insurance policies," and would also, "reflect a deal reached with labor union leaders to limit the impact tax on workers". Abortion has not been mentioned one way or another on in the details that have been leaked.

I think it is interesting that the President is working on a bill that is a compromise between House and the Senate Democrats ahead of his meeting with Republicans. The meeting with Republicans is supposed to be so that the President can listen to their ideas. How can anyone believe he is going to do this if he has already written his own bill that he is trying to get support for? Additionally, some Democrats are nervous about the bill because they haven't been consulted about it, and are a little uneasy about using the reconciliation process to pass such a huge, far reaching bill.

I think the President has shown his hand. The meeting next week is a show meeting to attempt to trick voters into believing he has listened to anything the Republicans have to say. I also think passing this bill under reconciliation is the very epitome of Washington Politics that Candidate Obama ran claiming to oppose. The President may also be surprised at how hard it is to use the reconciliation option after the recent Massachusetts elections with many Democrats nervous about their chances in November.

The President has taken his eye off the ball when it comes to the economy. He has become obsessed with passing a health care bill, any health care bill. Democrats would be wise to give up this white whale and try to deal with the problems that are really affecting our nation.

Should Harry Reid Step Down?

This weekend, a quote surfaced from Harry Reid describing Barack Obama. The quote was from 2008 and, as Fox News reports,Harry Reid is quoted as "...describing Barack Obama as 'light-skinned' with 'no Negro dialect' unless he wants one." In the last few days Republicans have called on Reid to step down as Senate Majority Leader. Senator Reid spent the weekend calling black leaders to get support for staying in his leadership position. The White House says the President is not offended by Reid's comments.

I personally think Reid's comments crossed a line. I don't think I would feel comfortable using the word "Negro" to describe a person, or a person's actions, in today's world. I think as an elected official, Reid needs to be a little more careful with his words than a private citizen. I also wonder if Reid's comments, as Senate Majority Leader, are suppose to represent the Democratic National Committee, and Senate Democrats. We know there is at least one previous member of the Klan who is a Senate Democrat (Byrd, D-WV).

Many have drawn a comparison to Trent Lott's comments in 2002. Lott was Senate Majority Leader as well, but Lott was also Republican from the south. Lott stepped down from the Senate Majority Leaders position when Democrats took offense at his comments at Sen. Strom Thurmond's birthday party. Reid was particularly clear when he said that Lott had no alternative but to step down from the leadership position.

A few months back Joe Wilson was accused of being racists because he accused the President of lying. President Obama said Don Imus should be fired for his comments about a particular girl's basketball team. Democrats demand repercussions for these comments, but there should be no repercussions for the Senate Majority Leader just because he is a Democrat?

A reader named Patrick made a comment on this site that I have heard used a number of times now. The argument goes: because Republicans used political tricks and closed door negotiations, we shouldn't be outraged when Democrats do it on health care. Those using this argument want to know why we didn't hold Republicans to this standard. I believe it was wrong of the Republicans and I would question supporters of Harry Reid today, "Why was it wrong for Lott to say something offensive, but not Reid? Why did the President think Imus should be fired, but Reid should retain his comfy position in the Senate?"

If Reid were to step down, he would still be a sitting Senator. The Democrats would have the same number of votes. Reid could still run for reelection this year. However, if Reid steps down, it might jeopardize the President's agenda because a new Majority Leader might not be as liberal, even though he would still be a Democrat. Does that mean that the President's feelings on race, and the Democratic Parties, have a price? Eric Holder has said we are cowards on race. Who was he referring too?

Did Obama Lie, or is he Cowardly?(UPDATED)

Breitbart.tv has a video posted on it's website today. The video shows candidate Barack Obama promising to show congressional health care debates on C-SPAN so that the voters can see exactly what deals are made and who is trying to protect the voters. The clip has him promising this eight times.

The Democrats have now passed a "health care" bill in both the House and the Senate. Traditionally, these bills would go to a conference committee made up of Republicans and Democrats from both the House and the Senate. This committee would iron out the differences in the bill, and present a revised bill to the House and Senate to vote on and send to President Obama.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are considering skipping this step, and conferencing behind closed doors with the White House on a "final bill". This would lock out Republicans and many Democrats. C-SPAN remembered President Obama's campaign promise, and wants to hold him to it. They have asked to broadcast the negotiations to the voters. So far the Democrats are claiming that they don't need to broadcast the negotiations because, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience," (so says Pelosi).

During the Bush Administration, we were told daily that President Bush lied about any number of things. Where are those on the left who were constantly attacking Bush? President Obama appears to have lied now. Where are the calls from the left for an open and honest negotiation? Where are the snappy "Obama lied" chants? How do we know the politicians in Washington are looking out for the voters?

I have some liberal and left leaning readers. I also have readers who consider themselves moderate. How does this make you feel? Are you okay with the President making one promise on the campaign and ignoring that promise now that he is President? Where is the promised new day of transparency?


