Obama Summons General McChrystal To Explain Remarks Critical of The Administration & Afghan Rules of Engagement

(Reuters) – The White House has summoned the top U.S. general in Afghanistan to Washington to explain controversial remarks critical of the Obama administration, U.S. military and Obama administration officials said on Tuesday.

General McCrystal criticizes "Rules of Enegagement" that put American Troops at unneccessary risk

The move comes a day after General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, apologized for comments by his aides insulting some of President Barack Obama’s closest advisers in an article to be published in Rolling Stone magazine.

The controversy comes at an inopportune time for Obama, who already is dealing with huge BP Plc oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, trying to get financial industry reform legislation through Congress and hoping to prevent Republicans from taking back control of Congress in November elections.

An Obama administration official said McChrystal had been directed to appear in person at Wednesday’s Afghanistan meeting at the White House “to explain to the Pentagon and the commander-in-chief his quotes in the piece about his colleagues.”

The military officials said McChrystal would be flying from Kabul on Wednesday. It was not immediately clear whether McChrystal would be ousted.

The Rolling Stone article, to be published on Friday, also quoted an aide describing McChrystal’s “disappointment” with his initial one-on-one meeting with Obama last year.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke to McChrystal late on Monday and “expressed his deep disappointment with the article and with the comments expressed therein,” a spokesman for Mullen said.

Mullen is the top U.S. military officer.


“I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened,” McChrystal

Commander Addressing The Troops - Afghanistan

 said in a statement on Monday.

The Rolling Stone article, which quoted several McChrystal aides anonymously, portrays a split between the U.S. military and Obama’s advisers at an extremely sensitive moment for the Pentagon, which is fending off criticism of its strategy to turn around the nearly nine-year-old Afghan war.

It quotes a member of McChrystal’s team making jokes about Vice President Joe Biden, who was seen as critical of the general’s efforts to escalate the conflict and who had favored a more limited counter-terrorism approach.

“Biden?” the aide was quoted as saying. “Did you say: Bite me?”

Another aide called White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a retired four star general, a “clown” who was “stuck in 1985.”

McChrystal was quoted as saying he felt “betrayed” by the leak of a classified cable from U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry last year. The cable raised doubts about sending more troops to shore up an Afghan government already lacking in credibility.

McChrystal took command of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan in June 2009 after his predecessor General David McKiernan was removed for what most experts interpreted as a sign Washington was losing patience with conventional tactics that failed to quell mounting violence.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who fired McKiernan, said on Sunday that McChrystal and other military leaders are confident that the campaign against Taliban insurgents, particularly in southern Afghanistan, is moving in the right direction.

Gates also said on Sunday it was too early to be able to say how many U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Afghanistan and how quickly they would leave when a planned drawdown began in July 2011.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said over the weekend that the July 2011 drawdown date was “firm,” adding that Washington was seeing signs that the Afghan government was making headway on security.


ABC News reports that:

“President Obama recalled the top U.S. general in the Afghanistan War, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, following a magazine interview in which

British PM David Cameron Meets With General Stanley McCrystal

 McChrystal criticized several top U.S. officials and said he felt betrayed by the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.” 

 In a profile by Rolling Stone titled “The Runaway General,” McChrystal is characterized as an outsider who did not relate well with the administration, and as a military leader who was “disappointed” with his first meeting with the president.

 The subhead of the story by Michael Hastings reads: “Stanley McChrystal, Obama’s top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.”

One of the article’s most disparaging remarks comes from an unnamed adviser to McChrystal, who described the general’s first meeting with Obama.

“Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was,” the aide said. “Here’s the guy who’s going to run his [expletive] war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The boss was pretty disappointed.”

 In the article, McChrystal said the president criticized him for speaking too bluntly about needing more troops last fall.

 “I found that time painful,” McChrystal said in the article. “I was selling an unsellable position.”

 McChyrstal also said he felt betrayed by U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry for the ambassador’s criticism of Afghan president Hamid Karzai in a leaked cable.


