A stormy 2010 forecast for Honduras

To recap: The Honduran President, Mel Zelaya of the Honduran Liberal Party, was deposed this year when he attempted to illegally and unconstitutionally propose a change in the term limits on presidents in order to open the possibility of re-election to himself. This created a rift in the country, but ws "resolved" when the Supreme Court determined that the referendum Zelaya had proposed was unconstitutional. Zelaya disobeyed the court orders and chose to thumb his nose at the Judiciary. The court then ordered his arrest, which occured and Zelaya was sent packing. The Honduran congress, ruled by a majority of Zelaya's own Honduran Liberal Party, agreed with the decision.

In his place, an interim president took the office. Roberto Michelleti, also of the Honduran Liberal Party, repeatedly and stubbornly claimed that the deposition of Zelaya was perfectly constitutional, and he resisted all the intense pressure that was put on the government by such Democratic giants as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and our Glorious Leader, Barack Obama.

Zelaya intensified the conflict by calling for insurrection, trying to re-enter the country and taunting the authorities, and finally sneaking into the country and taking up surprise residence in the Brazilian embassy. He encouraged his supporters to keep the pressure up, resulting in violence in the streets. An attempt to resolve the crisis was thwarted by Zelaya when he backed out of the agreement, which required the Congress to vote on whether or not to reinstate him. Michelletti, in an attempt to resolve the conflict, had agreed to the condition.

But Michelletti refused to cancel the elections that had already been scheduled, and even temporarily "stepped down" as President during the election in order to avoid the appearance of unduly influencing them.

Zelaya's one and only term was to end this year anyway, and elections had already been scheduled for Sunday, November 29th.

The elections took place, as planned, yesterday, and the Conservative Party candidate, Porfirio Lobo Sosa, won. The congress plans to vote on whether or not to reinstate Zelaya this week.

Not surprisingly, a few nations still will not recognize the elections results. Argentina, Spain, and Brazil claim that the elections took place under the control of a "defacto" government and refuse to recognize the new government. For those who do not know, all three governments are run by socialists who are allies of Hugo Chavez.

The next few weeks will be vitally important for Honduras. If the Congress decides to reinstate Zelaya, it will put him in a position of power and, given his track record of abusing his authority, who knows what he will try. If they refuse to reinstate him, he will likely attempt to disrupt the government and the transition of power. Either way, Zelaya will receive help from his leftist allies from Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, and Spain.

At that point, strong and consistent leadership from Washington DC will be crucial to restoring the peace in the nation.

Sadly, "strong and consistent leadership" is exactly what is missing from the Obama administration. So it's a safe forecast for stormy weather in Honduras through 2010 at least.

Eric Holder: most imcompetent AG in history

The “SMARTEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY” can’t make a decision and gets too confused to run a war. "Victory"? Please don't use that word.

Obama gets nervous when we talk about "victory".

President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy
agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United
States' goal, he said Thursday in a TV interview.
"I'm always worried about
using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor
Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC
News.
The enemy facing U.S. and Afghan forces isn't so clearly defined, he
explained.

Here, listen to him as he wiggles and wobbles and waffles all over the place. Please, "victory" is too scary a word to use.

So what about Obama's decision to bring al Qaida terrorists caught on the battlefield to civilian trials? You'd think they would be able to defend their position on this. But did you see the exchange between Lindsey Graham and history's most incompetent Attorney General, Eric Holder?

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
HOLDER: Well, I think --
GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.

...
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.

They don’t understand the implications of criminalizing a war or politicizing the judicial process. DAMN but Democrats should be PROUD.

Holder got his ASS handed to him by Graham!

As much as I love FOX, there is at least one guy there that I can't stand and I wish they'd lose: Geraldo Rivera.

Tonight I heard (and verified) that Senator Lieberman "an independent from Connecticut who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a 'self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist' who had turned to Islamic extremism while under personal stress."

In response, FOX's idiot-at-large Rivera argued that Lierberman is wrong about the statement, that Hasan is just a nut, and that--in Rivera's own words--"the word terrorist implies that {Hasan} was part of a conspiracy, and there is no evidence of that."

