Honduras to OAS: Stick it

If you haven't heard, on June 28, Manuel Zelaya, the president of Honduras, was ousted in a coup.

Obama, perhaps learning from his silence on Iran, was quick to condemn what happened. But he wasn't alone, the Organization of American States and the U.N. joined him. Among them was Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Fidel Castro...you know, people who absolutely hate the USA.

Obama backers have said that the reason Obama has been so quick to condemn the coup is because he needs to back the process of democracy.

Now the OAS has given the government of Honduras an ultimatum: reinstate Zelaya or get suspended from the organization.

The Honduran government didn't really like the idea of putting Manuel back in power, and apparently they don't care about suspension from the OAS, so they said no.

But who is this guy that Honduras got so fed up with, and why did Honduras get so fed up with him.

To start, Manuel Zelaya wasn't exactly the greatest leader. He was a puppet of Hugo Chavez, the United States' biggest opponent in Latin America (despite the anti-American left-wing book he gave to Obama as a gesture of good faith). He also tried to change the Constitution of the country. That's how Chavez has stayed in power and changed Venezuela, so I'm sure that's where Zelaya got the idea. In Honduras you can only be president for one four-year term.

I don't think he liked that. And despite a Supreme Court ruling that told him NO, you can't change the Constitution, he went and started the process anyway.

What a stand up guy that the White House and the rest of the world want back in office.

Okay, the guy was almost done with his term. But he was about to change the Constitution so he could run again, and that's why the Honduran Supreme Court ordered the military to get him out of office and out of the country.

I'm all for the process of democracy. And I think the White House is secretly happy with this. Roberto Micheletti isn't exactly the hope of Honduras, but the Honduran people will vote a new president into office this November, and whoever that is will be a whole lot easier to work with than Chav...oops, I meant Zelaya.

But here's an interesting fact: Chavez and Fidel Castro both warned Zelaya of a coup.

Anyway, Obama is right to support the process of democracy, but he shouldn't be endorsing reinstatement of Manuel Zelaya. He's a bad dude that wanted to copy in his country what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela, and that the White House doesn't need that to deal with on top of everything going on in this crazy mixed up world.

So who should we get to count all the American people? How about ACORN?

You may or may not know, but the Constitution requires the U.S. to take a census of the American people every ten years.

Next year makes 10. Of course the U.S. Census Bureau is gearing up for this massive task. But they're not gunning it alone. No sir, they're getting some help.

So who are they hiring? About 250 organizations including TARGET, the NAACP, and, oh yeah, that one organization that's accused of voter fraud!

Or ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), if you weren't exactly sure who I was talking about.

Okay, every single American should pretty much be opposed to ACORN having an "important role" in the 2010 U.S. census.

Why? For one, the U.S. Census is supposed to be politics-free. ACORN is extremely left-wing, and has a history of voter fraud! And these guys are gonna play an important role in counting all the American people? Yeah, that's not cool. These guys should be investigated, not helping out the government.

I'm not saying ACORN is going to totally screw up the census and we're gonna have a whole bunch of inaccurate numbers. I am saying why are you asking people with a history of voter fraud (which includes giving inaccurate numbers) to help with the census!

Ridiculous.

According to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the penalties for manipulating the numbers are pretty harsh. Up to five years of jail time, in fact. But Rep. Chaffetz had a good idea.

Why not just use the U.S. Postal Service. They wouldn't have to recruit 1.4 million temporary workers to go door to door. There are already people employed by the Federal Government who do that! Just use them.

Now hears the big deal about why I worry about ACORN helping with the census.

The census is used to determine the distribution of tax payer money and the apportionment of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives.

ACORN has a history of voter fraud. They've manipulated big numbers before. I'm not saying that they'll somehow influence the apportionment of seats in the House to push ahead their liberal, progressive agenda. I am asking why give someone that needs to be investigated for fraud a chance to do so?

Are Khamenei and Ahamdinejad getting the ax?

My last post showed you how Obama would have a back door to side with the protesters in Iran without actually coming out and specifically giving his support. His rhettoric got a little tougher on Iran today, but he's still being careful.

Unfortuanetly, Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader in Iran, has already been slamming Obama and accussing him of "meddling" in Iran's domestic affairs. And even though the world is condemning the use of violence by the Iranian government, it apparently doesn't really bother Khamenei or the hard-line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But despite all the violence, the people still protest.

Now the mullahs are considering removing Khamenei from his supreme leader status, or forcing the resignation of Mahmoud "I want to blow up Israel" Ahmadinejad in hopes of ending the protests. 'Cause it's not like the brutal crackdowns are working, right?

