REMEMBER HONDURAS?

That small country of Honduras was in the news quite a bit between June 28th, 2009 and November elections there. It was high stakes and high drama for an underdog nation that was taking on the world. Sitting president of that country, Manuel Zelaya attempted to install himself as dictator; the Constitution was followed by the other branches of government, thereby preventing it.

The Obama administration sided with the world against interim leader Roberto Micheletti, who stuck to his guns and his principles to defeat the world. Regardless of what people might say or how it is spun, Obama's Alinsky-ite / Community Organizing tactics failed to bully Honduras on a world stage.

The AP reported just this past April 30th that the U.S. Ambassador to Honduras basically conceded defeat but in true Obama fashion, blamed someone else. In this case, that someone else was Zelaya himself. In fairness, Zelaya was a certifiable kook but the White House lost an international battle when everything BUT Zelaya was stacked in Obama's favor.

U.S. officials who voiced strong opposition to Honduras' coup last June now say the ousted president took an "erratic and imprudent course of action" in the months leading up to his overthrow.

The comments from U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens mark the first time U.S. officials have so directly criticized former President Manuel Zelaya for his pre-coup actions.

Llorens told about 300 community leaders at a Thursday meeting of the Honduran Cities Association that the November election of President Porfirio Lobo was a crucial step toward putting this poor Central American country back on track.

"We understood very well that former President Zelaya pursued an erratic and imprudent course of action in the management of the country, and the growing opposition to his polarizing style," Llorens said.

Did Llorens actually concede defeat while citing "growing opposition to (a) polarizing style"? Perhaps Mr. Llorens should step back and look at how his boss in the White House fits that description. The irony here is that Zelaya is being blamed for Obama's loss in Honduras while his attributes that are allegedly responsible for that defeat are very much applicable to how Obama is governing his own country. Can anyone say health care and immigration? Two instances of many in which Obama has shown that he can generate growing opposition to a polarizing style.

Read it all.

DARRELL ISSA KEEPING PRESSURE ON SESTAK SCANDAL

It is awesome to see that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) will not be letting up when it comes to getting to the bottom of the alleged job offer given to Rep. Joe Sestak by the White House in exchange for Sestak's dropping out of his race with Arlen Specter, who has since lost the nomination for the Senate seat he has held for decades in Pennsylvania. If the White House was cringing when Sestak admitted in February to Larry Kane that he was offered a quid-pro-quo deal, it is doubling over now.

POLITICO reports on Issa's latest ratcheting:

A leading House Republican is threatening to file an ethics complaint against Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) if he doesn’t reveal who in the White House offered him a job to drop out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the Oversight and Government Reform committee, said Sestak needs to explain what job he was offered and who at the White House was involved. Sestak, who beat Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the Democratic Senate primary on Tuesday, said on a Philadelphia radio station in February that the White House offered him a job to drop out of the race.

Let's not forget Issa's recent grilling of Attorney General Eric Holder on this issue. Holder was defenseless and clueless - shocker.



h/t to Free Republic

HEAD OF ICE THUMBS NOSE AT ARIZONA

This level of childishness coming from a presidential administration is most certainly the lowest of any previous one. John Morton, head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is openly telling Arizona that his agency will not process illegal aliens handed over to it by Arizona law enforcement officials who attempt to follow their state's law. By expressing his opinion in this way, while not being fired, Morton is obviously telegraphing the fact that this message is being sent straight from the White House.

Via Fox News:

John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.

"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.

The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.

The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.

This is coming straight from Obama, who is openly admitting that he will not follow the rule of law if he disagrees with it. It doesn't take a rocket science to connect the dot between Morton and Obama. If Obama disagreed with Morton saying something so blatantly egregious, he would fire him. The reverse necessarily has to be true. Morton likely risked job loss if he didn't make such a statement. The problem is that he should have resigned rather than make it.

When a public official willingly carries out an unlawful order or performs an unlawful act or omission instead of stepping aside, that individual becomes complicit in the perpetuation of that illegal behavior. It's long been established that the defense of, 'I was just following orders' does not let that person off the hook when the order is illegal. Fox's Charles Krauthammer perhaps said it best when he called the administration "lawless".



h/t to Gateway Pundit for the video.

OBAMA'S OFA GOING AFTER AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN?

The Community Organisms have almost inexplicably targeted one of the most liberal newspapers in America - I know because I used to have it delivered. Why? Apparently, because of the paper's biased coverage of the Austin City Council's decision to boycott Arizona. I actually canceled my subscription because of how liberal the paper is.

Here is an image of the Organizing For FA Austin's appeal to the local community orgs.

Well, uh, actually OFA Austin seems to have a problem with the Statesman publishing letters from readers that express disapproval with the City council. According to OFA, the Statesman published 20 letters from readers and none of them were in support of the city council's decision.

I guess it never occurred to the community organisms that the paper didn't have any positive letters to publish. Maybe OFA should have checked the Spanish edition of the Statesman.

While this attack on the Statesman would seemingly be ill-advised because of its already-liberal bent, it should also be a wake up call to both the Statesman and any left wing media entity. This unequivocally shows that, like the title of Hillary Clinton's senior thesis, "There is Only the Fight", Community Orgs will not be satisfied with silencing conservatives. This shows that they are willing to go after media outlets that are generally sympathetic when they get a little off track.

HERE is the link to the Statesman page that includes letters from readers that the Community Orgs find objectionable. Take note that the email addresses of some of the letter writers have been published as well. I wonder how many of them are being harassed by the Orgs.

OFA Austin also links to the Statesman email page and asks its lemmings to send them a letter. I took the liberty of doing so myself and this is what I sent to them:

As a radio talk show host and producer for the Lynn Woolley Show, I would like to express solidarity with the Statesman with respect to your paper being the target of intimidation from Organizing for America. Stand strong and know that you did nothing wrong by publishing reader letters in opposition to the recent city council resolution calling for an Austin boycott of Arizona.

I discussed the matter of the Austin boycott at length on my May 16th program. HERE is a link to the podast.

h/t to Hot Air