I am watching Lanny Davis on Democracy Now as I write these observations. He is saying that Zelaya was doing something illegal when he, Zelaya, sought to get the people's view concerning whether or not there should be a fourth ballot in the upcoming election where the question would be put to the people as to whether or not they wanted a Constitutional Convention (Constituent Assembly). Zelaya did nothing illegal in that. It was definitely not unconstitutional. Both the Honduran legislature and Supreme Court were totally wrong and acted against the Constitution in seeking to overthrow the duly elected President of Honduras. It was a fascistic coup by the economic elites backed by the military trained in America to repress the mass of the people of Honduras.

I don't like this Lanny Davis person. He's acting like a shyster. He said that Zelaya violated Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution. When this story was just breaking, I reserved judgment until I could determine the actually legal reasoning used to oust Zelaya. I did that. I read Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, and it did not render illegal anything that Zelaya did.

I don't like Lanny Davis' style, his twisting, his instant laughing at the truth that Zelaya was within the law when he moved to consult the whole population of voters in Honduras about whether they, not Lanny Davis and his rich owners/bosses, wanted to rewrite their constitution to make it more fair or just plain fair.

Lanny Davis is bought and paid for by those who are the greediest of the greedy in Honduras. He's bought and paid for to be obnoxious. He succeeds at it.

Lanny Davis holds out that the law, regardless of what the actual words say, is to be decided by the elites.

He kept using the expression "ideological rant" as if he wasn't there backing an ideology. He used it as pejorative weapon.

Davis puts forth the position that the Supreme Court, the anti-liberation theology Roman Catholic Church and certain legislators in the pocket of big money, including in the U.S. from where some 80% of Honduras whole national income derives, is not the business elite. He calls one speaking truth an ideologue. Well, there's an ideology of truth. Davis doesn't subscribe. He subscribes to getting paid huge sums to say what is worst for the people and to make it sound legal when it isn't.

Davis is so incredibly obnoxious. He tries to put words into Greg Grandin's mouth. He said that Grandin claimed that there is an impeachment article in the Honduran constitution when he did not say that. He also wouldn't allow Greg to respond when, he, Davis, insisted in jumping to some conclusion when Greg said that the Supreme Court's decision "was done retroactively." It would have been helpful had Davis simply asked for a clarification and not simply interrupting with "Take it back ... take it back ... take it back" every time Greg tried to take a breath to speak. It reminded me of a brat in the third grade. Honestly, I mean that.

As for Zelaya going into the Air Force base to retrieve the survey materials, I've written on that before. The President is the Commander and Chief of the Honduran military. The survey was not illegal. What Zelaya had on his hands was a constitutional crisis caused by clearly illegal, unconstitutional interpretations (convenient twisting) by the Supreme Court members who sided with the exploitation of the poor over the rule of law.

The 2000-some people who went with Zelaya to retrieve the materials that were being illegally withheld were acting completely in accordance with both the letter and spirit of the Honduran Constitution.

The fact of the matter is that Zelaya was legally right from the outset and those who are against the poor being lifted up were the ones who acted illegally across-the-board. Lanny Davis is their prostitute in Washington. He has sold his soul. He speaks as a serpent. That's a fact.

The Supreme Court of Honduras does not have the authority to make up law to then issue an arrest warrant to the army to arrest the President. They usurped authority not granted under the Constitution. The law expects that the Supreme Court will not turn a non-binding survey into an attempt at giving Zelaya another term in office when Zelaya would not even have been in office at the time of any constitutional convention. Anyone who can twist a non-binding survey into an attempt at grabbing another term in office is a flat out liar. Davis knows this but continues on as if he doesn't. He's paid to spin lies into doubt. There is no doubt. There was an illegal coup in Honduras.

The Congress can't vote to remove a President for illegal activities that were clearly not illegal.

Lanny Davis pretended to be keeping score on interrupting. His count was way off, not that that matters. He said he had interrupted twice, conveniently forgetting his "Take it back ... take it back ... take it back" every time Greg tried to speak to answer Davis's charge.

Wow, I really don't like listening to people with Davis's interjecting method that becomes nothing but a means to distract. It is so immature. I hate it. There's no spirit of truth in it. Interjecting isn't always wrong, but Davis showed how one is not to be.

Then Davis goes on to attack Amy Goodman in which Davis accused Amy of what she did not do. Davis had already mentioned a couple of time (maybe three) that the survey forms came from Venezuela. If Davis knew anything about Amy Goodman, he would realize that she never hides Hugo Chavez. She has interviewed him at least twice of which I'm aware, and she regularly features stories about him and how he figures into Latin American and global politics. She was not attempting to disconnect Zelaya from Chavez. She has shown them both together probably more than has any of the mainstream corporate media in the U.S.

Lanny Davis brings out the worst in people. He sets a terrible tone, and then attacks others when they fall to that awful tone.

He did not help his cause or himself with the Democracy Now viewers. I can tell you that. They will see through all his neocon tactics in a flash. He's going to be raked over the coals for his interview that he mistakenly imagines, smugly, that he handled so well. It was a disaster for him, and he doesn't even know what a poor job he did.

I'm not saying that Amy and Greg handled it as well as they could have. I do though sympathize at being literally subjected to Davis's style that he employs to cover up for his lack of meaningful or honest content.

Lanny Davis is an apologist for the Washington Consensus and neoliberal economics of exploitation.

I trust Greg Grandin will go back over Davis's statements point-by-point and will pick him apart in a thoroughly documented article in the not-to-distant future. I look forward to reading it.

I doubt very seriously if Davis would agree to come back on to have to eat his words challenging Greg to show where the State Department said the Honduran Supreme Court is corrupt. Of course, knowing Davis's style, he'd reject every synonym for corrupt.

Davis clearly did not know that Democracy Now viewers are often sticklers for detail. They remember that Oscar Arias said that Zelaya had accepted while the coupsters had rejected. Frankly, there should be no compromise with illegal coupsters. There should only be peaceful means to achieve. There should be no compromise with the devil. Zelaya has spoken strongly about peaceful means, but he should not have offered to compromise.

May God bless Lanny Davis with the truth. He doesn't have it know. He's dead of the Holy Spirit.

Posts covering Honduras


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Lanny Davis: Propagandist for Honduras Ruling Class and the Clintons

      What is great about this interaction between Davis and Grandin is the fact that Davis was dragged out into the open and revealed for the propagandist that he is.

      One important thing to understand is how intimately connected Davis is to Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton. The September 3, 1998 New York Times article, "PUBLIC LIVES; Public Defender of a High-Profile Private Life" indicate Hillary and Davis have known each other since their days at Yale Law School in the late 1960s where apparently Hillary was an intimate confidante of Davis. Now that Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State, the presence of Davis managing her crisis in Honduras as a "private citizen" and propagandist for the Honduran ruling class business elites is not in the least surprising. Davis has managed sensitive crises for the Clinton's in the past -- Davis was Bill Clinton's White House Counsel and defender during the days of the Clinton's scandal and personal crisis involving Monica Lewinski.

      It is also important to look more closely at the background of someone like Davis who, in the "debate" with Grandin, nearly foams at the mouth calling Grandin a liar and Amy Goodman a propagandist. As to liars, Davis ran for Congress in 1976 as a Democrat from Maryland's 8th congressional district. He won the Democratic nomination, but after a major scandal over his lying about his academic record at Yale Law School, he lost to the Republican candidate. According to National Review Online from August 13, 2004, referring to Lanny Davis, (quote) [The Washington Post, December 21, 1996] He won the 1976 Democratic primary and was neck and neck with Republican Newton Steers until a controversy erupted over the portrayal of Davis's academic record in a campaign brochure. Davis claimed he had graduated from Yale Law School cum laude — a designation the school didn't award in 1970, the year he finished. (end quote).

      As to Davis as a propagandist, the National Review Online article continues (quote) And if you think Lanny often sounds like a door-to-door Amway salesman, there's a reason for it. The same Post article teaches us: After he narrowly lost a 1976 House race, Davis, 51, began evangelizing for the motivational door-to-door distribution company, which markets everything from toothpaste to telephone service. A prominent Maryland lawyer-lobbyist, who refused to speak for attribution, recalled that Davis once invited him to lunch to discuss a "business opportunity." "We didn't order yet when he started talking, and it was like a switch went on," the lobbyist recounted. "He asked, 'Are you interested in making more money?' Well, what lawyer isn't? 'Do you want to be in control of your destiny?' And I go, 'Wait a minute, Lanny — is this an Amway pitch?' (end quote)

      To all the world, Davis sounded in the Democracy Now "debate" as if he was out of control, perhaps similar to what Davis said about himself and his mental health in the above mentioned New York Times article: (quote) "Nonetheless Mr. Davis said he is concerned about his well-being because ''I have pushed myself mentally and physically to a point where I think it was beyond healthy.'' (end quote)

      President Obama could give Davis a long-needed vacation from the evidently overwhelming stress of his job as a highly-paid propagandist and waterboy for Secretary of State Clinton by coming out in a crystal clear fashion (no more meely mouthed statements, please, Mr. Obama) in declaring, as he did in the beginning, the coup a coup, the Micheletti government as illegitimate, and taking actions which would drive the military backed Honduran government out of office and allow the return of Zelaya. That way Davis could get back to selling Amway or what ever kind of hype he is selling when he is not selling military coups and human rights abuses in Honduras.

      David Brookbank

      "Hasta donde debemos practicar las verdades?"

      • Hello David Brookbank,

        For those who are interested:
        September 3, 1998 New York Times article, "PUBLIC LIVES; Public Defender of a High-Profile Private Life."

        The next time Davis is interviewed by anyone interested in restoring Zelaya without compromising with evil, Davis should be asked who his connection is inside the Sate Department. His team has discussed with the State Department team on some level? What is that level? Allowing Davis to simply say that he hasn't spoken directly to Hillary or Barack is misleading the gullible and naive.

        Regardless, those he represents are in direct discussions with the State Department and others (Pentagon, CIA). They have been parroting Davis's counsel — very bad advice that will come back to haunt them all.

        I remember Davis from the Monica Lewinski scandal. What a mess that was. What a load of hypocrisy it was too on the parts of so many Republicans, not that Bill was right. He wasn't, far from it. (Unfaithful in that, unfaithful in much else. Unfaithful to your wife, unfaithful to the American people.) Look at what Bill Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council approach did vis-a-vis NAFTA and so many other things. He was really just a slightly more moderated Reagan.

        He's actually much cozier with the two Bush former-Presidents than he is close to Jimmy Carter. It's not difficult to see why, and that's not Carters fault (even though Jimmy would admit to his own lapses in judgment).

        Let's not forget that Reagan pulled the October Surprise on Carter, who otherwise would have been a two-term president. Reagan was a traitor under the mundane law and got in via a coup against Carter. The families of the Iranian hostages talked about suing Reagan over that treacherous deal with the Iranians for arms that turned into the Iran-Contra scandal in the end too.

        Oh, the spider webs that Reagan and the Reaganites wove.... They are very much in the spirit of Erik Prince (the Oliver North of his day) and his Blackwater, a telling and apt name.

        Davis claimed he had graduated from Yale Law School cum laude — a designation the school didn't award in 1970, the year he finished. (end quote).

        I'd have to look at it directly. I have stated on the record that I graduated "summa cum laude equivalent." If it had not been for a block on awarding summa cum laude to those who transfer from one university to another in Arizona at the time, my cumulative GPA, if calculated correctly, would have garnered summa cum laude. I say, "calculated correctly" because part of my record includes a mess caused by a community college I attended. All the courses I audited there showed up as incompletes and such. When I went back to Phoenix Colleges' administration to get it cleaned up, they told me that they didn't retain the records showing how I had enrolled in those courses under the selection of "audit." So, without looking at what Lanny Davis was doing when his campaign claimed "cum laude," I must reserve judgment.

        As for Amway, well, I tried Shaklee once myself. I chose them because they were environmentally conscious. I actually thought their water filtration systems were the best I could find. I converted 10 of them to purifiers and sold them. I also used their natural antibacterial detergent to wash the kid's diapers too (yes cloth). We weren't interested in filling the landfill and couldn't afford biodegradable disposables. Wow, could I ever fold diapers and change them quickly after a while. I was between jobs and took what I could.

        I don't know that we should condemn everyone who ever went the Amway route. Not everyone scrambling under this wicked capitalist system has the time or resources to dig into the evil at the top. Frankly, since the whole system is evil, anyone working anywhere within it is living in the Satan-dominated world. That's why all knowledgeable Christians know that the god of this worldly world is the satanic spirit. Take that as literally or figuratively as you are given to receive it, but it's true. I speak in Biblical terms and worldly terms to try to bridge the gap so that soul might cross over. The way is still narrow though — very narrow.

        Oh, I also tried door-to-door sales for Kirby when I was around 18 if memory serves. That didn't last too long because the sales leads were diminishing due to the women's liberation movement sending so many women into the job market. Now it takes two bread winners to lose a home. The rabid capitalists call that progress.

        The Shaklee and Kirby attempts were long before I converted, of course. Even now though, I am still forced to work for the dreaded mammon. Even Jesus had to get it from the mouth of the fish. Do you know the story? Think about it.

        As much as I find Davis's style akin to fingernails on the chalkboard, I still consider him a human being who could yet see the light.

        I do sympathize and empathize with his statement, ''I have pushed myself mentally and physically to a point where I think it was beyond healthy." I've been there.

        You are right that Davis is selling an illegal coup and human rights abuses in Honduras. It's not good, and he should stop. His soul is on the line right along with Micheletti's.

        Peace to you, David.