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 Arcticle 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 Arcticle 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.
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 of 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)