Tag Archives: Manuel Zelaya

OH GOD, NO: Is Obama Going To Be A Third Term President?

bho-numbers-500x280Originally posted at CLASH Daily

America is already well aware that for Hillary Clinton, who many think is “the smartest woman in the world,” it’s difficult to keep track of minor details like a philandering husband and confidential emails.

Much like Hillary, Barack Obama, the “smartest person in the room,” is also super-intelligent, which is why he may struggle with things like simple math.

Take for instance, back in 2008 when Obama informed Americans that there were seven extra states in the union, all of which he believed he had visited. He even believed he had one left to go. This may be because Obama really does possess the power to “slow the rise of the oceans” and “heal the planet,” so counting states may be too trivial an endeavor.

Either way, Obama’s latest number fumble came a couple of days after exhibiting a very shaky grasp of economics at the State of the Union address. This time, the president, who has been busy “fundamentally transforming” our “fundamentally flawed” Constitution for the last 8-years, added 10-years to America’s age.

Rather than July 4th, 1776, according to Obama, the birth of America occurred in 1766.

In addition to revising our nation’s birthday, while appearing at the University of Omaha in Omaha, Nebraska the president also rewrote a few other things when he said: “Just as all this talk about how the American economy is terrible is just not true, it’s also not true when you hear folks talking about how America’s so weak.”

Obama went on to elevate himself by ridiculing Republicans for being less than enthusiastic about his many other accomplishments such as his having made America, “far and away the most powerful nation on the planet.”

Meanwhile, on a more serious note, as Obama was busy taking credit for America being the “most powerful nation on the planet,” 10 American sailors were being humiliated by Iran on the deck of an apprehended naval ship.

Nonetheless, the president proceeded to rebuke Republicans and educate detractors about America’s strength, explaining we are who we are, “because the United States of America, for two hundred, err – 50 – years, has been working to make us the strongest.”

Huh?

Wait! In fairness, during America’s bicentennial celebration, which took place in 1976, Barack Obama was only 15-years-old, going by the name Barry Soetoro, and was still living in Indonesia. That may be why Obama believes our nation, which is approaching its 240th birthday, is really 250-years of age. Or maybe little Barry tends to use some kind of Indonesian form of common core math.

Another possibility could be that the former Constitutional law professor is cognizant of something our Founding Fathers didn’t know, either that, or he and his Choom Gang really did tour those 9 states in his Choom Wagon during the decade no one else knew existed.

And while all this misperception could be benign, if Obama continues to fumble around with numbers, there is a dilemma America could encounter in the months ahead.

The red flag went up when an acolyte in the adoring University of Omaha crowd shouted out to Obama: “Four more years!”

The president responded to the suggestion: “I can’t do that because of the Constitution” (which he’s been defying and demeaning for two terms). Then Obama followed up with: “And I can’t do that because Michelle would kill me!”

Here’s the problem: In 2009, deposed president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya sought to rewrite the Honduran constitution’s term limit provision so he could stay in office, something the Honduran constitution prohibited. At the time, newly-elected Barack Obama, who, as we can see, has the propensity to add additional numbers to everything, called for “democratic order” to be restored by supporting Zelaya’s defiance to the Honduran constitution.

Now Barack Obama, who has already proven he can’t count, is reassuring America that after eight years he plans to leave? Don’t count on it.

Hair, Hens and Ratatouille

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

At Stone Barns Centre in Pocantico Hills, New York, while playing hostess to “spouses of heads of government attending the United Nations General Assembly,” America’s “accidental fashionista” Michelle Obama came face to hair with the  “la banane” (the banana) icon of Cameroon, Chantal Biya.

Many of the ladies attended Mrs. Obama’s luncheon dressed in traditional garb. However, Chantal chose a fuchsia pant suit, sky-high heels and an over-the-top, candy-corn orange, Marie Antoinette hairdo.  If height includes hair and heels, Chantal measured close to 6’4”.

The word bouffante is derived from bouffer: “to swell up or puff out” and there was no denying Chantal’s hair was inflated almost as wide as Michelle’s poufy crinoline under her “floral-and foliage-themed” Tracy Feith print dress.

Dutiful First Lady Michelle diplomatically bussed Chantal on the cheek, ignored the coif and overlooked the fact that Mrs. Biya’s husband Paul “has been ranked one of the four worst dictators in sub-Saharan Africa and one of the world’s worst 20.”

