WSJ Critical of Obama on Honduras

Mary Anastasia O'Grady's piece in the Wall Street Journal today is very critical of Obama's stance on Honduras. With a title like, 'The U.S. Steers Left on Honduras', you know it has to be. Steering left on Honduras necessarily means aligning with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and the Castro brothers.

Throw on top of that the fact that as the sitting government, led by Roberto Micheletti, continues to stand up to Zelaya and practically the rest of the entire world, it is looking more and more like Micheletti is with the good guys. Another benefit to Micheletti is that Zelaya's rhetoric has been so incendiary and caustic since his ouster, he appears to be unmasking himself by the minute.

For her part, O'Grady does a great job of zeroing in on the consequence of Obama's policy toward Honduras having the effect of aligning the United States government with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

The Venezuelan may feel that his aims have enough support from the U.S. and the Organization of American States (OAS) that he would be justified in forcing Mr. Zelaya on Honduras by supporting a violent overthrow of the current government. That he has reason to harbor such a view is yet another sign that the Obama administration is on the wrong side of history.

Mr. Obama on the wrong side of history? Naw.

Anyway, O'Grady cites none other than Miguel Estrada who quotes directly from the Honduras Constitution:

"Article 239," Mr. Estrada noted, "specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection 'shall cease forthwith' in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any 'infraction' of the succession rules constitutes treason."

So the United States is supporting a man whose own Constitution points to him committing treason to boot?

O'Grady then nails the reality of the current situation had Obama sided with Micheletti and against Chavez / Zelaya:

That might have been the end of it if the U.S. had supported the Honduran rule of law, or simply refrained from meddling. Instead President Obama and the State Department joined Mr. Chávez and his allies in demanding that Mr. Zelaya be restored to power. This has emboldened Venezuela.

But No.

Here's another lesson to be learned by what is happening. The courage shown by Micheletti and the sitting government appears to be concerning Chavez.

Mr. Chávez understands that Mr. Zelaya's star is fading, which is why he called Tom Shannon, the State Department's assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere at home at 11:15 p.m on July 9. Mr. Shannon told me that Mr. Chávez "again made the case for the unconditional return of Mr. Zelaya, though he did so in a less bombastic manner than he has in the past."

Chavez the bully. We all know what bullies really are, right? Think Scut Farcus in "A Christmas Story". We all know what Ralphie did to him.

I urge and encourage you to read O'Grady's entire piece.

One last thing on Obama and Honduras... I know there's almost a reticence to pay much attention to what's going on with a country like Honduras but when you peel away the layers, we see much about Obama.

Whenever Obama's affiliations are brought up and he is forced to acknowledge them (Ayers and Wright), he attempts to distance himself by saying he doesn't agree with them. In the case of Ayers, he was on a Board with him but didn't share his views. In the case of Wright, he belonged to his church but didn't share his views.

Now, Mr. Obama finds himself in a situation where he cannot say he doesn't support the views of Hugo Chavez. Those views consist of installing a stooge of the latter as the president of Honduras. A stooge that was allegedly going to rig the results of a referendum that showed the country wanted him to illegally change the Constitution.

The group formerly known as ACORN is planning to be very involved in administering the census and we're all familiar with allegations of fraud relating to voter registration, right?

"An acorn doesn't fall far from the tree."
- Barack Obama, 2008

Two REALLY FROZEN Hams

UPDATE: We have an update on HAM-GATE. Obviously the wording of the invoice was so over-the-top that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack felt he had to clarify. His statement all but conceded that the wording of the invoice was poor. He reached out to the Drudge report to clear away the mayo

The references to "2 pound frozen ham sliced" are to the sizes of the packaging. Press reports suggesting that the Recovery Act spent $1.191 million to buy "2 pounds of ham" are wrong. In fact, the contract in question purchased 760,000 pounds of ham for $1.191 million, at a cost of approximately $1.50 per pound.

Gateway Pundit provides a link to Food Lion which sells sliced ham for $.79.

Note: if you can't see the price per pound on the Food Lion site, it mysteriously vanished after a link to it was posted on Drudge.

Yes, that's a difference of $.71 / lb. That Government machine is SO efficient, isn't it?

---------------------------


How much do you think it costs to slice two frozen hams? Before you answer, imagine them as frozen as they could possibly be. So frozen that if we catapulted them toward the sun, the earth would actually begin cooling not just because two of the most dangerously frozen hams would no longer be among us but because they'd cause the sun itself to cool. We're talkin' hams so frozen, you'd get frostbite just looking at them.

Have no fear, the Obama government took care of it and guess what? They were able to complete the daunting task of slicing two severely frozen hams in just over two months and just shy of $1.2 Million!

Don't believe me? Check out a copy of the invoice right here.

And you thought your tax dollars were being wasted. Shame on you.



h/t to Gateway Pundit

Honduras: Zelaya Referendum Rigged?

The sitting Honduran government continues to produce facts and evidence justifying the removal of President Manuel Zelaya. They appear to have truth on their side despite most of the world being against them. I suspect the longer they hold on, the more that will change.

Remember the June 28th referendum intended to circumvent the Honduran Constitution by putting to popular vote the changing of the part of the Constitution that forbids a president from running for re-election? It never took place because the Supreme Court ordered the military to remove Zelaya, which it did.

Now we learn that the results of the referendum (that never took place) have been found on a computer in the presidential palace and guess what? Zelaya won!

Obama is supporting the re-installment of Zelaya and as the Babalu' Blog points out, ACORN is probably taking notes. Say, who's in charge of the 2010 census again?

"An Acorn doesn't fall far from the tree."
- Barack Obama, 2008

Babalu' posts an english translation of an el Europa Press article. Here is an excerpt:

The official investigation now deals with the possible crime of fraud and falsification of documents due to the fact that some of the certified voting results had been filled with the personal information of individuals that supposedly participated in the failed referendum that did not take place because of the coup.

I wonder if this might cause Hugo Chavez' zeal for Zelaya's reinstatement to moderate slightly. Odds are very good Zelaya took a page from the Chavez manual and Hugo may want to distance himself from it.

Here's another interesting tidbit from el Europa:

The deputy district attorney, Roberto Ramirez, declared this area as a "crime scene" and, although he did not want to provide further details, said that further evidence had been found that could be categorized as crimes of fraud, embezzlement of funds, falsification of documents, and abuse of authority.

Note to the U.N., the O.A.S., and Obama. Backing Zelaya is really starting to look bad, isn't it?

Exposed truths are extremely powerful things.

Note to the sitting and very courageous government of Honduras....

HOLD! HOLD! HOLD!



h/t to Gateway Pundit