***Update***

CBS News is running a news story saying that both Nancy Pelosi and President Obama support negotiations on this bill occurring behind closed doors. CBS ran this story as, "Obama reneges on health care transparancy". CBS also cited this as the President, "...breaking an explicit campaign promise."

Book Review: How the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections

I have written twice before (here, and here) about the new series of political pamphlets from Encounter Books. Encounter is producing these pamphlets as,"...indispensable ammunition for intelligent debate on the critical issues of our time." They are small (the one discussed here is 35 pages) and cheap ($5.99). In How the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections (Encounter Broadsides), author John Fund attacks,"...dubious measures that make our current system even more prone to confusion and manipulation...".

This is the third in the series. I have been reviewing these in the order I have received them which is why I haven't reviewed the second book yet. I have to admit that I was a little suspicious of the topic for this one. I was very excited to read the first book in this series, but I wasn't so excited about this book. However, after reading the book, I have to say that Mr. Fund has done a good job laying out his case.

Mr. Fund points to the administrations action in some areas, and inaction in others, to make his point. He discusses a couple of cases that the Justice Department has dropped that were slam dunks / handed to Mr. Holder on a silver platter. Yet for some reason, this administration has dropped them. The case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers is one example. From Mr. Funds book:

Bartle Bull couldn't believe his eyes. The former civil-rights lawyer had been arrested in the South during the 1960's. He once forced local officials in Mississippi to remove nooses that were hanging from tree branches outside polling places. But until election day 2008 in Philadelphia, he had never seen a man brandishing a weapon blocking the entrance to a polling place. And now he can't understand why the Obama Department of Justice has dropped its case against the New Black Panther Party, the hate group (according to the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League) whose thugs he saw threatening potential voters with truncheons when they tried to vote.

Mr. Fund goes on to discuss how after the Justice Department obtained a default judgment against the accused members of the Black Panthers, the Justice Department suddenly dropped the charges. There are other examples of this in Mr. Funds pamphlet, and there are examples of policy decisions the Obama Administration is pursuing that could make federal elections more fraudulent instead of less. Mr. Fund ends with a paragraph that should worry conservatives and liberals alike:

If we do not demand that the Obama administration and its allies in Congress abandon schemes and policies that further undermine confidence in our electoral system, we are headed for crises that will shake our electoral system and will make us look back on the disputed presidential vote of 2000 with something like nostalgia.

A New Road in Iran

Earlier this week,I wrote that Iran is moving in a direction that represents a clear and present danger to the United States. Iran is increasing it's nuclear production by beginning construction on five new enrichment facilities. It is also looking for locations to build an additional five facilities. Iran has also committed to increasing aid to external groups that oppose the West by $20 Million. I believe the bulk of this money will go to Hezbollah and Hamas.

There are "three steps" that make Iran a threat to us. First, Iran is not going to voluntarily stop its nuclear program. Is there anyone who seriously believes Iran will only build nuclear reactors and not nuclear weapons? Secondly, Iran controls and funds Hamas and Hezbollah. Should Iran get a nuclear weapon, it's only a matter of time before one (or both) of these groups gets one. Third, should Hezbollah or Hamas get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they will detonate it in Israel or the United States (or both). With this in mind, here are my solutions:

No more "positive" incentives" for Iran. Iran has shown it really isn't interested in allowing Russia to supply it with nuclear power. We should also drop the notion of enticing Iran with money or with an "entry to the world community". Iran has shown they don't care about any of this. How many years have we been following this path only to arrive with Iran closer to aobtaining a nuclear weapon than ever?

Immediate sanctions against Iran. These need to be real and have teeth. They should include a blockade of oil leaving Iran. Iran has to send its oil out to be refined. Let's put an end to that.

Increase funding to pro-Democracy groups inside of Iran. The Obama administration has opposed this and has actually taken the step of cutting funding to groups that document abuses inside Iran. This in an age when we can increase the money to the National Endowment for the Arts, but groups that are putting pressure on Iran get $0.00?

Keep the Military option on the table. And mention it often. Iran needs to know that we will not accept a world with a nuclear Iran. ALL options should be on the table to prevent that.

Mark Hitchcock in The Apocalypse of Ahmadinejad quotes Kenneth Pollack:

Right now, there are two clocks ticking in Tehran. The first is the clock of regime change. Given the sentiments of the people, it seems likely that there will be further meaningful change in Iran at some point in the future. The second clock is the clock of Iran' s nuclear program. We do not know when the alarm on either of those clocks will go off. History has demonstrated that meaningful change in Iran is likely to take considerable time...the findings of the IAEA suggest that Iran is getting fairly close to having a fully self contained enrichment process, if not actual weapons.

These words were written in 2005. We know the nuclear clock is much closer to going off than it was in 2005. President Obama's actions from this summer and more recently look like he doesn't care when either of these clocks go off. We have to act now. Should Iran get a nuclear weapon, the rest of the President's agenda will be moot. We don't have to use the military. We do need to do more than we are doing now.