Biya, in power since 1982, obviously felt, just as Obama feels about the U.S. Constitution, that the Cameroonian charter was “fatally flawed.” Consequently, Biya pulled a Manuel Zelaya and rewrote the document to “allow him to rule for life.”

Autocratic tyranny and Crayola®-colored “mango tango” hair aside, Michelle treated all the ladies “to a seasonal lunch featuring bounty from the farm and the White House garden.” After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for the “destruction of Israel” and intimated that Americans were “behind the Sept. 11 terror attacks,” Michelle felt it best to lighten the mood by sharing stories about mozzarella and heirloom tomatoes.

The object of the ladies’ luncheon/lecture was not to judge illegal elections, despotism, human rights abuses or repressive regimes, or even to swap hairdresser stories with Chantal Biya. Michelle Obama’s heartfelt intention was to take the healthy initiative global and to showcase “sacher tortes…red jacket apricots and White House honey sorbet.”

Who better than a rapt international sisterhood from Cameroon, Mongolia, Swaziland and Latvia could endure Michelle jabbering on about “French fries…ketchup… ‘hair’ tomatoes and pesto sandwiches?”

America’s first hostess kept Turkish First Lady Hayrunnisa Gul, United Nations Secretary-General’s wife Ban Soon-taek, and Republic of Kiribati First Lady Meme Tong, as well as the always “colorful” and vivacious Chantal Biya “Let’s Move“-moving before lunch.

In addition to a tour of the farm, while teetering on stilettos Bouffant Biya and company were subjected to an excursion to the hen house and a stroll up a dusty dirt path.

Michelle instructed the ladies on why “Many kids may never learn that ketchup comes from a tomato and French fries from a potato…because they’re disconnected from the food they eat” after which a Chantel tried to relate Michelle’s French fry lesson to Cameroonian ndolé while Hayrunnisa  frantically scanned the table for kisir.

Michelle ended with a tutorial on sustainable farming, as well as the benefits of locally grown herbs. Immediately following, Stone Barn Center’s chef and co-owner Dan Barber and three White House chefs served the exhausted ladies a lunch of “sun gold tomatoes from the White House Kitchen Garden, eggs harvested minutes earlier from the farm’s chickens, and chicken with eggplant and ratatouille – also from the White House garden.”

A good time was had by all, and Chantal Biya even managed to eat the entire meal without getting ratatouille in her flowing locks. With any luck, next year Cameroon’s First Lady for Life may be able to convince Mahmoud’s wife to attend the 2011 ladies’ luncheon, especially if Michelle manages to secure a banquet room at the new Cordoba Mosque.

Latin American Lessons Learned

Slide1In a representative democracy fear of displeasing those who have the power to keep you in office was once a deterrent for politicians.  In America the voice of a largely center right majority served to dissuade politicians from moving the pendulum too far left.

Following the Republican Revolution in the 1990’s even Bill Clinton was intelligent enough to shift to the center. Under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, the Republican Party won control of both houses of Congress, sending a clear signal to a Democratic president to align with public opinion or suffer the embarrassing fate of serving one term.

Presently, we have a Chief Executive whose daily actions and statements are only surpassed by the absurdity of what he says or does the following day.  Actually, the more the public rejects a particular policy the more Obama insists on imposing it.  Barack Obama’s hard left; liberal initiatives are worrisome.  But, even more disturbing is Obama’s lack of trepidation concerning the consequences of implementing policy in spite of public objection.

Suffering “…the worst third quarter decline in public approval rating of any elected president in the post-World War II era,” Obama audaciously remains determined to inflict socialistic policy on a nation with strong opposition to everything from stimulus to universal health care. Undeterred by the gallows of Election Day, Obama forges ahead, caring little about the result of continued diminished popularity.

The President of the United States might as well be robbing houses in broad daylight.  Begging the question, why is Barry such a risk taker?

Take for example, at the Summit of the Americas, rather than avoiding tyrants, Obama specifically sought an encounter with Dictator Hugo Chávez’.  And why not, Barack Obama and Chávez’, together with Honduran President Zelaya are ideological amigos? Recognition of the Venezuelan leader indicates a troubling comfort level on Obama’s part with Chávez’s modus operandi establishing, orchestrating and maintaining power.

Chávez is a university level lecturer on a subject Obama majors in and Manuel Zelaya, the lab rat. Barack Obama is well aware that new friends and Members of the Organization of American States (OAS) have extended term limits in unscrupulous ways. In addition to embracing their Marxist economic policies, is President Obama considering circumventing Constitutional restrictions by utilizing the retention methods of fellow socialist compadres? Could a US President be mulling over setting aside what he considers a “flawed,” “hypocritical” document and using Latin America as an alternate route of escape from the wrath of disgruntled voters?

