“America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor would we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country.”

– Chairman Obama

Unless, apparently, when it comes to anti-Semite fascist buddies of his.

And then there’s this:

Revolutionary Anti-Semitism

The Honduras debate is not really about Honduras. It is about whether it is possible to stop the spread of chavismo and all it implies, including nuclear proliferation and terrorism in Latin America. Most troubling is the unflinching support for Mr. Zelaya from President Barack Obama and Democratic Sen. John Kerry—despite the Law Library of Congress review that shows that Mr. Zelaya’s removal from office was legal, and the clear evidence that he is Mr. Chávez’s man in Tegucigalpa. On Thursday, Mr. Kerry took the unprecedented step of trying to block a fact-finding mission to Honduras by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who is resisting Mr. Obama’s efforts to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574451341698592458.html

So it seems to me, ghillie, that you support anti-Semitism and hate speech.

No where in their constitution does it talk about curfews, media closures and the like
- interesting how you all ignore that…

Neither does the US Constitution, but when faced with insurrection, Lincoln imposed all of the above.

Why? Because Zelaya wanted to hold a vote.

A vote directly forbidden by the Honduras constitution.

While I disagree with congress-critters going to terror sponsoring nations (Syria, Iraq etc.) contra (pun intended) the US government’s status on that nation, I have to agree with you, they should be able.

So yes, frak the Logan act.

Me, I’m just happy Congress got it right.

Why do you hate free people, Gillie?

Foreign policy is not the exclusive province of the president, but negotiating and representing Americas official position to foreign entities is.

Uh, not really. Leaving this stuff to the president alone is just the habitual default.

Messrs. Demint, Schock, Roskam, and Lamborn should feel free to discuss their thoughts on the current situation with Honduran officials, including what they are prepared to do as members of Congress to oppose any actions taken by the Obama administration.

What’s more, the Logan Act, the law since John Adams was president, makes it a felony for Americans unauthorized by the President to negotiate with foreign governments.

The Logan Act? An absurdly broad and vague act created to forbid activities like the perfectly successful mission of Dr. Logan to France? (I am not a fan of the Federalists, so it is unsurprising that I think very little of the Logan Act. )

To be blunt: Fuck the Logan Act.

look for liberals to be WAILING and gnashing their teeth about the Logan Act no matter what those Republicans do. In fact, I bet they are screaming about it already.

So what? If the Republicans and conservatives are willing to shut up about the Logan Act they can freely ignore their opponents’ screams about it.

Ah, I’m so torn on this. I completely disagree and am horrified with the Obama administration’s actions and statements regarding Honduras, but I didn’t support political types traveling to other countries for reasons that undermined the Bush administration’s decisions and I can’t support it now.

I see that my post at #3 was in vain. Alas!

What one thought of the undermining of Bush foreign policy decisions has nothing to do with the present situation. Every policy of any president should be viewed on its own merits. And the bad ones deserve to be undermined.

If you approve of the Obama administrations actions regarding Honduras, then by all means oppose any and all attempts to to counteract them. If you disapprove of the administration’s behavior, however, it is the utmost in foolishness to worry about how other politicians might undermine it.

I will concede this point of yours: Yes, the facts and the Constitution (this time of Honduras) ARE my talking points. Do you bring anything to the table to refute them?

I know it must be challenging that the State Department and Administration are so reticent to discuss this matter that they haven’t fed you anything to use in an argument. You’re going to have to rely on your own ability to reason (as it may be).

Caution, though: You may (if you try really hard!) actually come to a conclusion of your own without Big Brother (and Sister in this case) holding your hand. And *DANGER!* that conclusion may just be that they’re *GASP* wrong this time.

Good luck with that. That uncomfortable feeling you’re experiencing is called growing pains. Enjoy 3 and a half more difficult years. You’ll not be alone.

Please refute the facts shown here.

Regards,
Nick

Second no where does their constitution say that military/congress is the arbritator and enforcer of the constitutition.

Your zany right wing talking poitns have arleady been disproved.
I am suprised you have not got an updated version.
http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

Strange, Nick, but I do not recall the Constitution stating that foreign policy is the exclusive province of the President any more than domestic policy is.

Foreign policy is not the exclusive province of the president, but negotiating and representing Americas official position to foreign entities is. What’s more, the Logan Act, the law since John Adams was president, makes it a felony for Americans unauthorized by the President to negotiate with foreign governments.

Fact finding missions or junkets are another matter and are perfectly within congress’ rights.

So it all depends on what they do and say and to whom. But still, look for liberals to be WAILING and gnashing their teeth about the Logan Act no matter what those Republicans do. In fact, I bet they are screaming about it already.

And I still maintain that Aaron Schock is a hottie.

The Honduran congress approved the action as well.

The ONLY one who has behaved unlawfully is your wannabe dictator, Zelaya and your Thug in Chief supports him.

Why? Because Zelaya wanted to hold a vote…that he did not have the constitutional power to call for, and a vote that would have been in direct and flagrant violation of the clear language of the Honduran Constitution.

There, Gilltard, fixed it for you.

Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution reads:

Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

Why? Because Zelaya wanted to hold a vote.

Pretty much everyone in Honduras supported removing him. Hell, even his OWN PARTY supported removing him from office. Only the Zelayaistas oppose it.

Why on earth would “gay” “activists” be marching in support of a Chavez-, Castro-, Che- type criminal Zelaya?

Could it be they’re LEFTIST “activists” instead? Believe me, gays (and everybody else) would fare far worse under a thugocratic Chavista regime.

Perhaps you’re lost because you haven’t been paying attention.
Please read up on the situation (hint, Zelaya violated the Constitution and thereby forfeited his position as president) and come back to the conversation.

Your non-sequitur about “GLBT” “rights” is a distraction.