I received a reply to my previous post, from a gentleman named RightKlik, which I think deserves an appropriate response. Here is what Mr. RightKlik (Is that a Latvian name?) had to say:
"Is the author of this post willfully ignorant or deliberately deceitful? Unfortunately, it appears to be the latter.
Want to know what's messed up about Obama's Honduras policy? Read this.
This is an issue on which the left and the right should be able to agree."
Where to start? Well, how about examining the source that Mr. RightKlik sent me to. It is an article by (I am sorry to have to say) one of the most unapologetic and unskilled liars on the face of the earth (i.e. a Republican) by the name of Neil Boortz. Here it is with (I think you will agree) appropriate exegesis by Mr. Green Eagle:
" * Mel Zelaya is, or was, the President of Honduras."
Can't argue with you so far, Neil.
"* Zelaya has close ties with Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez."
Maybe. So what? Unlike the Honduran military junta, Hugo Chavez also happens to be a legally elected head of state.
"* Zelaya emulated his buddy Hugo by attempting to change the Honduran constitution to allow him to hold office indefinitely."
This is, of course questionable. It is true that Zelaya tried to hold a nonbinding referendum to determine if the Honduran people would like to change the constitution. In the first place, it is questionable whether that constitutes actually trying to change the constitution, or even if it did, whether it is really a sufficiently serious matter to justify a military coup. (I don't think so. Actually, I think he'd have to do something a lot worse than that, to condemn his people to living in a dictatorship) Nevertheless, it must be noted that the referendum would not have taken place until after Zelaya's term, and would therefore not apply to him. So this was not an attempt by Zelaya to stay in power.
"* Zelaya's outrageous and brazen attempt to change the constitution by calling for a referendum was unconstitutional, but with some material support from Chavez, Zaleya was able to create a political crisis."
Have you read the Honduran constitution, Mr. RightKlik? I have. Several times. I believe that this referendum does not constitute a violation of it; and even in the strictest reading, it is a very minor violation. Now, Boortz's mention of Chavez is of course utterly irrelevant, and is only right wing pandering.
And the "political crisis" was caused not by Zelaya, but by a military coup.
"* In accordance with the rule of law, and with the overwhelming support of the Honduran people, the Honduran Supreme Court ruled Zaleya's efforts illegal and unconstitutional."
I've spoken about the law. The line about the overwhelming support of the Honduran people is just one more right wing lie, supported by no factual evidence whatever.
" * The court issued an order to the Honduran military telling them not to do the logistical work associated with Zelaya's phony referendum.
* Zaleya and his cronies distributed phony ballots to the masses."
This is a load of hooey, i.e. one more right wing lie. And so what? Does this act by Zelaya justify enslaving the Honduran people to a dictator? Come on. Who could be stupid or vicious enough to believe that?
" * Zelaya was arrested by the military and was escorted out of the country."
Well, that part is true. There's democracy in action, huh?
Now, let's look at things as they stand now.
Zelaya's infraction against the Honduran constitution: trying to hold a non-binding popular referendum.
The new government's infractions against the Honduran constitution: Doing away with freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of movement around the country, and authorizing the police to use violence to enforce the will of the new government. And that's just this month.
There's a name for that sort of thing: a military dictatorship. So, Mr. RightKlik, you have taken it upon yourself to use a technicality to justify the replacement of a legally elected government with a vicious, repressive military dictatorship. That is what you believe in, and that's what kind of person you are- a filthy, unapologetic would be fascist, without a shred of moral decency; an example of the lowest form of human being, and exactly the kind of person who would have proudly marched behind Hitler, and done his bidding. You are subhuman vermin with no shred of conscience nor concern for anything but your own self interest. Despite the mockery of patriotism which undoubtedly rolls easily from your lips, you are willingly and deliberately casting your lot with those who would be happy to see a dictatorship in this country, and if the time comes when you attempt to make your dreams real, the decent people of this country are going to stamp you out without a second thought.
You have the nerve to say, "This is an issue on which the left and the right should be able to agree."
If there is an issue on which left and right should be able to agree, it is that a military dictatorship is not an acceptable form of government. But apparently not. Dictatorship is something which you yearn for in your evil heart, but we will not let you have it.
P.S.- Derek, in case you have read this far, this is a sample of how I treat conservatives that I don't like. Just thought you would like to know.
P.P.S- Oh yeah, and Michigan State knocked off Michigan. That should have brought a little smile to your face.