In 2007, under Hugo’s communalist tutelage, Venezuelans’ voted on a referendum to “…lift presidential term limits to censor the media, suspend civil liberties and allow the government to nationalize private property.” Presently, Chávez mentee, Barack Obama, is systematically completing the assignment of repressing opposing views, looking for ways to control the Internet, nationalizing every branch of the private sector and appointing Supreme Court judges who hold biases against private property rights.

Based on attitude and actions it appears Barack Obama is an outstanding student, furiously jotting down vocabulary words in his marbled Composition notebook like “labor unions,” “the poor,” “socialist populism.” Only time will tell whether, Obama included “Constitutional crisis” on that list.

As a precursor to taking a shot at establishing an indefinite term in office Zelaya labored to cultivate the proper political climate.  Hugo Chávez tutored Manuel Zelaya on how to gain “…the support of labor unions and the poor.”  However, the Honduran, “…middle class and the wealthy business community feared [Zelaya] wanted to introduce Mr. Chávez’s brand of socialist populism into the country.” Sound familiar?

Wearing a signature ten-gallon cowboy hat and in a brazen abuse of Chávez-encouraged power Zelaya then attempted to circumvent the system and establish himself as Honduras’ president past the January 2010 deadline. To assist the undertaking, Hugo generously sent truckloads of ballots to Honduras for a referendum vote to rewrite the Constitution and overturn Presidential term limits.

In June, Zelaya was ousted by the military with the approval of the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress. Honduran political and business leaders argued that, “…the military coup was a legal response to Mr. Zelaya’s attempt to rewrite the Constitution and seek re-election.”  This particular constituency was astute enough to recognize Zelaya’s, “deepening alliance with Venezuela’s leftist president, Hugo Chávez.” Ya think?

Yet, Barack Obama openly supports Zelaya being reinstated to power saying, “America supports now the restoration of the democratically elected president of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies.” A US President, supporting an attempt to rewrite the Honduran Constitution with the help of Hugo Chávez should alarm every American that loves freedom and abhors tyranny.

A perplexed Washington Times questioned Obama’s support for the toppled leader,

You can understand someone like Mr. Chávez pleading [Zelaya’s] case. That egomaniacal Marxist is in the oppressive process of destroying rights, legal traditions and the Venezuelan middle class. He is in the process of making the poor poorer in the name of anti-capitalist equality, and he would like company. But dear heavens, how in the world can the Obama administration call for Mr. Zelaya’s reinstatement…here’s a fear – that this administration has deep, abiding sympathy for socialist solutions.

An even greater fear is having the leader comporting himself in a manner similar to Chávez and Zelaya.  The President carries on making outrageous policy decisions and ignoring public opinion as if the only one that dictates whether Obama remains in power is Obama.  Like a killer unphased by the death penalty, Obama’s worrisome attitude and disturbing dismissal of the citizens of this nation is alarmingly similar to ideological peers in Latin America.  Next thing you know Barry will show up at a press conference sporting a Stetson Rancher.

Some observers say, “Mr. Zelaya’s attempt to change the laws should serve as a lesson to anyone attempting to tamper with democracy… and are sort of clearly moving in undemocratic ways.” Exiled and deposed by the government and speaking from the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, Zelaya emphatically, contends he is the democratically elected leader of Honduras and should be returned to serve out his office, repeatedly intimating an eerily familiar, “I won!” In the same way, Obama ignores declining public support the toppled Honduran leader remains impervious to discipline and fails to recognize the error of his ways.

The 2010 and 2012 elections draw near it remains to be seen whether Zelaya’s disciplinary expulsion has taught the socialistic-wannabe in the White House anything about how democracy works and the consequences of making an effort to achieve personal power by means other than a fair, sound Constitutional election. Either way, Obama can always count on “divisive and demagogic leader” and friend, Hugo Chávez to propose creative ideas about how a comrade can secure an extended tenure in office without the hindrance of a democratic election.

Chavista’s Constitutional Coup League

APTOPIX Honduras CoupThomas Jefferson said, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” Throughout history, oppressed people tend to eventually rise up against dictatorial leadership and demand freedom.  Barack Obama, who should champion the cause of liberty, appears to endorse repressive governments and leaders and admonish the actions of those fighting to attain or maintain independence from tyranny. President Obama exhibits a disturbing tendency to support government regardless of which side of the law they err on.