If it happens, a committee of religious leader would fill the vacant leadership spot that would be left by Khamenei.

The plan is still being thought over by the Assembly of Experts. If they decide to go ahead with the plan, what will they choose to do? Will they kick out the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, or force President Ahmadinejad out of office?

Personally, I hope they get rid of both. It would be good riddance to bad leadership if you ask me. It would make Iran a better, less crazy, and a less dangerous place. It would put Iran in a place where the government could acually have diplomatic talks with the Obama Administration that wouldn't be a total waste of time.

I doubt any members of the Assembly of Experts reads my blog. Oh well, I can still pray, right? And even though I pray to Jesus and not Allah, I think Jesus doesn't want Iran run by people who want to blow up Israel. They are His chosen people, after all.

The citizens in Iran obviously want a change in the leadership of their country. It all started with an election that wouldn't even make a whole lot of difference in the way their country was run. But when even that slightest shred of freedom was taken away from them, their movement escalated, and now the Iranian government will possibly get a much needed makeover.

Hopefully we'll soon see Khamenei and Ahmadinejad applying for work at the local McDonald's in Tehran.

Does Obama have back door into Iran? Actually, he just might...

We all know what's happening in Iran. A whole bunch of people in Iran are in the streets protesting against the elections which saw incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reclaim the Iranian presidency over the more moderate (not by a too much, however), and more popular challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Like most people, I think the election was a sham. It takes more than several hours to count millions of votes.

The supreme leader in Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, decided to recount some of the votes.

This, again, was more than likely another sham. He decided the original results would stand: Mahmoud Ahamdinejad won in a landslide.

But Iranian people weren't easily convinced. Taking to the streets in peaceful protests to fight for the slightest shred of freedom.

That didn't go over to well with Mr. Supreme Leader. So he decided to crack down on the protesters. Now there are quite a few casualties. And the only reason we know what's going on is because of the internet. All the journalists in Iran were "invited" to leave a while ago.

President Obama has condemned the violence, as he should, but has been pretty cautious, wanting to leave a door open for diplomatic talks.

With Iran close to going nuclear, and having a government whose authority has been questioned and shaken, diplomatic talks are pretty much hopeless.

Most conservatives think that Obama should now get tougher with his rhetoric, side with and give the moral support the protesters want from us, citing the fact that Iranians are making protest signs in English.

Most liberals think he is doing the right thing, not wanting the government in Iran to portray the protesters as tools of America, or as they like to call us, "The Great Satan."

So what is the leader of the free world to do?

How about find a back door?

This back door is in a pretty interesting place. Iraq, more specifically. His name is Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

But first, here's the way the leadership in Iran works is that it is run by a whole bunch of religious people. There is the Supreme Leader, the most powerful religious and political person in Iran. There's the Assembly of Experts (made up of Islamic scholars) which in theory oversees the office of supreme leader. Then there is the Guardian Council, which wields a whole lot of power. The interpret the constitution, supervise elections, approve presidential candidates and parliament members (disqualifying all reform politicians), and vetoing all laws made by parliament they don't care for.

These are the guys that run Iran. And the citizens in Iran are tired of them.

This type of leadership, a supreme leader with absolute authority based on his Islamic credentials, is rejected by most Muslims. In fact, only Iran does this.

Even Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeric, an influential and leading Muslim cleric in Iran and one-time appointed successor to the original supreme leader Ayatollah Kohmeini, has rejected it.

Enter the back door for President Obama.

Ayatollah Sistani is growing increasingly popular in Iran. He is a leading Shiite figure in Iraq but is Iranian by birth. He holds a lot of influence in Iran's most religious city, Qom, and lives in the city of Najaf, one of the holiest cities of Shi'ite Islam and the center of Shi'ite political power in Iraq. It's also a popular pilgrimage destination for Iranians

Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Sistani has advocated a political system run by secular leader inclusive of all faiths.

Obviously, Iran's clerical rule hasn't done too much good, even harming Islam. And the Iranian people realize that.

This is Obama's back door. This is his way to reach out to the people of Iran without giving the Iranian leadership ammunition for their propaganda.

He doesn't have to come out and side with the protesters. But he can send the protesters a subtle message saying that the United States stands with them in their fight for freedom by siding with Mr. Sistani, citing his background role as the top ayatollah helping secular democracy.

This is America's chance to help make a better Iran not run by crazy people that want nuclear weapons to blow up people that they don't like.

California keeps gay marriage banned

Remember Prop 8? Well, today it was upheld by the California Supreme Court.

But, all existing marriages from before the law took effect will stand.

Not surprisingly there was a lot of protesting going on, before and after the decision was made.

So the big question is: did the people have a right to change the State Constitution through the ballot box? The answer is yes, they absolutely did.

Now we're hearing people say that this is the rights of a minority being taken away by the majority.

Okay, they still have their 2nd amendment rights, so it's fine with me if they want to protest. They can do all the protesting they want.

In fact, the gay rights people plan to return as early as next year with a bid to get rid of prop 8.

Maybe California's constitution is too easy to change. Oh well, the people have a right to vote.

And when the will of the people is upheld, it means our government system is working.

So who's the real winner today? It's not the gay rights people, obviously. It's not the traditional marriage people (such as myself), because it's one small victory in this huge controversial issue that will be debated for a long time.

The real winner today is democracy. The people had a right. They voted. Their vote was upheld. It's called what? Oh yeah, I just said it. It's called democracy.

Obama at Notre Dame: Let's talk abortion shall we?

Today, Sunday, May 17, 2009, Barack Obama delivered a commencement address at Notre Dame.

Being that Notre Dame is a Catholic University and President Obama is pro-abortion, there were lots of protesters. A lot of them were even arrested. One of the protesters even called Obama a baby killer during the speech, but he was drowned out by the crowd's Obama-friendly chants.

But here are some of Mr. Obama's words on abortion he spoke today:

“I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.”

“Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

He also called for “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words.”

So what do I think of what Obama said? Because that is why you're reading this, right?

Well, I for one applaud the way President Obama handled himself. He did very well considering all the controversy and protesting that was going. Obama even strayed from prepared speech to address the words of a protester being led out by police.

But what about what he said today? What about that?

I think his words good. I even agree with him. Neither side of the abortion debate (as a whole) is going to change their views. The two sides are irreconcilable. However, that doesn't mean we need to ridicule those we disagree with.

So yeah, I agree with Obama's words. However, it is in theory that I agree with him.

Obama did say he wished that there were less abortions. It's a start for the president and the many pro-life Americans.

(And by the way, more Americans are pro-life than pro-choice for the first time in 10 years).

But take a look at his actions, not his words. He did away with and is looking to rewrite George W. Bush's conscience clause which protects Catholic hospitals, pro-life doctors and nurses who refuse to perform abortions because of their personal beliefs. That puts the previously mentioned people in a pretty rough spot.

But at least he did say we should reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, make adoption more available, and make more care more available for women who do carry their children to term.

Personally, I think Obama's actions don't back up his rhetoric. Hopefully, they will in the future. But I just can't help but be skeptical when he promises to honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion."

And here's the last thing to say about this. They call it "pro-life" for a reason.

Nancy Pelosi is fighting a losing battle...

Well, Nancy Pelosi is fighting a losing battle. In fact, a whole bunch of Democrats, you know, the ones in Congress going crazy over waterboarding, they're fighting a losing battle too.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is now claiming the CIA misled Congress about enhanced interrogation techniques, but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer won't back her claims.

And now they're saying that the CIA briefers may have broken the law.

'Democrats on the House intelligence committee said Thursday that CIA officers broke the law in 2002 if they told Nancy Pelosi then that they had not yet engaged in waterboarding.

“If they make a false report, absolutely it’s illegal,” said Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “If they fail to make a report when they’re obligated to that is also illegal - a violation of the National Security Act.”

Schiff said that the “question of recourse [against the CIA] has come up actually a number of times - not just in this context.” But he said it’s “very difficult because for one thing you can’t publicly disclose the information and to actually bring perjury charges or bring an action under the National Security Act without making it public is probably not possible.”'

Okay, so they're condemning the CIA saying, "if they did this, they broke the law." But here's the thing, no one has said the anyone did that. Now they come out and say if they did that, they broke the law.

Key word: if. No one's even said anything about it. And now they come up with this whole "if they did" thing.

The Democrats can't win this one. This fight won't satisfy them even if they could win. All they're doing is weakening our country's safety. Hopefully they'll just drop it before they get buried in facts and all the field agents that can't fully do their job and fear for their safety head for the exit sign. And that means a severe reduction in Human Intelligence. And by the way, a lack of Human Intelligence played a big part in the 9/11 attacks.

But what are the chances of the Democrats dropping this and doing something good for our country? I guess we can always pray for a miracle.