McAuley’s World Comments:

The General is reported to have been strongly critical of the Obama’s Adminstration’s “rules of engagement”. Congress’s rules of engagement in the Vietnam War led to victory for the Communists in that Country. I posted the following in June 2009.

How Long Will It Take For Obama & The Democrats To Lose The War In Afghanistan & Iraq?

Posted on June 15, 2009 by mcauleysworld

US Gen. McChrystal takes command in Afghanistan


KABUL – Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a four-star American general with a long history in special operations, took charge of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan on Monday, a change of command the Pentagon hopes will turn the tide in an increasingly violent eight-year war.

McChrystal took command from Gen. David McKiernan during a low-key ceremony at the heavily fortified headquarters of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in central Kabul. McKiernan was fired last month by Defense Secretary Robert Gates one year into a two-year assignment.

McChrystal will command the largest international force ever in Afghanistan. A record 56,000 U.S. troops are in the country, alongside 32,000 forces from 41 other countries.


[The Vietnam War was lost by the Democratic politicans in control of Washington, DC, at the time. We are about to see history repeat itself]

U.S. troops battle both Taliban and their own rules

By Sara A. Carter     Monday, November 16, 2009

KASHK-E-NOKHOWD, Afghanistan | Army Capt. Casey Thoreen wiped the last bit of sleep from his eyes before the sun rose over his

Afghanistan - MASH Airlift

 isolated combat outpost.

His soldiers did the same as they checked and double-checked their weapons and communications equipment. Ahead was a dangerous foot patrol into the heart of Taliban territory.

“Has anyone seen the [Afghan National Army] guys?” asked Capt. Thoreen, 30, the commander of Blackwatch Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment with the 5th Stryker Brigade. “Are they not showing up?”

A soldier, who looked ghostly in the reddish light of a headlamp, shook his head.

“We can’t do anything if we don’t have the ANA or [the Afghan National Police],” said a frustrated Capt. Thoreen.

We have to follow the Karzai 12 rules. But the Taliban has no rules,” he said. “Our soldiers have to juggle all these rules and regulations and they do it without hesitation despite everything. It’s not easy for anyone out here.”

“Karzai 12” refers to Afghanistan’s newly re-elected president, Hamid Karzai, and a dozen rules set down by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal,


 the commander of U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, to try to keep Afghan civilian casualties to a minimum. [Rules devised and delivered by Washington Bureaucrats to General McChrystal for his implementation in the field]

“It’s a framework to ensure cultural sensitivity in planning and executing operations,” said Capt. Thoreen. “It’s a set of rules and could be characterized as part of the ROE,” he said, referring to the rules of engagement.

Dozens of U.S. soldiers who spoke to The Washington Times during a recent visit to southern Afghanistan said these rules sometimes make a perilous mission even more difficult and dangerous.

Many times, the soldiers said, insurgents have escaped because U.S. forces are enforcing the rules. Meanwhile, they say, the toll of U.S. dead and injured is mounting.

By mid-November, Capt. Thoreen’s unit had lost five soldiers to suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Many more had been wounded and three of their Stryker vehicles had been destroyed.

In his Aug. 30 assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, which was leaked to the press, Gen. McChrystal said that the legitimacy of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) had been “severely damaged … in the eyes of the Afghan people” because of “an over-reliance on firepower and force protection.”

To succeed, he wrote, “ISAF will have to change its operating culture to pursue a counterinsurgency approach that puts the Afghan people first.” This entails “accepting some risk in the short term [but] will ultimately save lives in the long term.”

The Times compiled an informal list of the new rules from interviews with U.S. forces. Among them:

On The Move

• No night or surprise searches.

• Villagers have to be warned prior to searches.

• ANA or ANP must accompany U.S. units on searches.

• U.S. soldiers may not fire at the enemy unless the enemy is preparing to fire first.

• U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present.

• Only women can search women.

