Wednesday, July 8, 2009


Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez embracing.


It is impossible for me to describe my schock, horror and anger over
the reaction and actions of our government,
Obama and Hillary,
in joining forces with Hugo Chavez to reinstall
President Zelaya in Honduras after the
Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court
had ordered the military to exile Zelaya.
Zelaya was attempting to force a plebecite which
would have changed the Hondural Constitution
in a way that would allow him to become
President-for-Life just like his buddy,
Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.
Zelaya went so far as to have the ballots
for the plebecite printed in Venezuela by Chavez
and flown to Honduras for distribution by the army, which
refused to do it.
I know the Honduras.
In 1985 I traveled to Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatamala
interviewing patriots and revolutionaries alike.
In Nicaragua I spoke with Daniel Ortega and his cabinet ministers.
I came back to the US convinced that if we did not support the
patriots against the revolutionaries we would eventually
be faced with a solid bloc of communist nations to the south.
I went to Washington where I met with the Hispanic Caucus
of the House.
There I was mocked and ridiculed by Bill Richardson, Charles Rangel and
other left-liberals for my views on the situation in Central America.
Now, 25 years later, the President of the United States and
the Secretary of State have joined forces with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega
and the Organization of American States to
install a dictator, Zelaya, in the Honduras, all in the
name of restoring 'law and order' in that Country
after Zelaya tried to subvert its democracy.
Now, try to understand this -
Obama waited weeks before he said anything even
remotely supportive of the Green Revolutionaries fighting
in the street of Teheran for democracy. Also Obama was
silent for weeks on end before he said anything even
remotely against North Korea's rockets aimed at Hawaii.
What does that tell us about his agenda?
- Leo Rugiens


Who could have guessed that one day

little Honduras

would be in the news?

Who could have guessed that one day

little Honduras

would be seen as a bulwark against tyranny?

Who could have guessed that one day


would stand firm against pressure from the OAS, the UN and the US?

Yet all these things have happened in the last two weeks.

We live in marvelous times, full of outlandish surprises and astounding terrors.

Honduras is reliving the ancient struggle between liberty and tyranny. In all of our 6000 years of history liberty has almost always gone down to defeat. Simply put, tyranny has had too much in its favor. Laws were written by tyrants to ensure their hold on power. States would create an apparatus of prisons and police and spies to prop up any dictatorship. All media were placed under the direct scrutiny of those who ruled. These things were as true for Ashurbanipal as they are true for Hugo Chavez.

Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

The most earth shaking event in secular world history was the creation of the United States of America. It was quite literally “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Nothing like it had ever come about. From the start she presented to the world a frightening thing, the possibility that the citizens of a nation might actually control the levers of power in a state. If she succeeded she would become a “dangerous nation” and a threat to tyranny around the world. Thus the hatred that European nations had for the new nation. None of them even believed that the US could possibly survive. It was a good thing for them that she did.

The United States did indeed become a dangerous nation—dangerous to tyrants, that is. Here is a list of nations freed by her—and some of these were freed more than once: France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Algeria, Morocco, Romania, Kosovo, Panama, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Denmark, Kuwait, Iraq, Egypt, Montenegro, New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand, Greece, Tunisia, Ukraine, Albania, Hungary, Belgium, Austria, Libya, Korea, Japan, Italy.

As a comparison, take a look at some of the players upon the stage of the world who are in the news today—China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela. How many nations have they freed? None. And why should they free any nations? They are not in the business of freedom. They are in the business of slavery.

And how odd is it that the United States under her current regime is no longer in the business of freedom either. It is engaged is cozying up to the ruling elites of the slavers just mentioned. It is now in fact joining the likes of Chavez and Castro and Ortega—slavers all—to destroy liberty in Honduras.

Just as Obama and his minions are destroying liberty for Americans here at home, they are destroying liberty for peoples abroad. It was useless for the Iranian people to petition Obama for help, for his heart was with the tyrannical mullahs. It is as well useless for the Hondurans to petition Obama, for his heart is with Chavez.

What a fellow we have in the White House, a creature whose natural inclination always runs with the tyrants of the world, never for those who fight against them. He supports and defends his own kind, naturally.

And as for the Honduran people and all others who cry out for liberty, who will now speak for them?

My advice for those foreigners who love liberty is to hunker down until Obama is gone. We can hope that this marvelous event happens as soon as God allows it.


Tyranny At Home. Tyranny Abroad.


U.S. Interests In Honduras Matter

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 08, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Diplomacy: Outsourcing U.S. foreign policy to the OAS may sound good, but the reality remains that all nations, including ours, have interests. That may be why the U.S. is now shifting to a more workable stance on Honduras.

Related Topics: Latin America & Caribbean

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday announced a realistic plan to resolve the Honduras crisis by forging a deal with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias to mediate a solution to the issue of who rules the Central American country.

Acting after meeting with ousted President Mel Zelaya, who was thrown out June 28 in a constitutional process, her initiative shows just how badly relying on the Organization of American States (OAS) has failed for the U.S. The new Arias plan may just succeed.

It couldn't come at a better time. Last Friday, OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza strutted like a colonial grandee into Tegucigalpa, threatening sanctions and the expulsion of Honduras if it didn't restore Zelaya. He refused to meet President Roberto Micheletti, warning: "We are not going to Honduras to negotiate."

It only strengthened Honduras' resolve against letting Zelaya return. After Insulza raised the stakes, Zelaya tried to fly into Tegucigalpa's airport, setting off riots that left two dead.

Government support strengthened though, with the Church, businesses and crowds in the streets all holding together.

"Honduras is an example to the world. We don't have money. We don't have oil. We have balls," read a hand-lettered sign from a defiant street protester in support of his government.

With sentiment like this, Hondurans signaled they would set their own course, follow their own constitution and pay whatever price, no matter what the OAS did. "Better six months of isolation than 20 years of Chavez," Micheletti said.

Arias isn't impartial as a mediator, given his vote to condemn and expel Honduras from the OAS. But he has a record of successful mediation in El Salvador, winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987, and is willing to engage all parties instead of dictate a solution. The existing government in Honduras is still free to reject anything outrageous, which couldn't be any worse for Honduras than OAS threats.

For Clinton, it's a sign that reality has sunk in and Zelaya, an unpopular, vainglorious and anti-U.S. leader, is unlikely to be returned to power. Not only does Honduras' constitution forbid it, but Hondurans don't want it, and time is running out. Instead, elections may be moved forward, or amnesties issued as talks start Thursday.

Maybe history is forcing the new Clinton stance: The last time the U.S. tried to reinsert a deposed leader, in 1994 with Haiti's Jean Bertrand Aristide, the result was chaos. Clinton was first lady then.

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, of course, thrives on chaos and is doing all he can to stoke it. But the U.S. in particular doesn't need chaos in Honduras, given the country's strategic location as a transit point for illegal drugs and the threat that criminal cartels pose to the political stability of regional governments.

The new Clinton plan also serves to strengthen the interests of Honduras' neighbors in the emerging bloc of Panama, Colombia and Mexico, all of which do not want a chaotic Honduras.

The three nations did stress earlier that there should be no foreign interference in Honduran affairs, even as they went with the OAS consensus, and all have moved in this direction. Panama offered mediation. Mexico offered asylum to Zelaya. Colombia stopped a 60-person Venezuelan convoy "battalion" of aid headed to Honduras at its border to ward off Chavista cash and interference.

What it adds up to is U.S. interests — not those of Venezuela or Nicaragua — becoming predominant in ending the crisis in Honduras, and in a way that's acceptable to Hondurans and their neighbors.

This will work far better than letting the OAS continue its grandstanding. Sure, some may say Hillary blinked. But it's a good blink.



He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment