DeMint Vitter Try to Stop Federal Funding for Obama's Arizona Lawsuit

Republican Senators Jim Demint (SC) and David Vitter (LA) have introduced an amendment to "prohibit federal funding" for the government's lawsuits against the state of Arizona.

David Vitter and Jim DeMint

Senator David Vitter is the chairman of the U.S. Senate Border Security and Enforcement First Immigration Caucus. Senator Jim DeMint is chairman of the U.S. Senate Steering Committee.  The DeMint-Vitter amendment includes prohibiting funds to the Department of Justice and other government agencies attempting to sue Arizona for SB 1070. Source: Daily Caller

From Senator Vitter's website:

Arizona’s new law, SB 1070, grants state law enforcement officials the authority to enforce federal immigration laws by allowing them to inquire about immigration status of individuals who are lawfully stopped for other crimes. The law explicitly forbids racial profiling. As many as 18 states are considering similar laws, as reported by the Associated Press, including Florida, South Carolina, Idaho, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Michigan. 

From Senator DeMint:

“States like Arizona shouldn't be prosecuted for protecting their citizens when the federal government fails to do so,” said Senator DeMint. “The federal government is rewarding illegal behavior and encouraging many more to enter our nation illegally when they refuse to enforce our laws. States along the border are facing kidnappings, drug trafficking, human trafficking and gang violence and they have a duty to keep their residents safe. Instead of suing states for doing his job, the President should get serious and stop holding border security hostage to pass amnesty and score points with his liberal base.” 

Odd that this Department of Justice is interested in suing a state attempting to apply federal law, but ignores sanctuary cities who routinely bread federal illegal migrant laws. That oddity is being discussed everywhere today. There are more than 50 sanctuary cities in the U.S.

Congressional National Day of Prayer: Sixty seven in Congress Support National Day of Prayer Case

Sixty-seven members of Congress are supporting an amicus brief filed in a court of appeals to defend the National Day of Prayer (NDP). See the list below and note that only three Democrats have signed. And a shout-out to my state representative, John Sullivan (R-OK), and Senator Tom Coburn,   I don't see your names on this list. Why not? Video below.

First just a word about the National Day of Prayer, which was formally suggested by Rev. Billy Graham, although several days of prayer have been individually called for throughout the years of the formation of America. After Billy Graham suggested the idea, President Truman signed it into law. In 2010 Rev. Franklin Graham, Billy's son, was disinvited to speak at the Pentagon's National Day of Prayer because of his views on Islam. The Army did not invite Franklin to speak, but they did disinvite him. See a very interesting and forthright interview of Franklin Graham on Islam by Sally Quinn below the list of congressional names.

The case to abolish the NDP is now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) defending the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer.

...a federal district court in Wisconsin recently ruled in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s claim that the National Day of Prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

This ruling is clearly flawed and out of step with more than 200 years of history, Supreme Court precedent, and multiple acts of Congress.

 Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-president of Freedom from Religion Foundation, says opponents to abolishing the National Day of Prayer are actually making the case for her atheist argument. She believes the "government is exhorting us to pray...," and the Congressional support in the case is proof.

We have a day designated to celebrate the life of Martin Luther King, which I am not opposed to, but it is a nationally recognized and the federal government shuts-down on that day. Does that mean I must revere MLK? What about Christmas, which celebrates the birth of Christ? Non-believers enjoy the day off. Does Gaylor want to work on Christmas Day, and command everyone else do so, as well? Do the prayer rooms on Capitol Hill provided by Congress for Muslims offend Gaylor? How about Thanksgiving Day? I assume atheists do not give "thanks."

If the National Day of Prayer is ruled illegal, can it start a chain-reaction to bring down our country's other time-honored traditions? You're danged right it will. Here are the Representatives and Senators supporting the ACLJ's brief - only three are Democrats.

Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA)

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE)

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss)

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL)

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)

Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA)

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn)

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL)

Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC)

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT)

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)

Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark)

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX)

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Rep. Michael Conoway (R-TX)

Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY)

Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN)

Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK)

Rep. John Fleming (R-LA)

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC)

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ)

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)

Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss)

Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA)

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich)

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC)

Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn)

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)

Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH)

Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-IL)

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich)

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC)

Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC)

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)

Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA)

Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL)

Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS)

Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC)

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)

Rep. Pete Olson (R-TN)

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA)

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)

Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN)

Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH)

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC)

Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE)

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)

Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA)

Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)

Rev. Franklin Graham on Islam (video)

Health Care: Stopping at the Constitution - Not the White House - Not Congress

Lawsuits are in the works for filing against the Senate health care bill passed by the House on March 22,  and by the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009. Forget the staggering costs of the legislation that will drive this country to its knees and diminish the care Americans receive. The buck stops at the U.S. Constitution. If the person(s) sworn to the official oath fail to uphold it, citizens must act, and to do so, we must understand why we have a challenge, and be able to voice it to the Liberals in our midst - if any.

Stopping at the Constitution, not the White House, not Congress

I first wrote about this in December, before the Senate bill was passed. This minute, Brit Hume is on O'Reilly discussing the Commerce Clause. Why wasn't this shouted everywhere - early and often? Why wait until today, after the bill is passed? Now Bernie Goldberg is on the factor, patiently explaining that health care for Liberals is a moral issue, but is an economic issue with Conservatives. How about starting with the Constitution and working our down to the economics? Drives me crazy.

The consequences if this law is upheld by the Supreme Court, are daunting:

Congress would have the unlimited power to regulate, prohibit, or mandate any or all activities in the United States. Such a doctrine would abolish any limit on federal power and alter the fundamental relationship of the national government to the states and the people.

Pelosi, et al claims the power to mandate our health care through the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. Article 1, Section 8, grants Congress the power to:

"[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

The Congressional Research Service has acknowledged that the mandate to individuals to buy health insurance may not be constitutional, because it is a "novel issue," meaning "unprecedented." This country has never before mandated individuals to purchase a thing, under penalty of imprisonment or fine if you choose to do nothing.

The argument often used that we are mandated to buy auto insurance does not address the new health care law being signed on Tuesday, March 23rd. You can choose to drive, or not. If you choose to drive, you buy auto insurance or you pay the penalty when you have an accident.

Mandated health insurance is different. There is no choice. We buy it, or we pay a penalty accessed through the IRS. If we choose not to purchase health care, and we are penalized with imprisonment or a monetary fine, it will be the first time citizens have been punished for taking no action, whatsoever.

Think about that. We do nothing, and yet we can be imprisoned or fined. We are mandated to buy health care because that is the only way the Obama administration can raise the money to cover everyone in the United States. Think again. You will be imprisoned or fined for taking no action.

Extraordinary.

The powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause, according to the U.S. Supreme Court are:

(1) Congress may regulate the "channels of interstate or foreign commence". This includes the regulation of steamship, railroad, highway or aircraft transportation.

(2) Congress may regulate and protect "the destruction of aircraft, or persons or things in commerce. An example is "thefts from interstate shipments."

(3) Congress may regulate economic activities that "substantially affect interstate commerce.

Mandating individual health insurance must fall into one of the three categories of regulation above. The first two are not a possible fit: we are not steamships, railroad, highways or aircraft transportation. We don't even have the power to buy insurance across state lines. Health care has nothing to do with No. 1.

Mandating individual health insurance has nothing to do with No. 2.

Congress is relying on No. 3 to make it constitutional to issue the mandate.

But, when Congress wishes to apply the Commerce Clause, they must answer this question: "what class of activity is Congress seeking to regulate?" In this case, their answer is No. 3, but:

...the health care mandate does not purpose to regulate or prohibit activity of any kind, whether economic or noneconomic. To the contrary, it purports to "regulate" inactivity.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the Senate bill that just passed the House says:

"the individual responsibility requirement...is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce...

and further:

...the statute purports to convert inactivity into a class of activity. By its own plain terms, the individual mandate provision regulates the absence of action. 

We choose not to buy health insurance, and by that choice Congress says we have participated in an activity that affects interstate commerce. A court must conclude that our failure to buy is economic in nature.


Congress can choose to regulate the health insurance industry, but the Heritage Foundation, and other attorneys say the mandate to buy cannot be regulated...without creating a new Constitutional Doctrine. If that is true, it won't be easy to do so.

If court challenges make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and SCOTUS upholds Congress, and we must accept a mandate, then we have been subjected to "federal control by virtue of the fact that the individual merely resides within the borders of the United States. It will be the first time in the history of the Nation that the Commerce Clause has yielded an action on every single person in the country. Congress will have gained unlimited power.

Unprecedented!

Once again: Congress will have gained unlimited power.

Congress would have the unlimited power to regulate, prohibit, or mandate any or all activities in the United States. Such a doctrine would abolish any limit on federal power and alter the fundamental relationship of the national government to the states and the people.


The Heritage Foundation gives the following examples of how interestate commerce has not been used in the past, and we should ask why we should allow Congress to perpetrate this power grab now - and understand, if we do give them power of the health care mandate, the can do all of the following:

Even in wartime, when the production of materiel is crucial to national survival, Congress has never claimed such a power.

For example, during World War II, no farmer was forced to grow food for the troops; no worker was forced to build tanks.

While the federal government encouraged the public to buy its bonds to finance the war effort, it never mandated they do so.

While Congress levied a military draft, it did so as necessary and proper to its enumerated power in Article I, sec. 8 "to raise and support armies," not its commerce power.

What Congress did not and cannot do during a wartime emergency, with national survival at stake, it cannot do in peacetime simply to avoid the political cost of raising taxes to pay for new government programs.... 

Simply because Congress can regulate wheat production under the Agricultural Adjustment Act does not entail that Congress can require every American to buy boxes of Shredded Wheat cereal on the grounds that, by not buying wheat cereal, non-consumers were adversely affecting the regulated wheat market.

For more on mandating individuals to buy auto insurance, read this but skip to (D)

William Bill Sparkman Suicide? Census Worker Sparkman Suicide in Kentucky?

Remember William "Bill" Sparkman, the part time census worker found hanging from a tree, naked and bound with the word "Fed" written across his check in black marker? Police are looking closely at suicide in this case. See update 11-14-09 below.

William Bill Sparkman

On September 12th Mr. Sparkman was found hanged, with his feet "in contact with the ground," in the Daniel Boone National Forest near Manchester, Kentucky. Immediate reports speculated that he was taking a census in the area, although no confirming evidence that he was working has come forward. The FBI did join the investigation as it is a federal crime to attack a federal worker, during or because of, his job. Now, police are considering suicide.

Liberals immediately saw this as a crime probably committed by backwoods red necks, spurred on by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann and WorldNetDaily.

Jerry Weaver, the man who found Mr. Sparkman said his eyes covered with duct tap, he was wearing only a pair of socks and was gagged with something that looked like a red rag.

And they even had duct tape around his neck. And they had like his identification tag on his neck. They had it duct-taped to the side of his neck, on the right side, almost on his right shoulder..."

Nevertheless, police are pulling back on the idea of homicide and say there are several reasons why suicide may be a possibility:

There were no defensive wounds on Sparkman's body, and while his hands were bound with duct-tape, they were still somewhat mobile, suggesting he could have manipulated the rope, the officials said.

NewsBusters says the media has gone silent, now that suicide is a possiblity. Few are talking about Mr. Sparkman these days, as there may be no one to blame.This is a very sad story. William Sparkman was a substitute teacher and has battled non-Hodgkins Lymphoma for years. He was single and had an adopted son. That I.D. tag on his neck is exceedingly weird.

Update 11-24-09:
Authorities today said that Mr. Sparkman committed suicide, and he worked alone in the act of making his death appear to be murder. Read the story here.

Others talking about Mr. Sparkman:

The Other McCain
The Jawa Report
Riehl World Report

Roberto Micheletti Nephew: Roberto Micheletti Enzo Micheletti: Micheletti Nephew Assassinated Video

Honduran interim President Roberto Micheletti's nephew, Enzo Micheletti, been found murdered. The Honduran press reports an assassination.

According to Honduras News, 24-year-old Enzo has been identified by family members. Another body was also found with the nephew, but has not yet been identified.

Enzo apparently was last seen on Friday the 23rd of October. He was the son of President Micheletti's deceased brother, Antonio Micheletti.

Roberto Micheletti

While this report says Enzo was "shot to death executionary-style" they also say there is no indication that the murder is related to Roberto Micheletti's controversial presidency.

The young man's body was found Sunday in the woods in the northern city of Choloma, police said. He had bullet wounds to his head and chest and his hands were tied behind his back.

For background on Roberto Micheletti, ousted president, Manual Zelaya and the Honduran Constitution:

Honduras Constitution: Zelaya Removal Constitutional

Honduran Jorge Rivera Aviles Micheletti Replacement? Zelaya Misuse of Public Funds

Things are popping in Honduras after weeks of an ongoing stalemate. Roberto Micheletti, the country's interim President, has suggested that Jorge Rivera Avilas step-in as President until the next election. A local Honduran newspaper reports Zelaya's misuse of public funds and his luxury lifestyle. And wouldn't you know, a major U.S. newspaper recently editorialized that nothing short of Zelaya's return to the presidency can be considered a victory for the citizens of that country. Zelaya's return they say would "reverse the clear breach of democratic order that occurred."
 

Jorge Rivera Aviles

Micheletti recently suggested that Jorge Rivera Aviles, the President of the Honduran Supreme Court, replace Micheletti as President until election day results are in. Zelaya doesn't like that idea.

View a 13 minute video interview with Mr. Aviles here, and hear him explain that his country "defended" the Constitution, and how Zelaya broke many of the country's laws before they finally took action. The video is moderated by a PJTV reporter, and Aviles speaks in Spanish with well-done sub-titles. The editorial from the Washington Post mentioned above, goes on to say there are a few things that Mr. Zelaya must do, of course, if Mr. Micheletti's government allows Zelaya back into the President's seat.

Those things are, Zelaya must NOT do what he was doing before he was ousted:

...he would have to abandon his attempt to hold an illegal referendum on changing the Honduran constitution, and he would have to leave office when his term ends in January.

This, WaPo says, would "be a victory for the Hondurans who supported Mr. Zelaya's ouster because they feared he was attempting to mimic Mr Chavez's dismantling of Venezuela's democracy." Is this shameful spin, or what?

Make no mistake about it: Honduras and what happens to the Michelletti interim government matters, here and around the world. Zelaya's international supporters abuse the word "democracy" and ignore Honduran law, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Roberto Micheletti's government has the Honduran Constitution behind it.

Zelaya is a traitor - but he is one of the few traitors among the neighboring dictators who have not gotten away with snatching liberty from the people. Honduran auditors are now accusing Manual Zelaya of spending $6 million of the people's money on "horses, vacations and Harley Davidson motorcycles."

Government officials distributed a lengthy list of what they claimed were Zelaya's pet luxury items, including cash for the upkeep of his horses as well as airline tickets, jewelry, the use of a private helicopter, and his own top-of-the-range motorbike, local media reported.
In an audit of Zelaya's expenses by judicial authorities, the mustachioed leader -- who was ushered out of the country on June 28 in a military-backed coup -- also spent money on expensive wines renting high-end real estate.

The Obama administration continues to cut aid to Honduras - $30 million just this past week. If you are a regular reader here at Maggie's Notebook, you know that I, and my contributors, believe the Supreme Court had every right to make the decision to scoot the traitor Zelaya across a border anywhere - which is just what they did. One of my readers left a detailed comment on one of my posts on Honduras and has given me permission to use his statement. Hector Caballero's comments go to the heart of the fate ahead for the Honduran people - sovereignty:

Many focus on Article No. 239 to legally support Zelaya’s constitutional ousting; however, his constitutional crimes start with Article No. 2, please read below:

Article No. 2: Sovereignty of the people from which emanates all powers are exercised by representation. Imposture of popular sovereignty and the usurping of power are classified as crimes of treason; the liability in such cases is imprescriptibly and may be deducted automatically or at the request of any citizen.
Zelaya did not recognized peoples’ sovereignty representation in the other two democratic constitutional powers (Legislative and Judiciary), he though the executive branch was all mighty, encouraged by all the backing he was getting from Dictator Hugo Chavez and the Castro Brothers, and, as by doing so, Zelaya committed a crime of treason.

An example of him not recognizing the other two powers was his disobedience to the ruling from a judge against his proposal to carry out a Peoples Consult (First Executive Decree), not a referendum, to establish a Constitutional Assembly to reform the 1982 Honduran Constitution, he and his cabinet appeal getting the same response. You judge if this is a complete disrespect and disregard of the Judiciary.

Such actions can be deduct automatically, and as these crimes do not prescribe before the Honduran Rule of Law, Zelaya, therefore, still has a pending trial, furthermore, such trial can be requested by any citizen who considered himself or herself an honest and patriotic Honduran.

Article No. 239: A citizen who becomes president of the Executive Branch cannot be reelected as president or as presidential designee of the Executive Branch. Anyone who violates this provision or PROPOSES a reform, and those who support it directly or indirectly, immediately cease in their public duties, and will be disqualified for ten years to exercise any public function.

All Zelaya’s followers argue that he did not want to remain one more day after his constitutional term in office, as he had repeated it again and again, a lie that his Venezuelan Master Hugo Chavez carry out to destroy Venezuela’s democracy. Zelaya also a pathological liar argue that he only wanted to do “simple” reforms to the Constitution in those articles that do not allow a more socially fair and democratic society.

However, Zelaya put himself above the Law when he violated the provision in this article and also conspire to reform it. The evidence, Zelaya unilaterally published a second Executive Decree called “Opinion Poll to Establish a Constitutional Assembly” in the Government of Honduras Official News Paper (La Gaceta) Friday night June 26th, triggering the events of June 28th.

When he argued that his opinion poll was no-binding with the proposal of establishing a Constitutional Assembly to reform the Constitution, if fact it was, his decree title says so and the content of it is also strong evidence that is was binding. The OAS and the hypocrite International Community should come to Honduras to check this evidence.

At the moment of Zelaya’s capture, he was no longer president of Honduras, as you can read from the above, violating this specific provision or only by proposing to reform Article 239 anyone would immediately ceased being president, in fact Congress and the Supreme Court were benevolent to all of Zelaya’s earlier transgressions, naïve or incompetent.

Many political and religious leaders told Zelaya not to continue with his proposal, the US Ambassador told him not to, but he was so filled of himself and highly motivated by his lavish advisors, many were expecting him to change his position and finish his term, but he was blinded, full of power and continue doing so, with the consequences we all know.

Now, the International Community is pushing back into power a crook (50 million Lempiras were taken out in a cart from the Honduran Central Bank to finance the opinion poll and 500 million Lempiras were used to paid the media campaign for his project), a drug abuser (his close friends and relatives say he is a drug user, there are other witnesses also), a megalomaniac (the man though he was almighty and invulnerable, in his mind he was out of reach from the long arm of the law) and a traitor (there are plenty evidences that he had a very close relationship with Hugo Chavez, a sworn enemy of the US).

Finally, a highly concerning truth is that helping Zelaya means providing support to Chavez, if Zelaya does not come back or he does to face trial; Chavez will have has his Waterloo in Honduras.

I also recommend two articles: Fausta at Fausta's Blog - a post from September 5th and a really interesting discussion between two U.S. Representatives, along with Fausta's commentary. The second is from Honduras This Week by F. W. Blake, dated August 12, 2009: Part 4: Conclusions to Mel fought the law and the law won. From Blake's article is this reminder:

Remember how he refused to approve a National Budget, refused to ratify or veto more than 96 bills over a three year span, and refused to provide the National Congress with the disbursements they were legally entitled to; remember him saying, “I will only give them enough for their cups of coffee.” Remember how he repeatedly chose to ignore and not abide by the rulings and judicial notices issued by the Supreme Court. Surely Mr. Zelaya was not very fond of the two other branches of the government.

You can access Mr. Blake's complete series at the link to Part 4.

Thank you to La Gringa's Blogicito, who is blogging and gardening in Honduras.

Related:
Honduras Thousands in the Street: Michelletti Supporters in the Streets Honduras: Last Bastion of Democracy  

Lugar Clinton: Explain Honduras Foreign Policy Please

Honduras Constitution: Zelaya Removal Constitutional

While ousted Honduras president, Manuel Zelaya cools his heels somewhere in Nicaragua and newly installed Honduras president, Roberto Micheletti, tries to keep Zelaya from re-entering the county, while also running the business of government, the conversation continues around the world: Does the Honduras constitution support Zelaya's removal; was the Zelaya removal constitutional? And if Zelaya remained in office, or if the government is handed back to him, what is the fear? See an excellent video below.

Honduras Capital City, Tegucigalpa

Let's take the "fear factor" first. Mr. Zelaya was ousted for trying to rewrite the presidential term limits clause, and you'll see below that, even considering that option, can be considered treasonous in Honduras.  

Zelaya has a lot in common with Chavez and his cronies: Bolivia's Evo Morales won a referendum allowing him to overturn a ban on re-election; Ecuador's Rafael Correa unconstitutionally changed the constitution and overrode the term limit stipulations; and Chavez, under tremendous protests from the people of Venezuela changed the country's constitution and says he will stay in office until "2019, 2021 or 2030." We know the story in Cuba. And in Nicaragua, the American-hating Sandinista Marxist thug Daniel Ortega told Sir David Frost in a March 2009 interview that he would like to change the constitution to allow him to run again for president. Central and South American dictators have a long history, and since the people of any country do not want to be "ruled," rather than governed, "dictators" are not popular.

You can't run for office as a dictator and get elected. So it's all about deceiving the people. In the case of Manuel Zelaya, he was elected as a "centrist" four years ago, and has moved rapidly to the Left. Zelaya took an out-sized stetson hat and cowboy boots as his signature apparel, and grinned and waved his way to the Left and a fast friendship with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

In an attempt to appease the poor, of which Honduras has plenty, Zelaya cut a deal with Chavez for cheap oil. Unless oil is cheap around the world, oil is not cheap, and of course there had to be a pay-back to Chavez for his generosity. Zelaya joined-in with Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua to participate in Chavez' "regional trade and political pact."

Outside of the Chavez pact members: San Salvador just elected Maurico Funes of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN)- named for Farabundo Marti, the Communist leader and social activist. His election ended nearly 50-years of conservative control that fought against the FMLN movement seeking a Communist revolution. Funes wants good relations with the U.S., he vowed to restore relations with Cuba and is opening an embassy there.

Standby to see how far Left San Salvador leans. Uruguay's ruling coalition party proposed reforming the Uruguayan constititution to allow an immediate reelection of the president, Tabare Vazquez. It didn't happen and sources say it is not likely to happen as the constitution forbids it. Vazquez is considered a conservative.

South of the equator, history demonstrates that it hard to hold on to the very constitutional ideals designed to keep executive branches from becoming absolutists. So back to Honduras, while I have maintained that from my research the Honduran Supreme Court and the Congress had the authority to remove Zelaya from office, I found an "opinion" from someone said to be "a well noted Honduran Attorney." I cannot vouch for this information but it is interesting, and it uses Honduran constitutional articles to make the point:

On January 11th of the year 1982, a constituent assembly gave birth to a beautiful Constitution that was vaccinated against the diseases that historically have affected the region. The Honduran Constitution does not allow the reform of articles related to the form of government, the territory, the presidential term, the prohibition on presidential reelection and who can't become President in the subsequent term. It goes further and states that the alternation of the Presidency is mandatory and its violators incur in high treason.

Our constitution clearly lays out an impeachment process that must be followed to trial and convict a President that has violated the Law. But our Constitution also includes a single exception to this rule in article 239, which states that the President that violates the principle of alternation of the Presidency or simply proposes its reform, will immediately cease in the exercise of office. In other words, the simple act of proposing the reform removes ispo jure (by operation of law) a President from office. This may sound radical to many, but the truth is it's coherent with the geopolitical reality of Honduras; and on June 28 of 2009 it proved why.

Read the entire article here. Zerosheep.com offers the translated Honduran constitution and specifically Article 239 mentioned above, along with excellent and extended commentary:

Article 239 The citizen that has been the head of the Execute Branch cannot be President or Vice-President (again). Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years. You can read the constitution in the original Spanish here, or a full translation of it here. Article 239 clearly makes it illegal for a public official– such as Zelaya here — to even attempt to amend the constitution to allow multiple terms. And it is not just illegal: ARTICLE 4 .- The form of government is republican, democratic and representative. Is exercised by three branches: legislative, executive and judicial, and independent and complementary relationship of subordination. Alternation in the presidency of the Republic is required. Violation of this rule constitutes the crime of treason.

So was the Supreme Court correct that Zelaya ran afoul of the Honduran constitution? Seems so. Still yet, the Obama administration refuses to address the facts - one being that Micheletti's government could have charged Zelaya with treason on the spot. The fact that the U.S. suspended military aid to Honduras on July 8th demonstrates a high level of support for the power-grabbing Zelaya. What is going on in Washington, D.C. which boasts the "healthiest brains" in the U.S. The photo above is of Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras.

 Zelaya Removal Constitutional (video)

Background:  
Lugar Clinton: Explain Honduras Foreign Policy Please

Honduras Thousands in the Street: Michelletti Supporters in the Streets

Honduras Defending Constitution: Constitutional Succession Honduras Threatened with Banishment from Organization of American States  

Zelaya Returns to Honduras: Micheletti Government to Block Zelaya Plane  

Micheletti Still Denies Zelaya Engry: Zelaya Visits Hillary Instead

Honduras: Last Bastion of Democracy  

Zelaya, Micheletti in Costa Rica: Zelaya, Micheletti Meet with Negotiators Zelaya Returns: Zelaya Retreats

Zelaya Returns to Honduras: Micheletti Government to Block Zelaya Plane

Ousted former Honduran President, Manuel Zelaya says he will return to Honduras today, but the BBC is reporting that the interim Micheletti government will not allow Zelaya's plane to land should he try to enter the country. Updates below.

Honduran Flag

Foreign Minister Enrique Ortez said that any plane carrying Mr Zelaya would not be allowed to land. Mr Zelaya says he will fly back to the country from Washington, arriving between 1300 and 1400 local time (1900 - 2000GMT).

While the Zelaya family awaits the return of their husband and father, they are residing in the home of the U.S. Ambassador to Honduras.

The Organization of American States (OAS) has suspended Honduran membership, following the seemingly everlasting suspension of Cuba in 1962, and the 1990 suspension of Haiti. OAS gave the new government a 72-hour deadline to reseat Zelaya as president. Violence in the streets is expected from Zelaya supporters. It's important to note that many of the protesters against the new government were the Honduran poor and union members who appreciated the 60% increase in minimum wage that Zelaya bestowed upon them. In the short six months or so since the implementation of the increase, business leaders say 150,000 jobs have been lost.

People are afraid. The immense majority of people don't want problems, they just want peace. But there is so much risk of violence when he comes," says Roger Marin, a columnist for the Honduran newspaper El Heraldo. "If he does not come today, he will come tomorrow. He is going to arrive. … That is the kind of man he is, stubborn.

Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez appeared on state television imploring Zelaya to stay abroad. Daily protests have grown in size in the capital, and while most Hondurans say they want peace, tensions are running high. Leading to the presidential palace, fast-food chain restaurants have been shattered, their walls splashed with graffiti calling Micheletti a fascist and coup leader. "We think that a return to the country at the moment could provoke a bloodbath," Cardinal Rodriguez said.

In the meantime, unless there is something the world doesn't know, the new Honduran government is trying to keep democracy and the Republic of Honduras from joining the bevy of non-democratic constitutional republics who are republics-in-name-only.

In fact, it is the shadow of Mr. Chávez that scared so many here. Fear – real or perceived – of Venezuelan airplanes full of arms landing in the country, of guerillas coming from El Salvador and Nicaragua, and even the coming of communism is whispered about in any conversation with those who say Zelaya's ouster is justified.

And so, while the international community condemns a coup, many Hondurans say his ouster, although perhaps not entirely legal, was the better of two evils. After all, Zelaya was breaking the law by pushing for a nonbinding referendum to survey voters on their support to call a constituent assembly. Many say that was the first step toward dissolving term limits for presidents. "If he had not been kicked out, we would have had Al Capone as president indefinitely," says Jesus Simon, an engineer attending a recent protest march against Zelaya.

Many, such as Mr. Simon, have expressed frustration that the world seemed unaware of the threat to democracy before June 28.

Roberto Micheletti, the new president installed by the Honduran Congress has said he is open to early elections - earlier than the slated November 2009, but a warning sign for those supporting Zelaya's outster: Micheletti is reported to willing to hold a "referendum asking citizens if Zelaya should return to carry out his final few months in office." A senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution's Latin America Initiative says he will not be surprised if the Micheletti government backs down under global pressure:

Honduras is too small, too poor, and too vulnerable to pull it off," he says

Update 7-5-09 1:40 p.m. CDT: Confirmation that the military will or has refused to allow Zelaya to land in Honduras

The interim government said it ordered the military to prevent the landing of a plane carrying Zelaya or any unidentified plane. The government of President (Roberto) Micheletti has order the armed forces and the police not to allow the entrance of any plane bringing the former leader," the foreign minister of the interim government, Enrique Ortez, told The Associated Press on Sunday. At the main Tegucigalpa airport, soldiers outnumbered travelers and commercial flights were canceled after a final morning departure. Access roads were cut off by police checkpoints, with soldiers standing guard alongside.

Update 7-5-09 4:20 p.m. CDT: Zelayas' flight was diverted to El Salvador Update 7-5-09 9:50 p.m. CDT: Zelaya's plane carrying him to Honduras was prevented from landing by blocking the runway with military vehicles and soldiers. "His Venezuelan pilots circled around the airport and decided not to risk a crash." Zelaya vowed to try again early this week, but Micheletti said there will be no entry for Zelaya until the country "calms down." After the plane flew off, police cleared the streets of his angry supporters and declared a sunrise-to-sunset curfew. Background: Lugar Clinton: Explain Honduras Foreign Policy Please Honduras Thousands in the Street: Michelletti Supporters in the Streets Zelaya Returns: Zelaya Retreats Honduras Defending Constitution: Defending Democracy Honduras Threatened with Banishment from Organization of American States Micheletti Still Denies Zelaya Entry: Zelaya Visits Hillary Instead Honduras: Last Bastion of Democracy

Honduras Threatened With Banishment from Organization of American States

The Organization of American States (OAS) has given the new Honduran government 72 hours to reinstate former President, Manuel Zelaya - or be suspended form the OAS. I might be completely in the wrong about this, but I predict President Micheletti, the Honduran Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress will tell the OAS to take that long walk. I see a thumb of the nose coming, but done with respect and a plea to please, please take a look at the evidence and understand that those responsible for preserving the Honduran Constitution, with the exception of Manuel Zelaya, are doing their jobs to keep Honduras a free country. See updates below.

Honduras Map

If you have any reservations about what actually took place when the "coup," which seems to be more of a "constitutional succession," please read this, and know that in December 2008 Zelaya tried to nationalize the oil companies into one state-owned oil company. But the current unforgivable action by Zelaya was to hold an unconstitutional referendum to change the Constitution to extend the the term of his own presidency. The Honduran people evidently like their existing constitutional clause determining the time a president can remain president:

While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

What would you think if President Obama called his own referendum to do the same without the sanction of Congress...which is unlawful? How would you feel if he had ballots printed in Venezuela - or any other country and had them shipped here to distribute to the people against the rule of law? That's what's going down in Honduras. I'll be the first to say that the jeopardy here is the military taking and keeping control. So far, there is no reason to think that is what is happening. At this time, Micheletti has been put into office until the next election. That's in the future and we cannot know it, but we certainly know the past. The Honduran people are fighting for their freedom. Get the details here. Related and an excellent piece on what is at stake for the Honduran people: The Honduran Counter-Coup Update 7-1-09: Reuters is reporting that President Obama has suspended "joint military operations with Honduras to protest a "coup." The administration is also considering a "cutoff or suspension of American financial assistance." Related and updates: Lugar Clinton: Explain Honduras Foreign Policy Please Honduras Thousands in the Street: Michelletti Supporters in the Streets Zelaya Returns: Zelaya Retreats Honduras Defending Constitution: Defending Democracy Honduras Threatened with Banishment from Organization of American States Zelaya Returns to Honduras: Micheletti Government to Block Zelaya Plane Micheletti Still Denies Zelaya Entry: Zelaya Visits Hillary Instead Honduras: Last Bastion of Democracy

Honduras Defending Constitution: Constitutional Succession - Defending Democracy

In researching the events taking place in Honduras, I see President Obama immediately cited the outster of President Manuel Zeyala as "not legal." Another "gird your loins" moment for the American President. The question is: was this a coup d'etat or a constitutional succession? See updates below.

Constitutional Succession - Roberto Micheletti

Why did the Supreme Court rule that ousted President Manuel Zelaya was subverting the rule of law in Honduras? Why did Congress rule the same? Zelaya's term of office ends in 2010. He called for a "controversial referendum" to take place on June 28th. The referendum, if approved, would have made changes to the Honduran Constitution to allow Zelaya to run for office for another term, an action the Supreme Court says is not lawful.

While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress. But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

After the Supreme Court declared the referendum not lawful, Zelaya vowed to hold a vote on the referendum anyway. Zelaya dismissed "the military chief," Romeo Vasquez, who opposed Zelaya's position on the referendum. The Supreme Court asked that Vazquez be reinstated. Zelaya refused.

So on Thursday he [Zelaya] led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order. The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

The Supreme Court voted to remove Zelaya "to defend the rule of law."

The Honduran Congress later swore in its leader, Roberto Micheletti, as the new head of state after voting to remove Mr. Zelaya for "manifest irreuglar conduct" and "putting in present danger the state of the law."

Micheletti said that the orders carried out as issued by the Supreme Court and the Congress "was not a coup d'etat, but a constitutional succession." The new government's foreign minister, Enrique Otez Colindres said the new government looks forward to meeting with OAS officials:

...so they can realize that this is a government that respects all laws and the only thing it did was to remove a president for systematically violating the constitution.

Manuel Zelaya was elected as a conservative. He has progressively moved away from that position and cemented relationships with Cuba's Castros, Venezuela's Chavez and Bolivia's Morales. As Wall Street Journal writer, O'Grady said, it is not "about left-right politics."

It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators.

So how do the Honduran people feel about the ouster? The Latin Business Chronicle says that Honduran business support the Supreme Court and Micheletti's new government:

It is extremely popular,” says Jacqueline Foglia Sandoval, former president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Honduras. “I don’t know of any one who isn’t celebrating." [The attempted referendum] followed three years of Zelaya policies that were seen as arbitrary and often hurting business, Foglia Sandoval says. Over the last three years, our ex president had created political and social chaos,” she says. “He [was] very unpredictable and many times [imposed] arbitrary actions that …affected the business climate.

The Latin Business Chronical reports that wage hikes smacked of socialism and resulted in the loss of 150,000 jobs.

[Zeyala] in December to raise the minimum wage by 60 percent despite that unions had demanded 20 to 30 percent and employers had countered with zero to 10 percent.

Not only did he exceed the union demands, but also imposed the new laws as companies already had their 2009 budgets ready, Foglia Sandoval points out. As a results some 150,000 jobs were lost during the past six months, she says.

Another concern was his talk about implementing socialism of the 21^st century, modeled on Venezuela. “People associate socialism with ration cards, with lines, with the things we do not want,” Foglia Sandoval says. “It’s a poor country, but we don’t have rationing, or lack of mobility, or have to ask permission for moving.” Further issues raised by the business community is the lack of security, which Sandoval said Zelaya completely ignored. Drug trafficking is growing and people fear for their personal safety. Foreign investment has diminished, and Zelaya's treatment of foreign oil companies was considered "hostile."

In January 2007, Zelaya announced plans to temporarily assume control of oil terminals and restrict imports of oil to one company in an effort to reduce fuel prices. However, after the US Embassy in Honduras warned that the takeover would have serious consequences, the government reversed its position on the terminals.

Fogliz Sandoval said relations with the U.S. were "worsening." The people of Honduras are standing to protect their Constitution. This is a hallelujah moment for Democracy. President Obama has said that the ouster of Manuel Zelaya was "not legal." Obama has said the U.S. will "stand on the side of democracy." He has said nothing about the legality of Zelaya subverting the Honduran Constitution. That is the issue. If a democratic election is held, and then the one democratically elected attempts to take over the government illegally - then why are we not talking about that? Rudi Stettner at Rant Rave looked at the differences in Obama's handling of the Iranian election and the Honduran succession and summed it up this way:

One thing that was established in the Honduran coup. When there is a "progressive" consensus, Obama will quickly find his voice. Since Islamic radicals are the fascists that liberals love, a blind eye will be turned to their sins.

Update 6-30-09 4:10 p.m. CDT: Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich in The Hill "blasted" Obama for opposing the "coup," or as I prefer, the Constitutional succession in Honduras.

Having castro call for defending democracy should convince any reasonable person that honduras was on the edge of a leftist dictatorship

Read an article written by Juan Diego Zelaya - another Zelaya, who is general counsel to the mayor of Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras. He is an advisor to the National Party, the opposition party to former President Manuel Zelaya. Juan Diego Zelaya: Very Constitutional Coup. Thanks to Bloviating Zeppelin for finding the "other" Zelaya article. Background: Lugar Clinton: Explain Honduras Foreign Policy Please Honduras Thousands in the Street: Michelletti Supporters in the Streets Zelaya Returns: Zelaya Retreats Honduras Threatened with Banishment from Organization of American States Zelaya Returns to Honduras: Micheletti Government to Block Zelaya Plane Micheletti Still Denies Zelaya Entry: Zelaya Visits Hillary Instead Honduras: Last Bastion of Democracy

U.S. Supreme Court Justices - Retaining Integrity

Living in the rarefied air of Washington D.C. as a Congressman, Senator or Supreme Court Justice, makes it difficult to stick to your claimed principles. Lobbyists and powerful activists may live next door or down the street. A simple lunch in a local restaurant, cocktail parties, your daughter's soccer game - everything in daily life exposes the "mighty" among political servants to political pressures. How do they "mingle" with their community and stay true to the core beliefs they professed - the "professions" that got them the job in the first place? The answer is, in all-to-many cases, they do not. While Congressmen and Senators may be voted out of office, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life. How difficult it must be to sit on the highest court in the land and uphold a private person's right to keep the land they own. How difficult it must be to protect America's sovereignty when you adore everything European and see Europe as "the" desirable model for this country. It is not only difficult to reside in Washington D.C. and retain political integrity, integrity seldom seems to be a goal. Power is the goal, and the extremely liberal social environment of our Nation's capital breeds power as well as the mongers seeking to use that power to control you and me; seeking to protect us from everything but their principle-less decisions and laws. Doug Patton makes a case for reducing the court to perhaps, just Justice Roberts "reading briefs at a card table in his chambers...." I don't think one Justice is the answer, and I don't think Mr. Patton does either, but for the privilege of sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress might mandate Justices to live in middle America, and NEVER attend a social function in our Nation's capital, especially at the invitation of a lobbyist, a Corporation or Congress.

New Oversight of Supreme Court Needed By Doug Patton June 30, 2008

My old boss, U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the few non-lawyers on the House Judiciary Committee, used to tell me about how Congress has the power to regulate the federal courts. "Constitutionally, we could reduce the Supreme Court to the Chief Justice sitting in his chambers at a card table if we wanted to," he would say. I thought of that unused congressional authority as I pondered why it is that the Supreme Court tends to pull its members to the left. In recent decades, from Abe Fortas and Thurgood Marshall, appointed by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, to Clinton appointees Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the 1990s, liberal Democrats are rarely disappointed in the left-wing positions of their appointees on virtually every issue. Not so with justices appointed by Republican presidents. Certainly there are reliable minds on the court that can be trusted with the strict interpretation of the constitution. Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have proven themselves worthy of our respect in that regard. Similarly, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito are slowly building a reputation for eschewing judicial activism and for defending the concept of original intent. But Republican nominees frequently fail to live up to the hopes of those who believe in strict adherence to the Founders' constitutional intentions. In modern times, perhaps the biggest disappointments began with former California Governor Earl Warren, a Republican appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower to serve as Chief Justice. Richard Nixon's appointments of Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun were a disaster. Both men voted in the majority on the most infamous Supreme Court ruling of the 20th Century, 1973's Roe vs. Wade, with Blackmun writing the majority opinion. The result is forty million Americans aborted. David Souter, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, has so abandoned any semblance of conservative jurisprudence that he is now counted consistently with Ginsburg, Breyer and John Paul Stevens on the left end of the court. Two Reagan appointees, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, turned into two of the biggest disappointments of the era. O'Connor's left turn culminated two important recent cases, Carhart vs. Stenberg and Lawrence vs. Texas. The Carhart case struck down Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortion. Lawrence created a constitutional right to sodomy, thereby throwing the door open wide for the movement to legalize same-sex marriage. With O'Connor now retired, Kennedy is widely considered to be the court's "swing vote." But increasingly, Kennedy's decisions are viewed as activist liberal votes. He wrote the majority opinion in the aforementioned...(read more)...

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net. More on controlling Americans: Obama's Senate Bill S.2433 - A UN Global Tax on the U.S. Technorati Tags: U.S. Supreme Court,Constitutional Law, Supreme Court Justices