• Troops can fire at an insurgent if they catch him placing an IED but not if insurgents are walking away from an area where explosives have been laid.

The mission

Without Afghan army or police, Capt. Thoreen and his troops were about to scuttle their mission: a house-to-house search for weapons

"Tip of the Spear" - The War on Terror

 and insurgents in the poor Pashtun village of Kashk-E Nokhowd, combined with an effort to win over the village’s 200 residents by passing out toys, pencils and toiletries.

Finally, a small ragtag group of Afghan police arrived to accompany the Americans. The Afghan army was a no-show.

The police, some of whom who looked as young as 13 in their oversized uniforms, have a poor reputation in the local Maywand district for corruption and extortion.

“I’m guessing it was too early for the Afghan National Army to get up out of bed and help us out,” Capt. Thoreen said. “They’re probably still asleep. Unbelievable.”

“Is everyone accounted for?” he asked. “Let’s move — stagger your positions.”

As the sun revealed the Red Mountain of Maywand, the soldiers headed out the gate of combat outpost Rath with weapons ready.

They set up a security perimeter near a more than century-old British fortress, whose crumbling walls overshadowed the small outpost.

In 1880, British and Indian forces fought and lost a battle here against Afghan forces led by a girl named Mawali, a Pashtun interpreter told The Times. He asked that his name not be used to protect himself and his family from Taliban retribution.

“She told the men in the village that they were not men if they would not raise their arms to fight the enemy,” he said. “They were so embarrassed they went to battle and Pashtun farmers killed more than 6,000 British and Indian soldiers.”

The interpreter said this Pashtun Joan of Arc was buried not far from the village. On this day, however, there was not a woman in sight. Under the Taliban’s strict interpretation of Islam, women are discouraged from appearing in public and are supposed to be shrouded head to toe in burqas.

Because of the Karzai 12 rules, U.S. forces have had to bring in American women to conduct searches of their Afghan counterparts.

So Cpl. Amy B. King, 42, a medic from Springfield, Mo.; Spc. Dionalyn O. Bird, 29, a cook from Bloomfield, Conn.; Spc. Toni Winkler, 20, a medic from South Carolina; and Sgt. Frevette J. Skelton, 31, a cook, entered the village with Capt. Thoreen’s men.

“We have the women say their names before we search them because sometimes it’s a man under the burqa,” said Cpl. King. “In some cases, there are weapons on them.”

“It’s OK for the insurgents to use their women to hide weapons but it’s not OK for us [men] to search them,” said Staff Sgt. Joshua Yost, 27, of Shelton, Wash. “So now, we have to break our own rules and bring women into combat just so they can search the women.”

Dusty little faces peered over ancient salmon-colored mud walls as the Americans entered the village. The children giggled and pointed at the soldiers.

“Stop, don’t walk any closer,” the Pashtun interpreter told a farmer and two boys who emerged from the back of the old British fort. “Stop where you are.”

They kept walking in the soldiers’ direction but the soldiers did not raise their weapons.

“Stop,” the interpreter yelled again. “Don’t move.”

He then asked the man and boys to lift their traditional tunics to show the soldiers that they were not carrying weapons or explosives. Eventually, they were allowed to pass.

The platoon members spread across and around the fields surrounding the village. An announcement from a dilapidated mosque alerted villagers of the impending search.

“Well, the bad guys know we’re coming,” said the interpreter, laughing. “They’re probably hiding their weapons by now.”

Some of the men squatting outside the mosque looked stoic. Others stared in anger.

In the mosque, the soldiers discovered a 9 mm handgun with clips.

A U.S. civil affairs officer, who asked that his name not be revealed because of the nature of his work, said only insurgents carry such handguns. “Everyone here has Kalashnikovs, very few have these,” he said.

The mosque’s imam, who gave his name as Sahed, walked alongside the U.S. soldiers down a narrow dusty road, followed by a gaggle of children.

“We need help getting clean water,” he told Capt. Thoreen through the interpreter. “Water is what is most important.”

Civilian aid workers and State Department officials rarely visit Maywand because of security concerns, so development work falls on the U.S. military’s shoulders.

“We have to be everything from the soldier to the engineer, water expert to medical care,” Capt. Thoreen said.

“We try to hire locals but first we need to secure the region,” he said. “We are not going to get the [nongovernmental organizations] out here until we do that.”

Imam: U.S. ‘needs to go’

Interviewed by The Times, Sahed the imam said U.S. troops were “respectful to his people and provided security.”

“I tell my people in the mosque to not become suicide bombers and to not kill those who want to help us,” he said.

However, asked about the presence of U.S. troops in his village, Sahed said they “need to go. Get out of Afghanistan or it will never be resolved. Between Islam and the infidel there can never be a relationship.”

“In my personal opinion, the Americans won’t be able to resolve this problem,” he added. “The longer they stay the more likely there will be another attack like Sept. 11. It’s only the Afghan people who will be able to resolve this problem.”

The next day, however, the imam visited the U.S. combat outpost for the first time, bringing a gift of homemade yogurt candy. He told Capt. Thoreen that he had asked his people to stop targeting the U.S. soldiers.


Capt. Thoreen said he appreciated the gesture but wasn’t sure whether the imam was telling the truth.

“To some degree we are trying to pull the people of Maywand back over,” he said.

“In some ways, we’re not just fighting for their security but our own and those of the ones we love back home.”

Then he added, referring to the rules of engagement that his forces try to observe, “For our guys, it’s tough. Sometimes they feel they have their hands tied behind their backs.”

Contacted by e-mail after The Times’ reporter and photographer had returned to the U.S., Capt. Thoreen described a clinic his unit had since hosted, which treated 75 locals including 20 women.

“It was a huge success. The people are becoming much more open and friendly,” he said. As evidence of that success, he cited a drop in IED attacks on his soldiers.


[We need to learn from the “true” lessons of  Vietnam, lessons that included the fact that the Communists  had inflitrated the South Vietnamese Government and disrupted supply, communication and cooperation between the U.S and South Vietnamese Armies. The National Afghan Army is only 5 years old and you can rest assured there are Taliban inbedded in its leadership. The politicians should confine themselves to the political questions, “Do we want to fight this war?”, Do we want to win this war?”. Let the Military Commanders devise the military strategy to achieve the desired political goals. Politicians have no business trying to devise specific military strategies …. The Politicians are not competent to do so ….. The choice is not between fighting this war or coming home, the choice is between fighting this war in Afghanistan or fighting this war at home] 

Crisis On The Gulf Coast: Day 56 – Excerpts & Criticisms of Obama’s Oval Office Speech

The Presidents words are “bolded”, the comments and criticisms are not.  

On April 20th, an explosion ripped through BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, about forty miles off the coast of Louisiana. Eleven workers lost their lives. Seventeen others were injured. And soon, nearly a mile beneath the surface of the ocean, oil began spewing into the water.

The underwater spill actually began two days after the “explosion or fire” and after the “Rig” sank into the sea.  Why did the President not simply say as much – to avoid discussing why the rig sank? We don’t know if the rig sank because of fire or structural damage related to an “explosion or fire” of if the rig sank because of negligence in fighting the fire. It has been suggested that the “Rig” sank because the 4 “legs” of the rig were filled with water as a result of the firefighting. So who owned the 5 boats used to fight the fire? BP? Transocean Ltd. , the company that owned and operated the rig and was drilling the well, or the U.S. Coast Guard?  It has also been reported that the EPA prohibited the use of a chemical fire fighting agent, Purple K, that may have allowed those fighting the fire to extinguish or control the fire without sinking the rig. Had the “rig” not sank, there may be no “spill” now. Later we will review the topic of regulation, but for the moment I’ll note that the President has not suggested a need to review the actions of the Coast Guard or EPA and whether additional regulation of those entities is being considered.   

That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge – a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

Mr. President it took you 9 days to even mention the crisis. Do you expect me to believe that you “assembled a team” prior to even mentioning the event.

Who exactly, are the other team members? So Dr. Chu is the “Capitan”, but who are the team members and when were they added to the team?

Steven Chu (born February 28, 1948)[3] is an American physicist and currently the 12th United States Secretary of Energy. Working at Bell Labs and Stanford University, Chu is known for his research in cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997.[3] At the time of his appointment as Energy Secretary, he was a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley and the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where his research was concerned primarily with the study of biological systems at the single molecule level.[1] He is a vocal advocate for more research into alternative energy and nuclear power, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combating climate change.[4][5][6] For example, he has conceived of a global “glucose economy”, a form of a low-carbon economy, in which glucose from tropical plants is shipped around like oil is today.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu

While Chu is a very bright man, Chu has no specific specialty even remotely related to the issues of oil production, offshore oil production or deepwater oil production. In fact, his specialty is in the remotely related field of “alternative energy” sources. If we were in the middle of a crisis involving “alternative energy sources” I doubt that I would look to a specialist in “deep water drilling” to lead the team to address the problems. Would you?

Again, I want to know which of our “experts” and “academics” are participating? What are the suggested back-up plans?

As a result of these efforts, we have directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90% of the oil leaking out of the well.

This isn’t good enough for me. A fuzzy estimate of when we will be capturing 90% of the oil. Do we have a back-up plan? The Government originally reported that 5,000 barrels a day were leaking into the gulf – that “estimate” is now 60,000 barrels a day. If we capture 90% of the 60,000 barrels that leaves 6,000 barrels leaking into the gulf, 1000 barrels more than originally estimated.

Isn’t anyone looking for alternate ways to cap the well? 

The President who gutted NASA’s budget and ended our plans to return to the moon, has the nerve to invoke memories of the Lunar Program, but can’t convene a group of our best scientists to develop an alternate plan to cap this well? How pathetic!

17 nations have offered assistance – can’t we benefit from the assistance of at least one of these Countries?

First, the cleanup. From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation’s history – an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost forty years of experience responding to disasters.

President Obama has a strange sense of time. Admiral Allen wasn’t appointed until 14 days after the spill. Mr. President, it took you 9 days to even mention the incident.  

Thousands of ships and other vessels are responding in the Gulf. And I have authorized the deployment of over 17,000 National Guard members along the coast. ……and I urge the governors in the affected states to activate these troops as soon as possible.

The Governors of the involved states dispute the count of “ships & vessels” and so do I. As to the National Guard Troops, they were requested 6 weeks ago and apparently were authorized during last night’s speech. The President spent the previous two days in the gulf and then waited to return to Washington for his speech to “authorize deployment”.  

You can Google it if you like …. When you do you might note that the President authorized 1200 National Guard Troops to our southern the border to assist with immigration issues – the 1200, authorized 3 weeks ago,  have yet to arrive – maybe they are walking to the border from Washington.

Forty eight hours ago, Admiral Allen proudly announced that 400 skimmers were deployed. 400 skimmer boats for 3000 miles of coast line. Other than say, a strange desire to support American Unions during this crisis, is there any scientific reason that Dutch oil skimming vessels can’t skim oil off American waters. Scientific not political.  

Earlier, I asked Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, a former governor of Mississippi, and a son of the Gulf, to develop a long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan as soon as possible. The plan will be designed by states, local communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conservationists, and other Gulf residents.

This is a great idea. Why doesn’t this approach apply to capping the well and pursuing the cleanup – why did it take so long – 7 weeks to be exact. I’m thankful for this step – but I am also overwhelmed by the totality of inaction.

I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe – that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken. That was obviously not the case on the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why. The American people deserve to know why. The families I met with last week who lost their loved ones in the explosion – these families deserve to know why. And so I have established a National Commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offer recommendations on what additional safety and environmental standards we need to put in place.

How odd. After 7 weeks we don’t know what happened – not a clue. We have guesses but no facts. Yet the President refuses to acknowledge that we may, in fact, need no additional regulation. We may not need a single new regulation. There are over 16 million pages of regulation that that govern oil drilling …. 16 million pages. The odds are quite good that, just like with Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and immigration, the regulations have already been written, but they are not being enforced today. 

Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety, and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue. And while I urge the Commission to complete its work as quickly as possible, I expect them to do that work thoroughly and impartially.

I’ll say this simply, I don’t trust the Presidents motives. I believe his motivation is in passing “Cap & Trade”. We have known since day two that 11 men were lost as a result of this accident. The President waited for over 40 days to schedule and capitalize on a photo opportunity with the dead men’s families.  The President has not focused on determining what the facts are and taking the actions to prevent a reoccurrence. The President and other Politicians are interested in photo opportunities and “30 second sound bites”.

Deepwater drilling has gone on for years. Rather than suspend the needed drilling, before we have even identified what went wrong or what caused the “disaster” the President could order “permanent safety inspectors” aboard the rigs to oversee operations and insure compliance with the safety standards already in place. Rather than throwing 10’s of thousands of people out of work, increasing the cost of American energy and reducing our supply of American Oil, why not do what we know to be possible now and move forward with production in the most heavily regulated manner I can think of … an ever present “inspector” overseeing the current work? Is the answer, because that won’t help the President meet his true objective, passage of “Cap & Tax”.

For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we have talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked – not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.

Speaking of a lack of candor, cheap and easily accessible oil is, in fact, bountiful.  Americans are denied access to this “natural resource” by the politicians and their supporters in the “green agenda machine”. Environmental regulation places 80% of America’s oil “off limits”, the vast majority of which is easily accessible.  America is not “addicted” to oil. America’s reliance on oil and other fossil fuels is based on our native intelligence, an intelligence that rejects wasting trillions of dollars on “alternative fuels” that are less portable, less plentiful, less effective, and less reliable, alternative fuels that lack any type of cohesive marketing or distribution network. Other so called “clean fuels” like natural gas or nuclear energy are attacked just as is oil. The rejection of carbon fuels is about the subsidization of the “alternative energy sources” that fund and control the “green agenda”. Solar, wind and battery powered initiatives have been around and subsidized for almost 40 years. If and when these “alternative energy” programs become practical and profitable, artificial Government subsidies will not be necessary.

The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the Gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.

Oh please, Mr. President. You have the statistics available to you; please don’t lie to the American people. China is investing in alternative energy, but it is doing so as it buys every drop of oil it can get its hands on. China is also opening 10 new coal fired energy plants every month with plans to continue to do so for the next 10 years.

This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels will take some time, but over the last year and a half, we have already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels.  

Mr. President, we are well aware of your exaggerations concerning the “green economy” and all of the green jobs it has created.

When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill – a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.

You just could not resist the opportunity to use this tragedy to try to manipulate the people, to manipulate the Congress, to rally support for “Cap & Trade”, a policy that has been around for years, to resurrect this “bill” on the backs of those suffering in the Gulf. Mr. President “Cap & Trade” will not plug that well. “Cap & Trade” will not get the oil workers back to their jobs and Cap & Trade will not return the crowds to their vacation destinations throughout our south. “Cap & Trade” will make that small group of your supporters in the “Green Agenda Movement” wealthy beyond all imagination; a wealth that will be taken from America’s working families.

The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom.


Mr. President, on behalf of those working on our Space Coast, let me remind you that you gutted the NASA budget and ended our program to return to the moon. How dare you make reference to our Lunar Program when in practice you reject all that it has done and all that it can do, while you lay off the workers from the space industry, workers who will join the ranks of the oil rig workers you are putting out of work? Please save us from the rhetoric and phony job counts, more action less words.  

Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is our capacity to shape our destiny   


Exactly, Mr. President. We want to shape a destiny, an immediate destiny, a destiny that finds a solution to capping that well.  Let us just leave all the “Cap & Trade” frenzy for later and focus on “capping” the well and cleaning up the spill, now.

Mr. President you just don’t get it. When we, the people say, we need to get the “outhouse painted white”, we want a plan to “paint the outhouse white”, not for someone to form a working group, panel or committee of architects and environmentalists to study building a museum to display various works of “outhouse” art. Heavens no – besides it takes too long to get the Washington bureaucrats to pass all the required “outhouse art” regulations necessary to keep us all safe. Regulations no one will ever enforce.    

 The President’s full and unedited speech can be read here: http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/this-is-what-president-obama-wanted-you-to-know/n

Update: BP starts burning oil from leaking ruptured well

NEW ORLEANS – BP began burning oil siphoned from a ruptured well in the Gulf of Mexico early Wednesday as part of its plans to more than triple the amount of crude it can stop from reaching the sea, the company said.

BP PLC said oil and gas siphoned from the well first reached a semi-submersible drilling rig on the ocean surface around 1 a.m.

Once that gas reaches the rig, it will be mixed with compressed air, shot down a specialized boom made by Schlumberger Ltd. and ignited at sea. It’s the first time this particular burner has been deployed in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP officials previously said they believed the burner system could incinerate anywhere from 210,000 gallons of oil to 420,000 gallons of oil daily once it’s fully operational. The company did not say how much oil the new system has burned. It said work to optimize the new system was still ongoing.

Under pressure from the Coast Guard, the energy firm is attempting to expand its ability to trap leaking oil before it reaches the water. Already, oil and gas are being siphoned from a containment cap sitting over the well head and flowing to a drill ship sitting above it in the Gulf of Mexico.

Adding the burner is part of BP’s plan to expand its containment system so it can capture as much as 2.2 million gallons of oil a day by late June, or nearly 90 percent of what a team of government scientists have estimated is the maximum flow out the well.


McAuleysWorld: Why did it itake 56 days to do this? When was it first suggested? Who was involved in the decission to delay burning the oil and why was that decision made?  

Day #55 in The Gulf! The Race Baiting Continues!

According to the MSM and the “Talking Heads” that claim the title of  “Democratic Strategists” there is no question. Oppose or criticize and you are branded a racist.

Personal Criticism of Obama, The Man and His Policies 

As an American and as a Conservative I was elated to celebrate the election of our first black President, however, I was not willing to celebrate the election of Barack Obama, the man,  nor am I currently willing to celebrate Obama’s policies. “Content of character not color of skin”.

Oh how I wish our first black President would have been General Colin Powell.  I can only speculate as to how General Powell would have handled our current set of crisis.

While I’ll never know for sure, I’d speculate that under General Powell’s leadership we would now be moving towards securing our borders, that after 53 days the oil leak in the gulf  would be capped.

Under General Powell’s leadership, Operation Desert Storm only lasted 40 days  (01/17/91 to 02/27/91) and the “ground war” with Iraq lasted a total of 13 days (02-14-91 to 02-27-91).

I just can’t imagine General Powell conducting an international “bow and scrape” tour or engaging in a never ending set of apologies for America’s role in world affairs.

I can’t imagine Powell embarrassing his Nation.

Under Powell’s leadership would we, as a nation, be speculating on whether the latest set of “impotent sanctions” against Iran would have any meaningful effect on stopping that rogue nation from developing nuclear weapons? Would the Nation be wondering, “and if these don’t work, what do we do next?”

I doubt that the national economy would be be any worse than it is today, if General Powell, if he were President, had simply ignored it.

Yes, these are speculations, but my strong criticism of Obama has nothing to do with race. My speculation as to  “what would General Powell do” has nothing to do with race either.   

