Obama and Chavez warm handshake

It certainly looks like Obama is handing over Central America to commie dictators. But then what do I know? On the other hand, Tom Hayden seems convinced. He seems to believe that Obama is in league with the commies in our southern hemisphere. At the very least he believes Obama is highly sympathetic to the cause of global communism. But maybe he just sees what he urgently hopes for.

Apparently, Obama and Chavez have had lengthy (friendly) talks.

According to eyewitness sources, under the apparently blind eye of the global media, the two leaders had lengthy conversations. The media covered the friendly photo of the initial handshake between the two leaders, then made much ado about an apparently-impertinent Chavez handing Obama a book in Spanish by Eduardo Galleano.

What has not been reported is that Obama, leaving his advisers behind, held lengthy private conversations with Chavez where only an interpreter was present.  ~tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com

Couple this with the fact that Obama has erroneously backed a leftist ally of Chavez who attempted to overthrow the constitution of Honduras and what you have is an apparent preference for 21st century socialism.

The idea that the left here in this country defends Obama and the would-be dictator Zelaya should be a caution. Is this something the left would approve of here in the US? The left views our own consitution as a, ‘flexible,’ ‘living document,’ that can be reinterpreted as they see fit for every ‘new era.’

Meanwhile Obama (and his news media) is silent about Chavez’s threats to invade Honduras to install Zelaya as a puppet of the new socialism. In fact, Chavez even printed the illegal ballots for Zelaya’s overthrow of the Honduras constitution.

What I think this reveals is that Obama is a stealth candidate whose purpose must remain mainly concealed from the general public because his true leftist policies would be completely rejected by a majority of Americans.

Thus Obama has to rely on doublespeak and alternating liberal and conservative messages about his policies. He says one thing while doing another. He claims to be for fiscal responsibility but then increases the deficit by a trillion dollars. He claims a, “fierce moral urgency,” in ending indefinite detention but then continues the policy. He claims not to be hostile to capitalism but then begins nationalizing the auto industry and begins the nationalization of the heath care industry.

Chavez, Zelaya, Castro, and Obama, captains of a new era.

Obama and democrats: imagine that as Bush approached the end of his second term he ordered an ‘opinion poll’ authorizing a convention to write a new constitution so he could serve a third term and then a fourth. Would removing him from office at that point properly be called a ‘coup’?

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: “No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], 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.” ~csmonitor.com

The congress of Honduras along with the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered the military to remove Zelaya from office after his illegal actions attempting to prolong his term of office. This is the definition of the rule of law not a coup. So why can’t Obama get his facts straight?

“We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there,” Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered [?] the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term. ~reuters.com

Does Obama ally himself with leftist dictators because he longs to be one? It would make things easier for him in transforming America.

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. The Constitution’s provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day. ~csmonitor.com

So why is Obama intent on reinstalling Zelaya who basically threatened to overthrow the constitution of Honduras and who no doubt would like to transform Honduras into a copy of Venezuela? Are they all just brothers-in-arms? Comrades in the struggle? Co-workers of light?

Children as young as six are being sexually abused by peacekeepers and aid workers, says a leading UK charity.

Children in post-conflict areas are being abused by the very people drafted into such zones to help look after them, says Save the Children.

After research in Ivory Coast, southern Sudan and Haiti, the charity proposed an international watchdog be set up.

Save the Children said it had sacked three workers for breaching its codes, and called on others to do the same.

The three men were all dismissed in the past year for having had sex with girls aged 17 – which the charity said was a sackable offence even though not illegal.

The UN has said it welcomes the charity’s report, which it will study closely.  ~bbc