Required reading on Honduras
Maybe President Obama can find a moment in his busy day to take a look at this WSJ piece, wherein new Honduran president Roberto Micheletti gives the former constitutional law lecturer a Con Law lesson.
Read the whole thing; it’s well worth it. But here’s a brief excerpt [emphasis mine]:
Like America, our constitutional democracy has three co-equal and independent branches of government””a fact that Mr. Zelaya ignored when he openly defied the positions of both the Supreme Court and Congress. But we are ready to continue discussions once the Supreme Court, the attorney general and Congress analyze President Arias’s proposal. That proposal has been turned over to them so that they can review provisions that impact their legal authority. Once we know their legal positions we will proceed accordingly.
The Honduran people must have confidence that their Congress is a co-equal branch of government. They must be assured that the rule of law in Honduras applies to everyone, even their president, and that their Supreme Court’s orders will not be dismissed and swept aside by other nations as inconvenient obstacles.
Prominent among those “other nations,” of course, is our own, to Obama’s unending shame. Perhaps lawyer and Con Law scholar Obama might some day be able to articulate the reasons why he felt the need to so flagrantly ignore the rule of law and distort the facts in Honduras. Till then, I suppose we’ll just have to guess.
Similar to the Gates episode Obama, having remarked ‘stupidly’ and before he had all the facts, will not admit it unless forced to by public opinion and even then will not really apologize or change his mind, or actions. His ego is too big.
Tim P: It’s worse than that. He had all the facts. Obama’s policy was no error; it was intentional.
The link to the Annaeberg Political Fact check . org contains this statement, in support of how valuable the UC Law School considered “professor” Obama’s service:
“Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
Being a full, tenured Professor, at most substantial Universities, is something like being a bird Colonel; salary and administration put one into the General status. Being a Senior Lecturer, rather than plain Lecturer, means one has served long, kept the students happy, and saved the real Professors a lot of scut work. It still pays a lot less, no job guarantee.
Being offered a “tenure track position” means being offered an Assistant Professor position, most of which are “up or out,” with publication and “national recognition” being much more important than teaching (granted, student evaluations can destroy).
One problem … one very serious problem, apparently, for Obama. There is very little if any record of his actually producing “research” or “scholarly” papers/books/invited lectures/etc in his “academic” career.
Put it another way, “damned with faint praise.”
Some of us still think paying one’s dues is still a predictor of future competence, if not a guarantee.
As I’ve said:
a) Obama had less experience than anybody on the GOP ticket.
b) Obama had less of a prescription (the virus) for the economy than anybody on the GOP ticket
The adoration showered on him by the Press should teach everybody a lesson about how the press operates.
John McCain and Sarah Palin would NOT have worked to get Zelaya back in power. I can assure you that. If so, we would’ve ripped into that position.
Pingback:Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » Honduras claims that FARC is financing Zelaya
its the parallels with america and the fact that it offers the american people the hope of cleaning out the house of the pests and still having the same republic for us left thereby insuring that the people forever make kings into clerks for salary.
The fact that both Barack and Hillary appear to be backing the radical left wing regimes in Central and South America leaves no room for doubt about their agenda. It is a truly frightening departure from the defense of our republic and the rule of law established in our Constitution.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99NJ8R80&show_article=1
Here’s some more required reading. Looks like our government is siding with those who would welcome socialism or worse in Honduras.
Guard your home copy of the Constitution. Don’t be surprised if the original disappears from the National Archives.
Neo,
NEW information on Honduras
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/28/AR2009072802977_pf.html
I have been so flabbergasted by the reaction of the Obama Administration to what is happening in Honduras. What’s worse is the lack of press coverage except by the WSJ. I have tried to promote info among my circles about what is happening and get mostly a big, fat yawn in return. Most people just don’t care, and I cannot fathom why not. Is it so inconceivable that our president might have goals of up-ending or just plain ending our Constitution as well?
Okay, so beyond the very comforting words left here on this site and on the Fausta blog, not too many people seem to see what Obama’s position might mean. Certainly, I don’t want to think our president supports socialist dictatorship, but what choice does he leave for us? He IS supporting socialist dictatorship. I guess there is room for pandering to Chavez in a misguided attempt to be an “amigo”, which would be inane beyond belief. Or he actually supports socialist dictatorship. So what does that mean for the United States? Nothing good, that is for sure.
I wish we could come up with some other reason for Obama’s position – BUT THERE IS NONE.