When Iran sponsored an illegal election Barack Obama failed to condemn their action for days.  He stood by refusing to get involved for fear of appearing to “meddle” in Iran’s affairs.  According to information gathered from Iranian province, the reformist challenger, Mousavi won the election, “…getting 65 percent of the votes cast.” Ahmadinejad prematurely claimed victory, with the support of the theocratic mullah’s, prompting protests when the Iranian people demanded fair and free elections.  Obama’s response to the accusation of widespread irregularities and the premature closing of polls was lackluster at best.

Obama exhibited unspoken support for the government of Iran and refused to strongly condemn the action being taken against Iranian pro-reform, freedom fighters, while they were being bludgeoned with government sanctioned batons and bats.  Looking to Obama for support, all the reformists got was weak acknowledgement for their courage followed up by a supportive government clarification, “…I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs.”  While Obama proclaimed respect for Iran rule, plainclothes militia rode through the crowds on motor scooters, axing peaceful protesters to death with sovereign government approval.

Then, when Honduran military rose up against President Mel Zelaya, who decided to change the countries constitution to extend his term limits in the style of Castro, Ortega and Chavez, Obama quickly denounced patriotic defense and sided with the dictator.

One has to ponder why the president of the United States would be sympathetic toward  the Honduran leader who decided he was above the law?   Zelaya determined his nation’s constitution required a re-write, to extend time in office without the approval of a constitutional assembly, in the tradition of Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro…and Obama sides with Zelaya?

In fact, Zelaya, with the assistance of Hugo Chavez decided to declare the vote on his own and had the Venezuelan president ship him ballots.  The Honduran Congress and the Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional.  Refusing to be curtailed in his quest for dictatorship, Zelaya, “…led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court’s order.” The Honduran military, in defense of the nation’s law, arrested Mr. Zelaya  and exiled him to Costa Rica in what is being considered by chavistas, throughout the region, and now even here is America, a military coup…and Barack Obama sides with Zelaya?

What hombre chavistas, Chavez, Castro,  Ortega and Obama fail to mention when defending the overthrown dictator is that the military acted, “…on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution.”  Why an American president would “lash out against” the Congress and military of Honduras defending its law and Constitution should be a red flag to every American who knows that Barack Obama has opined that he considers the Constitution of the United States a “flawed” document. The Honduran people have stated that they, “…want to live in peace, freedom and development.” Why does Barack Obama side with a dictator who wants to deprive those basic God given rights?

Barack Obama’s exhibits affection for Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and exerts an obvious desire to placate an Iranian despot while apologizing for all things American.  Obama neglects the blood of the Iranian people drenching the streets of Tehran and demands the return of Zelaya to Honduran power, in spite of the threat he poses to the laws and Constitution of that nation.  When the “hope and change” cloud of deception dissipates and the “forest can be seen from the trees”, Obama’s warmth toward despotic dictators should leave the cautious observer a tad apprehensive.

The question arises as to why Obama sides with government regardless of whether they are sponsoring false elections to entrench dictators, hacking peaceful protesters to death with machetes as they peacefully march for freedom, changing the legal constitution of nations, breaking the law or defying their Supreme Courts? 

Could it be that Obama fears aligning with the masses against the government, because it could impact his own authority in the future?  If Obama agrees with the people, he allies against himself and threatens his own dearly held autonomy and ability to exercise government control or presidential decree if the need should arise.   

If Obama challenges the authority of the Iranian government or Honduran president he puts himself in the position of being challenged by the world community for diktats he deems necessary against his own citizenry.  Lack of intervention affords the American president the ability to say that he expects the same respect for his decisions as he extended to governments and presidencies by supporting their sovereign decisions.

Obama appears to be so committed to government control that bullets, axes and illegal ballots trump democracy, freedom, liberty and legality.  Obama’s slow response to condemn violence against pro-democracy reformers is juxtaposed against his rapid-fire response condemning the supposed military coup in Honduras.  Obama’s defense of the Honduran president’s illegal actions in re-writing the nation’s constitution to accommodate his desire to extend term limits is something that Obama seems to empathize with.

The American people need to analyze their president’s actions, non-actions, silence and statements.  His intrinsic beliefs are revealed by whom he supports and whom he chooses to condemn. Barack Obama’s lack of desire to stand up for  freedom fighters, while defending tyrannical governments, despots and dictators, illuminates who Obama is aligned with politically and what he may have planned for our Constitution, our future elections, as well as our nation’s highly esteemed liberties and freedoms.

%d bloggers like this: