OBAMA ON HONDURAS AND ZELAYA: FOOT DRAGGING
While in Russia, Obama said, "We do so [support Zelaya's restoration] not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not." (Source: "Ousted Zelaya gets unlikely US support")
Well, okay, but do you agree with him about giving more power to the lower classes, which the upper class seeks to deny them?
Here's an article with valuable insight. "A Coup is Not a Coup. A Not-Coup is a Coup," by Kevin Coleman."
He raised the minimum wage, gave out free school lunches, provided milk for the babies and pensions for the elderly, distributed energy-saving light bulbs, decreased the price of public transportation, made more scholarships available for students.
Those are the actions of the so-called would-be dictator, Zelaya, according to Alejandra Fernandez of Honduras. ("A Class Struggle Unfolds: High Stakes in Honduras," by Benjamin Dangl. Counter Punch. July 8, 2009.)
When Zelaya attempted to land at the airport in Honduras, many people braved the military and police to be there to give support to Zelaya. The people were peacefully assembled. Two of unarmed, peaceful demonstrators were shot dead in Honduras by the Honduran military. One of them was named Isis Obed Murillo. There is no doubt that it was the Honduran military that committed the murders.
Why is Latin America full of news coverage about this with videos and photos but the U.S. only seems to care about Neda Agha Soltan in Iran? That's easy. Iran has oil and gas reserves and stands in the way of Greater Israel, so Neda matters while Isis Obed Murillo isn't worth the coverage. In fact, the fascists in Israel (just as the fascists of the Roman Catholic Church lined up with the elitists in Honduras) are the enemies of the populists in Latin America.
Iran is strategically located on the World Island right in the middle of the Great Game. It's a center piece on the Grand Chessboard of the global imperialists under so-called real politics.
What's Honduras? Honduras will surprise. Zelaya is no slouch. Contrary to popular misinformation, he ran as a populist; and he's going to return as a populist.
If Obama had moved immediately to denounce the coup and to cut off funding, perhaps the two dead would still be alive. It's likely.
The deaths are far from all that has gone on. People have been beaten up and arrested. Their freedom of speech and of the press have been denied them. Communication networks have been shut down.
So, what is the difference between this and what happened in Iran? The Anglo-American-Israeli Empire has not been threatening to attack Honduras is one thing. Also, rather than having an Islamic theocracy in place, Honduras had Zelaya in place doing the things Alejandra Fernandez of Honduras said as quoted above.
I believe Iran is very focused on developing this capability [nuclear weapons], and I think when they get it, or should they get it, it will be very destabilizing.
That was Mike Mullen speaking to the Center for Strategic and International Studies on July 7, 2009. Mullen is the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, making him the highest-ranking, uniformed, military officer in the U.S. Empire. He's an admiral.
So Mullen, on what do you base your stated belief that Iran is very focused on developing nuclear weapons? You're all talk. You're full of hot air. You haven't a shred of evidence anywhere to support your allegation. Of course, what does one expect coming from a Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff? He wouldn't be the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff unless he were a brownnoser to the AIPAC and all the other neocon, false-Zionists entities in the Empire.
The last Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace, who at all bucked them was ousted pronto. He was forced into retirement. Pace didn't go along with homosexuality or torture and he didn't exactly walk the party line concerning the Iranians supplying the Iraqi insurgents. He suspected it but wouldn't speak of it as if the U.S. had proof.
Did the Honduran right decide without Obama to execute the coup? Did reactionaries in the U.S. put them up to it? Let's see what Obama and Hillary Clinton do. It's still early in the game.
Of course, with a President that wants to maintain as much or more secrecy as did George W. Bush, except when it suit him to leak, and with a president who is killing people left and right in Afghanistan and Pakistan via predator drones (an estimated 80 people in a couple of days in Pakistan alone), who can trust him?
Having Oscar Arias act as an intermediary between Zelaya and Micheletti is a bad idea. The U.S. President should review the case from a purely legal standpoint and then stand with what is right. I researched the issue and determined that Zelaya was not doing what Micheletti has claimed. Micheletti's side has fabricated the claim out of nothing. They've done a terribly transparent thing. It's clearly an illegal coup. Obama should have stood up early. He rather engaged in foot dragging as if his resources could tell him instantly what really happened. Many people suspect Obama knew about the coup before it happened and is simply back peddling on account of the overwhelming global reaction to this easily proven coup.
Of course, Obama has simply been being true to form.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)