Book Review: Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster

A few weeks ago, I mentioned a new series of political pamphlets that were about to be published. I received the first one, and have been fairly impressed. Encounter Books is releasing a series of the pamphlets (at around $6 each). They are short and designed to be read in one sitting. The first one in the series is Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will Be a Disaster (Encounter Broadsides) written by David Gratzer.


First the book. The format is very interesting. I have ordered the next two in this series and I am interested to see how they look. This one is 44 pages, and is about the height and width of a Reader's Digest. However, the paper is pretty high quality. I have a habit of highlighting and writing in my non-fiction books and the paper works very good for this.


Mr. Gratzer is a physician and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He has written previous books on medicine and health care and has appeared in The Weekly Standard, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. He also draws from personal experience in this book.


The book is really good. The first 31 pages list the problems with Obamacare, citing specific evidence from other nations that have some form of socialized medicine. The last 13 pages list ten points that could be used to reform health care in the United States.



Mr. Gratzer points out that government run health care has its own problems:

In Alberta, Canada's wealthiest province, 50 percent of outpatients waited more than 41 days for an MRI scan in 2008. In Saskatchewan, 10 percent of patients awaiting knee-replacement surgery waited 616 days or longer for care. In Nova Scotia, 50 percent of hip-replacement patients waited 201 days or longer for surgery. Wait times for these and other procedures don't factor in any wait to get a referral from a family doctor -- and more than 4 million Canadians can't find a family doctor because of a national doctor shortage created by government cutbacks to medical schools in the 1990's. The situation is so dire that some townships hold lotteries, with winners gaining access to a family doc. {emphasis in the original}

The book contains other examples of problems with government run health care from European nations as well. The solutions provided in the afterward include ideas such as ending defensive medicine, revamping the FDA and the estimated $1 Billion to get a single drug to reach the market, and making health insurance more like other kinds of insurance. Finally, the book ends with a case study in a successful attempt to revamp health care at the business level: Safeway. They were able to get a "net zero percent (0%) gain in per-employee health insurance costs. " Other businesses had an almost 40% increase over the same time period.


In spite of it's long title, Why Obama's Government Takeover of Health Care Will be a Disaster is a very good read. It can be read in one sitting and is full of useful information in the health care debate. It should be considered a primer in the health care debate.

Obama Doesn't Understand Terrorism

We learned two very important things about President Obama on Friday. The first, he has no understanding of terrorism. The second, he has no understanding of just how bad our deficit is.

Eric Holder announced that the five men accused of planning the September 11th attacks will be tried in civilian court in New York. This announcement was made while President Obama was in Asia, and unable to field questions about this decision. What Holder and Obama both fail to recognize is there is no good outcome that justifies bringing them to the United States to stand trial in a civilian court. I want to look at the best outcome Holder / Obama could hope for and why it shows a lack of understanding of terrorism and our deficit.

The "Best Case" Scenario

The best possible outcome from trying these terrorists in New York is that they will be found guilty, be sentenced to death and quickly executed. This is probably the exact same outcome if they were tried in a military tribunal. In the "best case" scenario, there will be no press coverage of the proceedings so there will be no live broadcasts of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed denouncing the United States and our "imperialist" invasion of the Middle East. This case also assumes that there will be no disruptions or attacks on the courthouse during the trial. We are told if this happens, our image will improve world wide. The same people who tell us this are the ones who told us electing Obama would improve our standing world wide. After almost ten months in office, Iran is closer than ever to getting a nuclear weapon, Chavez is expanding his influence into surrounding nations, we are belittling our allies in the press, abandoning them in Latin America and Eastern Europe (not to mention Israel), and our "new, better image" failed to land the Olympics for the President' s home town. I'm not sure this is going to help our international image.

A Lack of Understanding Terrorism

The New York Times Mark Mazzetti writes today:

Not long after he was rousted from bed and seized in a predawn raid in Pakistan in March 2003, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave his captors two demands: He wanted a lawyer, and he wanted to be taken to New York. After a nearly seven-year odyssey that took him to secret CIA jails in Europe and a U. S. military prison in Cuba, Mohammed is getting his wishes.

Who says we don't negotiate with terrorist? Captured on the battlefield? Wait out the administration, and maybe your dreams will come true.

The Obama Administration was accused of having a "pre-9/11 mentality" during the campaign. Their actions on Friday show this was an accurate charge. Civilian courts are not designed to try terrorist captured in the worlds hell-holes by our military. Our courts are use to miranda rights and constitutional protections. These are not guaranteed to military enemies. Al-Queda has declared a war against the United States since before 1996. Iran (acting through Hamas and Hezbollah) has been at war with us since at least 1979. These are self declared wars involving military actions against civilian and military targets. You do not defeat that by capturing a few of the enemies soldiers and trying them in court.

In a court of law, KSM and his co-conspirators will be allowed to speak, and may make sudden outbursts just to get attention. They may be allowed to cross examine their accusers, their lawyers will probably challenge the way they were handled since their capture. Their lawyers are almost certain to move for a dismissal of charges based solely on the reported torture in the media. To avoid this, the Bush Administration, working with Congress and the Supreme Court, created a legal military tribunal system to deal with terrorist captured in foreign lands.

During these trials, how much testimony or evidence will be discussed that might provide intelligence to our enemies? If these trials are covered in court, do we really think the Amerian audience will be the only one watching? What might be revealed in an open court that might jeopardize soldiers and agents in the field?

KSM and at least one other of the terrorists Holder and Obama want to try in New York have admitted guilt and have asked to be executed. Eric Holder says he hopes to seek the death penalty. Why should we waste the money a New York trial will cost when we can arrive at the same verdict with a military tribunal. Which brings up...

A Lack of Understanding of Our Debt

The President seems to have no idea of the cost a trial in New York for the masterminds of the September 11th attacks will cost. The O.J. Simpson circus cost an estimated $9 Million in the 1990's. I expect by the end of the day, the trails for these five will total $100's of Millions. How long will a trial of this nature go on? months? years? This would represent a great target for terrorists like the one from Fort Hood, or Al-Queda. During the entire time, the courthouse, judge, prosecutor, jurors, and defendants will need security. Is there anyone that thinks this will be free?

The defense lawyers are likely to seek any sort of delay or extra trail they can get. How long can this trail be delayed? Anyone associated with any of these special sessions or pre-trail events will need security. Any location will need extra security. What if the defense lawyers successfully lobby to put the soldiers that captured these men on the stand. How much will it cost to get them to and from New York?

Finally, A Worst Case Scenario.

What if the worst happens. Michael Goodwin writes today"

The worst-case outcome is frightening. The beasts who helped kill nearly 3,000 Americans could walk free, while the brave agents who protected the country get locked up.

What if our courts declare some sort of mistrial and order these men set free? Forget whether they would be freed here in the United States or flown back to other countries. If any one of these five is set free by a civilian court, we will give a terrorist who helped plan the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil his freedom. Could any political stunt by the President really be worth this possibility? Could you imagine a photo op with KSM walking around Ground Zero? What about a terrorist being set free while an agent or soldier is locked up pending a trial on their techniques for capturing these terrorists?

There is a real chance that future generations will look back at this decision as Obama's biggest mistake. I am afraid the President and his Attorney General just took one giant step towards making us much more vulnerable to other terrorist attacks. And they did it to what is going to be a huge tax payer burden.

Time for the President to be President

Note: I originally wrote this for Alexandria. I decided to exercise my power as author of this blog and post it here as well. Enjoy!

Critics of America should consider carefully whether they really want what they have wished for: an America more restrained, "back in its box" deferential to other countries --or even, less successful.

Bronwen Maddox writes this in her book "In Defense of America". I am a political junkie, an really enjoy reading books about America written by foreign authors. I read this book last summer, and the line I quote above has stuck in my head. "What would happen if the United States did what many foreign leaders claim to want us to do, and simply leave other nations to take care of themselves?" With the election of President Obama, we are starting to see just how much Europeans like it.

This week, there have been two different articles in two different foreign publications calling President Obama to action in Afghanistan. So far, those calls seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Writing in the UK Telegraph, Toby Harden points out the that the President appears to still be campaigning and hasn't yet started governing. Mr. Harden points out that President Obama has attended 22 fund raisers since being sworn in. President Bush attended six in his first year in office. He says later in his piece:

All this says much about Mr Obama's priorities at a time when he is sitting on an urgent request for 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, seemingly unsure about whether the counter-insurgency strategy he announced in March is the right one.

This call for action is repeated this morning in another international publication. In an article entitled "We're Waiting, Mr. President" appearing in Der Spiegel, Claus Christian Malzahn argues that "Obama must provide better leadership on Afghanistan". He goes on to say:

So far Obama has only made it clear that he doesn't intend to withdraw any troops and that he hasn't decided yet whether to add more soldiers. But this smells more like a lazy compromise than a clear statement of intent, and it has led to speculation in Washington that Obama could wash his hands of the matter by announcing a moderate troop buildup and newly packaged diplomatic initiatives.

I would argue that this qualifies as a "do nothing" approach. In it, President Obama doesn't have to commit to persecuting the war like he and Vice President Biden said they would while campaigning for these offices. He also doesn't have to give his political enemies ammunition by retreating from Afghanistan. He simply chooses a middle of the road approach and goes back to health care reform.

Sometimes, our best advice can be found right here at home. Yesterday was the 45th Anniversary of Ronald Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" speech. In it, he says the following when discussing communism:

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

These words ring true with Afghanistan. It would be easy to pack up our bags and head home. The easiest thing to do is not always the right thing to do. President Obama campaigned hard to become President of the United States. No one forced him into this office. He went after it, and he has the job now. With that position comes great responsibilities. It's time President Obama lived up to the office.

Obama Should Act in Afghanistan

The Afghan government needs to do more. But we have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism...

--Barack Obama
Candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomincation
July, 2008

The United States has a vital national security interest in addressing the current and potential security threats posed by extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan...The ability of extremists in Pakistan to undermine Afghanistan is proven,while insurgency in Afghanistan feeds instability in Pakistan.

---From the introduction to President Obama's March 2009 new policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan

In short, the President had it right in 2008 and in March 2009. Now, when the chips are down, he seems to be wavering. The President's appointed commander in Afghanistan has requested more troops. The President isn't forced to follow General McChrystal's request, but he should have a sound strategy if he isn't going to follow his appointed commanders advice. McChrystal is an expert in counter insurgency (unlike Joe "Foot-in-Mouth" Biden). If he feels we need more troops in Afghanistan, we should really consider putting more troops in Afghanistan.


The President may decide not to follow the General's advice because the President wants to withdraw from Afghanistan, or because he wants to replace McChrystal. Both of these are strategies that would make an influx of troops a bad idea. The worst thing the President could do is to freeze up, and that appears to be exactly what happened.


President Obama announced a new strategy in Afghanistan in March of this year. Shortly after that, McChrystal asked for additional troops. The President has delayed making a decision on that because he is looking for a new strategy in Afghanistan. If that's true, should we assume the "new strategy" from March has failed already? If not, the President should evaluate if the General's request fits in with his March strategy or not, then act.


The President appears to be floundering because he isn't sure how to handle disapproval in the polls. Many Americans are tried of Afghanistan. I personally believe we need to continue to fight there, and we need to give McChrystal the tools he needs to execute a winning strategy in Afghanistan. The President has found time to appear before the Olympic Committee, it's time to find time for our troops. The President is willing to go against the polls in the health care fight.


Surely our troops deserve the same dedication.

The Olympic Teachable Moment

After writing two posts last week that probably raised everyone's blood pressure, I thought I would start this week with a more calming post. There is nothing that brings people together more than defending President Obama.

If you turned on the TV, read the paper, listened to the radio, or simply talked to someone else in the last few days, you know Brazil will host the 2016 Olympics. This comes despite a personal appearance by both President Obama and First Lady Michelle. A number of commentators have written why Chicago lost in the first round, but I think they have all missed the obvious reason. As such, I will borrow a phrase from the President and use this as a teachable moment.

George Will this morning wonders if the Obama's own egos did them in. He notes that in, "…the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns 'I' or 'me' 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences." Surely Mr. Will isn't surprised by this. The majority of President Obama's speeches, prime time news conferences, and 5-in-a-row Sunday appearances do the same thing. Why should the Olympic Committee not get the full monty?

Victor Davis Hanson purposes a more realistic reason. He points out that Chicago wasn't getting a lot of good PR in the last few weeks. Writing at Pajamas Media, he wonders if the "You Tube beatings, state and city corruption, Blagoism, Daley ward mobsterism, rumors of pre-Olympic wheeling and dealing on land angles, administration Chicago hard-ball Rahm Emanuel / David Axelrod politics, etc." have anything to do with it. Like Mr. Will's answer, these are also good reasons the Olympics may have chosen a southern country instead of Chicago. But, I think there is a larger issue missing from Victor's list.

There are other reasons to select a city that is not Chicago. Brazil will be the first South American nation to host the Olympics. I heard on one radio report that this is the first time the Olympics will appear in the Southern Hemisphere (with the exception of Australia). It could be that with the number of apology speeches the President has given, the I.O.C. simply thought the United States didn't deserve an Olympics. Maybe the Olympic committee thought President Obama was attacking them when he stated that, "…no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed."

I think, truth be told, we all know in our heart of hearts why Chicago was not only rebuked, but kicked out in the first round of voting: racism. As the President's supporters have boldly stated time and time again, you can't disagree with the President without being racist. Whether it's Marueen Dowd discussing Rep. Joe Wilson, Nancy Pelosi discussing tea party and town hall attendees, or anyone in the mainstream media discussing Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, there can't possibly be legitimate concerns about anything the President says. In this "post racial" Presidential administration, to disagree is to admit the guilt of racism. The I.O.C. is just the latest group to show their true colors.

Kevin Jennings Must Go

This morning, a friend of mine said to me, "Andy, I read your post from the other night, and I thought, 'there has got to be more to this". My friend couldn't believe that a teacher wouldn't report a student who told him that student had been raped. He also couldn't believe that teacher would be selected to be the Safe Schools Czar. I have been looking into this since Monday, and my friend is right, there is more to the story. However, the "more to the story" paints a darker picture than I described on Monday.

In case you didn't read my post from Monday, Kevin Jennings is the Safe Schools Czar. According to the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, this job is charged with providing, "…financial assistance for drug and violence prevention activities and activities that promote the health and well being of students…"{emphasis mine}. Kevin Jennings was a teacher when a 15 year old male student came to him and said that a man had picked him up at a bus stop restroom and took him home to have sex with him. Mr. Jennings advice to the student was to use a condom. This isn't an allegation. We know this from Mr. Jennings own words in an audio tape from a rally where Kevin Jennings spoke to the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). When another teacher pointed out that Kevin broke the law because he didn't report the event out to the authorities, Mr. Jennings threatened to sue the teacher in court.

After my post on Monday, I found out more details about Kevin Jennings. In 1990, he founded GLSEN, the organization he bragged to about telling the 15 year old boy to use a condom with the man picking him up. GLSEN has been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. It's one thing to teach that kids shouldn't be bullied because of their differences. It is another thing entirely to have a conference were officials instruct students on the proper use of "fisting". According to Fox News, one official at the conference said, "[fisting] gets a bad rap…[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with…[and] to put you into an exploratory mode." Quoting Fox News further:

"From what I've heard, I have concerns as well." Jennings told the Boston Globe in May 2000."GLSEN believes that children do have a right to accurate, safer sex education, but this needs to be delivered in an age-appropriate and sensitive manner."

"What troubles me is the people who have the tape [of this event] know what our missions is, they know that our work is about preventing harassment and they know that session was not the totality of what was offered at a conference with over 50 sessions," he said.

The fact that this was offered to children at all is totally inappropriate. The rest of the sessions could have been entirely innocent. This one session outweighs the others.

According to Jennings, GLSEN's mission would be achieved if straight people decided it was ok for someone to promote homosexuality in schools because by then homosexuality wouldn't be equated with something bad that shouldn't be promoted. In this situation we had a sophomore in high school who was getting picked up by an adult male to have sex. Mr. Jennings couldn't see past his own activism to protect the child or to comply with the law.

Mr. Jennings has no credibility that he can distance himself from his own personal politics in order to make informed decisions about school age children. How can parents trust any decision his office has anything to do with? Mr. Jennings shouldn't' have a presidentially appointed position; he should be awaiting his day in court for failure to report statuary rape that he knew was taking place. President Obama should ask for Mr. Jennings resignation and answer some hard questions. Is this behavior acceptable to the President? Did the President vet Mr. Jennings? Did he know about this, or did he think this was acceptable behavior from a teacher?

Book Review: Culture of Corruption

Michelle Malkin's Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies is a very interesting and timely book. It seems like each week brings new revelations about a czar or other nominee in President Obama's cabinet. Just this past Labor Day weekend Van Jones, Green Jobs Czar, quit in the middle of the night. The announcement was made just after midnight on a Saturday. Not quite the actions of a transparent administration.

Michelle Malkin's book covers a number of czars and other members of the administration. She has a chapter on Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden for example. Some of the ties to scandal, dirty money, and corruption that each of these three have in their history is really disturbing. Perhaps the most scandal plagued chapters are on czars and President Obama's ties to Acorn (the chapter is titled "Obamacorn"). At the beginning of the chapter, Mrs. Malkin cites then Candidate Obamas words from February 2008:

I come out of a grassroots organizing background. That's what I did for three and half years before I went to law school. That's the reason I moved to Chicago was to organize. So this is something that I know personally, the work you do, the importance of it. I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.

One of the most impressive things about Culture of Corruption is where Mrs. Malkin draws her criticisms from. It would be easy to write a book like this while citing Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Fox News. Mrs. Malkin instead references a number of liberal groups, reporters and papers in addition to sources such as Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) or President Obama himself. In the above quote, she uses Obama's own words to tie him to ACORN. One would expect this from someone with her credentials. I have followed her blog for sometime and have seen her go after Republican and Democrat alike. I wasn't aware of her history with the Seattle Times where she won the,"...Council on Government Ethics Laws (COGEL) national award for outstanding service for the cause of government ethics and leadership, and for investigative columns that expose campaign finance abuses and corruption by Washington State Democrats, Republicans, and political organizations."

In the introduction to the czar chapter ("Backroom Buddies: Dancing with the Czars"), Mrs. Malkin quotes a letter Senator Byrd wrote to Obama in February of this year. It seems Senator Byrd had a number of concerns about the czars and the number of czars President Obama was appointing. Among the concerns of Senator Byrd's:

1. What is the relationship between the czars and their counterparts in the Executive branch?
2. Will the lines of authority between the czars and their counterparts be used (accidentally or purposefully) to hide information or provide cover for people making bad decisions?
3. Would the czars be accountable to Congress or the American public?
   

It's not often that I agree with Senator Byrd, but these are very valid points. Recently, more Democrats have joined in with their own concerns regarding the czars. The Politico recently quoted both Sen. Russ Feingold and Sen. Dianne Feinstein as having concerns about the czars, their responsibilities, and their accountability. Currently, czars don't go through any sort of congressional confirmation. Many members are now calling on the czars to testify before congress.

Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies is a very critical look at the President and the people he has surrounded himself with. Unlike Bill Ayers and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, these are the people the President has selected to run this country. They should have the bright light of public scrutiny shown on them. Michelle Malkin's book is a great first step. It should be read by anyone who wants to know more about the "transparent" Obama administration or believes that elected officials (Republican or Democratic) should be held accountable to the public.

The Real Problem with Obama's "Stupid" Answer

There has been a lot of reporting on the comment President Obama made last Wednesday regarding the arrest of "his friend", Professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, Jr. The President said Wednesday night, in a prime time news conference, that he felt the, "…Cambridge Police acted stupidly". He said this after twice stating he didn't know the facts of the arrest. Here is the question the President was asked:

Q: Thank, you, Mr. President. Recently Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge. What does that incident say to you and what does it say about race relations in America?

The President: Well, I should say at the outset that "Skip" Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts…

The first two sentences in his response tell us everything we need to know about the President's opinion on this arrest. If you followed this story at all last week, you are familiar with the sentence where he calls the Cambridge Police stupid. The sentence before it is very important. Before he attacks the Police, President Obama says, "Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but…" Twice before he gets to the heart of his answer he says he doesn't know what happened.

By the next morning, Press Secretary Gibbs was trying to backtrack. He stated that the President did not call the officer stupid. In the President's defense, he did say, " …the Cambridge Police acted stupidly…," I will let you decide what he meant by acted stupidly.

By Friday, Officer Crowley, the arresting officer that the President said, "…acted stupidly…" was in front of the cameras with a group of multiracial officers calling on the President to apologize. We had also learned by then that Officer Crowley had taught a racial profiling class at the Police Academy for the last five years. We also know now that Professor Gates was less than 100% cooperative with Officer Crowley during the incident.

All of this lead the President to invite both Crowley and Gates to the White House to have a beer with him. The goal is to allow both parties to bury the hatchet, and for President Obama to show he thinks both sides are really good people.

There are two problems with this whole thing. Like President Obama, I wasn't there, and I don't know what happened. I don't know for sure who did and didn't do what. I am getting a clearer picture with each passing report on this, but I still don't know for sure what happened. However, my first problem is that the President answered the question mentioned above at all. This was a disorderly conduct arrest. There is no reason at all for the President to get involved. An appropriate response would have been: Well, I should say at the outset that "Skip" Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don't know all the facts, and this is a local issue. As such, I am not going to make a comment one way or the other on this arrest or any larger meaning it may or may not have on race relations in America. This is not just a safe answer; it is the correct answer for the President of the United States. This is not an issue for him to deal with.

The second and more concerning question is this: Was this question planted for the President, and was his response scripted? We know that the President has used prescreened and scripted questions at town hall meetings or press conferences before. Was this comment one of them? This question dealt with a friend of his, and the President worked into his response a plug for Obama's history of work on racial issues in the Illinois Senate. Did the President know that Lynn Sweet was going to ask him a question about his friend and how his friends arrest affected larger race relations in America? I don't know the answer. However, because the President has used these prescreened questions before and tried to make them look spontaneous, we have to wonder if this question was one. If it was, then the President's stupid answer to the last question of the night was worse than stupid.

President Obama Saves the Economy?

I've rarely laughed as hard at politics as when I read this headline on The Drudge Report this morning:

"...we rescued the economy..."

Drudge displayed the headline with a picture of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. According to Breitbart.com, President Obama intends to use his Prime Time news conference tonight, "...to talk about 'how [the White House] rescued the economy from the worst recession' and the legislative agenda moving forward, including health care and energy legislation." Considering we currently have unemployment at 9.7% and rising, I am not sure how the President can make this claim. My employer has been furloughing employees, so I will let them know it's not needed anymore. Perhaps the President will also claim to have solved Global Warming, discovered how to give everyone in the world health insurance for less than the price of a cup of coffee a day, and invented the internet.

The President will use his address tonight to push for health care reform before the August recess. Yesterday, we learned the President hasn't read the health care bill, and isn't familiar with much of it. Asked in a conference call if section 102 of the House Bill will outlaw private insurance, the President said he wasn't "familiar with the provision." Luckily for the President, Investors Business Daily has read the bill, and asked the House Ways and Means committee if the bill outlaws private insurance. IBD was right, the bill does. Section 102 of the bill forbids insurance companies from writing new insurance policies after the first day of the year the bill goes into effect. Remember that the next time your told this bill won't kill private insurance. Investors Business Daily also had this to say:

The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.

Just 16 pages into the bill. I keep asking why the President demands we pass health care before August. I think we have found our answer. The President wants this bill passed before the public can read it and ask questions.

Why the Rush to Change Health Insurance

As Health Care reform became more in doubt today, President Obama stuck to his guns insisting that both the Senate and the House pass Health Care reform by the August recess. With our economy continuing on a downward slope and with unemployment at 9.7% and expected to go higher, why the rush to spend huge amounts of money we don't have on health care reform?

The House Energy and Commerce Committee postponed voting on its version of health care reform indefinitely. They may pick it back up at a later date. However, Blue Dog Democrats have a large presence on the committee and they are concerned with how to pay for the health care reform the President is asking for. In testimony last week, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office Director, Doug Elmendorf, stated that the various proposals from Congress would not reduce the cost of health care. Yet, President Obama has cited reducing health care costs as a primary reason for reforming health care. If the proposals now before Congress won't reduce our costs, why are we even considering them?

Various estimates have been done on the assorted health care plans and have predicted huge costs to the American taxpayer. Congress is debating a tax surcharge and taxes on health care insurance, both of which are equally noxious. There is some debate that neither of these proposals will pay for the changes Democrats are proposing. With this in mind, why are we rushing to implement these expensive change. We rushed the Stimulus plan through and it has been a failure. It has failed to stop unemployment, it has failed to spur growth in our economy, and it has failed to keep state and local governments from raising taxes. We were told we had to pass the Stimulus plan and we had to do it without debate.

I am not opposed to health care reform. I would like to see a system that includes tort reform, more options for individual insurance, insurance exchanges, and a tax incentive for individuals to buy their own insurance. I would like to see insurance companies allowed to sell insurance across state lines. I would like to see more interaction between individuals and their insurance companies and less face time between the insurance companies and government or employers. These issues need to be debated. On a large fundamental change to our life style like this, the American public needs a chance to read the bills in Congress before they are passed and they need time to weigh in with their representatives. If we rush health care reform through, I can guarantee it won't be right, it will cost much more than our economy can bare, and it still won't cover the people it needs to cover.

Honduras

The Heritage Foundation has the best summary of the "Coup" in Honduras:

On June 28, the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras ,with the assistance of the Honduran Armed Forces, physically removed President Manuel Zelaya from his residence and expelled him from the country. The new Honduran government states President Zelaya’s removal from office was the result of legal orders issued by its supreme court. In a matter of hours, a new government was sworn in. It promises, unlike Zelaya, to abide by the Constitution, move ahead with national elections, and respect basic rights and liberties. Civilian, not military, leaders have taken charge.

From everything I have read, President Zelaya was trying to sidestep the law in Honduras in order to install himself as a dictator similar to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. The Honduran Supreme Court, Congress, the national prosecutor, major churches, businesses, and members of President Zelaya's party decided they were not going to allow this to happen. The government (not a fringe military general) seized Zelaya, placed him on an airplane, and sent him to Costa Rica. They then voted on, and installed an interim government until the next elections are held. The interim President, Roberto Micheletti, is from Zelaya's own political party. Coup's are typically power grabs by a party that is out of power. President Micheletti has agreed to serve until the elections in November and promises to step down after that.

As Glenn Garvin points out in the Miami Herald,"[t]he Honduran army clearly did not act on its own when it arrested Zelaya and sent him packing. The supreme court says the generals acted on its orders, and almost every Honduran politician of any note -- regardless of party -- has voiced approval." Outside of Honduras, the actions of the Honduran government have been met with swift criticism.


Chavez has threatened an armed invasion of Honduras if the country swears into office any President other than Manuel Zelaya. Secretary of State Clinton has said the action of Honduras' government should be condemned by all. President Obama has threatened to withhold military aid to Honduras unless they return Zelaya to power.

This appears to be an internal matter to me. It is not a military coup, but appears to be the Honduran government acting with it's power, and using the military to enforce the laws of the land. I think there are some parallels between the actions taken by their government and the actions we would take if we impeached a President here in the U.S. It is very hard to predict how this will play out. While President Obama decided not to meddle in Iran, he has quickly aligned himself with Chavez and the Castro brothers over Honduras. I do not understand why the President would pick Honduras to try and exert influence, and I don't know why he would decide to join the Chavez / Castro team. However, he has. And in so doing, he has placed the United States in a loose - loose situation. As the Heritage Foundation explains:


If Zelaya is returned, he will hail Chávez, Castro, etc. as the true saviors of his regime, with a grudging recognition to the U.S. Zelaya will be granted a six month opportunity to foster polarization, pillory the democratic opposition, and destroy as much of the independent institutions of his country as possible. If the new government resists the OAS resolution, Chávez and company will undoubtedly act, saying their interventions (whether diplomatic, economic, or even military) in Honduras are being done to uphold an OAS mandate and defend democracy. Actions the U.S. clearly supports.


Neither of these situations is good for the country. Red State is asking it's readers to contact their Representatives and ask they support President Roberto Micheletti. There is a chance some Representatives may want to redeem themselvs after Friday's vote. I would encourage you to follow the Red State link. If your representative or senator is on the foreign relations committee, give them a call and tell them to take a deep breath, then back off and let the government of Honduras sort these things out.