Someone at FOX needs to sit Rivera down with a dictionary. There are many variants of the definition of a "terrorist", but really it's quite simple: "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities" NOTE: a terrorist usually organizes with other terrorists, but not always.

What is certain about terrorists is that they use extreme violence, or a threat of violence, to affect policy or counter an enemy they oppose. They almost always engage unarmed individuals in a location and a time where they usually feel they are safe; the point is not just to kill some individuals, but for the act of terror to undermine the feeling of safety of the survivors and their families and to inflict a painful psychological wound on society.

I should clarify that Lieberman did not say that Hasan IS a terrorist, he was more nuanced than that. Here is the rest of his quote:
"We don't know enough to say now, but there are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act."

Senator Lieberman, I have to agree.

Press and President cover for Muslim murderers and terrorists

As details surrounding yesterday’s mass murder at Ft. Hood, TX are rapidly revealed, a pattern is already being exposed—not only in the behavior and speculated motivations behind the attack, but also in the treatment of the story by the mass media.

What we know:
1. The shooter is Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan
2. Hasan is a US born Muslim
3. Hasan received his Psychiatric training through the army, and treated US vets returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most recently at the Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood after being transferred from Walter Reed Medical Center
4. Hasan had been disciplined for a number of incidents in which he proselytized the Islamic faith to his patients
5. Eye witnesses have reported that Hasan had made a number of statements about the wars, stating that “we have no business over there” (referring to Iraq and Afghanistan). After the Muslim attack on the Army recruiting station in Arkansas last June (perpetrated by an American convert to Islam, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad), was overheard saying that “maybe this is what more Muslims need to do, stand up and attack the enemy” (implying that the “enemy” in his view was the United States Armed Forces in which he was serving)
6. Hasan had complained that he was being “harassed” for his Islamic beliefs and had contracted a military lawyer
7. Hasan got into frequent arguments with other soldiers who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and apparently had hoped that President Obama would remove our troops from those countries
8. Hasan had just received orders to deploy to one of the war zones (there are conflicting reports that it was Iraq, others say Afghanistan), and had “been mortified” about that deployment and was trying to fight it to avoid service in the Middle East
9. Hasan had come to the attention of federal law enforcement officials six months ago because of “Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings. The officials said they are still trying to confirm that he was the author…One of the Web postings…equates a suicide bomber to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to save the lives of his comrades.”
10. The day before the attacks, Hasan had emptied his apartment, giving away many of his possessions including Qu’rans
11. Hasan had been seen on video surveillance tapes entering a nearby convenience store in “full Muslim attire” the morning of the attack (to their credit, CNN did provide the video of Hasan in Muslim garb in the convenience store, the day after the attack)
12. Hasan yelled “God is Great” in Arabic as he began the attacks
13. He used to side arms in the attack and killed 12, wounded 31 (mostly) unarmed soldiers

From this information, we can begin the dangerous job of speculating about Hasan’s motive: he was a disenchanted Muslim who disagreed with US foreign policy, sympathized with the Muslim enemy in the war zones, apologized for Muslim acts of terror and verbalized his support for the murder of US troops in the United States, prepared himself for the attack as if he knew he would not survive, and chose to attack soldiers in a setting in which there would be many unarmed targets.

In short, it is a classic example of Islamic terrorism against US soldiers by a Muslim extremist.

But that is not the information you will get from many of the mainstream media who are feverishly attempting to be politically correct and cover for his actions.

On a National Public Radio broadcast yesterday, about six hours after the attack, I heard the host (I don’t recall his name) discuss the issue and carefully pronounce the Major’s Arabic name, but then he and a female reporter specifically pointed out that “Hasan is a United States soldier and a US citizen, he’s not a foreigner”. They appeared to take pains to avoid mention of Hasan’s Muslim faith or outrageous statements against the United States that were already being reported by the AP, FOX, and other sources. Later, reporters for NPR actually changed the pronunciation of his name, anglicizing it and they further sterilized the reporting to avoid any mention of his Muslim identity.

Similarly, NBC reporter Brian Williams and a reporter at the scene discussed the issue in detail—except they never mentioned that he was Muslim, nor did they touch on one single relevant detail about his outrageous and traitorous comments, instead focusing on the speculation that, because he had dealt with soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorders, he may have suffered from stress. What’s more, CNN reporters were overheard mentioning his “harassment” complaints, but studiously avoided mentioning the complaints against him for his comments.

After being advised about the brutal killings, the White House announced that they would speak out about the situation, and President Obama—fully aware that a deadly attack against unarmed military personnel had killed 13 people—went live with a light-hearted commentary in which, instead of somberly speaking about the events, he focused instead on cheerful praise of Native American leaders at the Tribal Nations Conference. His behavior was appalling, and should be considered Obama’s “Katrina moment”.

Obama’s inconsiderate and dispassionate response must be considered in conjunction with his total inability to formulate a strategy for the conflict in Afghanistan, and his shameful disrespect for the requests for additional troops that were formally submitted months ago. He called the terrorist attack a “horrific outburst of violence”, yet another attempt to downplay domestic acts of terror perpetrated by Muslims against our citizens.

So what is it with the media that appears to actively attempt to downplay violent acts by Muslims in this country in an effort to make them look like random acts of violence, or aberrations by imbalanced individuals, instead of what they are: terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslims who live in this country while considering the nation and its people as their mortal enemies? They are complicit in an insidious cover-up, a form of news sanitization, and are not only covering for an inept, incompetent and unpatriotic President, but for the enemy that is killing our citizens.

Keep in mind that these are the same media and politicians who labeled Tea Party protestors "extremists", "terrorists", "Nazis", and who warned America to be vigilant for "home-grown terrorists" and new "Timothy McVeighs" (implying that we should be suspicious of conservatives and returning military). A Democrat even called conservatives "Taliban" this past week. All of this was picked up and gleefully covered by the same out-of-touch media who now bend over backward to hide Hasan's Muslim identity and his Jihadist motives.

***Update 1***

I just remembered another recent controversy that seems relevant to this issue. Remember how the Democrats were so keen to pass hate-crime bills that protect homosexuals and others with bizarre sexual proclivities, but refused to provide similar protection for military members?

"In a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, Democrats voted against excluding pedophiles from hate crime protection in a new crime bill. At the same hearing, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) lambasted Republicans for trying to add protections for veterans in the same bill. No such outrage was voiced against the protection for pedophiles. " It also brings to mind the history surrounding the "Beltway Sniper", Liberal media rounded up panels of "experts" who promoted the notion that the sniper was most likely a white conservative acting alone and then buried the facts surrounding the real killer, John Muhammed, when it was learned that he was an American convert to Islam who murdered innocent people as a form of Jihad.

The media would neither want to consider this type of violence against our military citizens as neither an act of terror, nor a hate crime. It's just a little tragedy, folks. No need to be outraged.

Maybe we have to ask ourselves, as the Liberals did after 9/11: "What did we do to deserve this"?!

***Update 2***

Obama has issued a request that we "urged people not to jump to conclusions while law enforcement officers investigate the shootings. " What?! So now analyzing the evidence for Hasan's activities, of which there is there is more than enough, is "jumping to conclusions"?

We have just learned that Hasan filled out a form for his mosque that he claimed "Palestinian" nationality, even though he was a US citizen! (Who is surprised?)

AND Newsweek has now published an article in which the author, Andrew Bast, attempts to make the claim that Hasan was a victim of PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) even though he has never seen combat. "Hasan's perspective is unknown. He had yet to fight abroad. But the accusations against him can't help but bring to mind the violence scarring military bases all over the country after the duration of two long, brutal wars." To the contrary, you brainless twit, his perspective is already widely known. This may be the clearest example yet of how some Liberal journalists, instead of acting as "investigators", finding and following evidence to a logical conclusion, come to their own biased conclusions without regard to the evidence and instead pervert the evidence in order to support their own political agendas.