When Obama was elected the Liberal Main Stream Media and the Democratic Party heralded the beginning of a “post-racial” America. Less than 18 months into Obama’s Presidency the MSM and the Democratic Political strategists are running to the familiar comforts of race and gender baiting.

It is 2010, isn’t it time we move on?  Let us remember and never forget the lessons of the 1960’s, even if those lessons are 50 years old! We, as Americans, need to learn and move on. To understand this is 2010 and not 1960. To learn from the past but not surrender to being a victim of it.


Federal Authority Over the Internet? The Cybersecurity Act of 2009

There’s a new bill working its way through Congress that is cause for some alarm: the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 , introduced by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). The bill as it exists now risks giving the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet without necessarily improving security in the ways that matter most. It should be opposed or radically amended.

Essentially, the Act would federalize critical infrastructure security. Since many of our critical infrastructure systems (banks, telecommunications, energy) are in the hands of the private sector, the bill would create a major shift of power away from users and companies to the federal government. This is a potentially dangerous approach that favors the dramatic over the sober response.

One proposed provision gives the President unfettered authority to shut down Internet traffic in an emergency and disconnect critical infrastructure systems on national security grounds goes too far. Certainly there are times when a network owner must block harmful traffic, but the bill gives no guidance on when or how the President could responsibly pull the kill switch on privately-owned and operated networks.

Furthermore, the bill contains a particularly dangerous provision that could cripple privacy and security in one fell swoop:

The Secretary of Commerce— shall have access to all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access…

In other words, the bill would give the Commerce Department absolute, non-emergency access to “all relevant data” without any privacy safeguards like standards or judicial review. The broad scope of this provision could eviscerate statutory protections for private information, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Privacy Protection Act, or financial privacy regulations. Even worse, it isn’t clear whether this provision would require systems to be designed to enable access, essentially a back door for the Secretary of Commerce that would also establish a primrose path for any bad guy to merrily skip down as well. If the drafters meant to create a clearinghouse for system vulnerability information along the lines of a US/CERT mailing list, that could be useful, but that’s not what the bill’s current language does.

A privacy threat still in the cocoon is the provision mandating a study of the feasibility of an identity management and authentication program with just a nod to “appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections.” There’s reason to fear that this type of study is just a precursor to proposals to limit online anonymity. But anonymity isn’t inherently a security problem. What’s “secure” depends on the goals of the system. Do you need authentication, accountability, confidentiality, data integrity? Each goal suggests a different security architecture, some totally compatible with anonymity, privacy and civil liberties. In other words, no one “identity management and authentication program” is appropriate for all internet uses.


McAuleys’ World: This proposed legislation is startling in its attempt to curtail freedom of speech over the Internet under the guise of “protecting” vital Government Networks.

As the article hints, the real need is for the Government to develop meaningful ways to “block” incoming threats to “vital Government Networks” – providing a means to defend the networks against attacks. 

That is not what this legislation seeks – the legislation seeks the power to reach out and “switch off” private networks and communication – an act completely unrelated to the desired aims of the stated reasons for the legislation. Your security software, like my security software, identifies and blocks harmful communications, it does not reachout and “shutdown” the entire network where the offensive communication came from, disrupting communication between guilty and innocent parties alike.. 

It is simply unnecessary for the Government to reach out, in anytype of hypothetical situation, and shut down a network like WordPress, under any circumstance. Should the Government detect an organized attack against Government systems originating from a network, say, like WordPress, it would be sufficient to block the WordPress Servers access to any critical Government Network, there would be no need, however, to unplug millions of WordPress users from the Net and deny the Wordpress community access to the Net and constitutionally protected communication with other members of the WordPress or wider Net Community.

Contact Congress today and tell them enough of the Big Government nonsense.

The White House Spin Doctor’s are already claiming this legislation won’t do what it is intended to do – I’ll bet that, within weeks they will claim they haven’t read the legislation.

Read the legislation for yourself here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-773

Relevant portions of the legislation include, Section 16, which states: ” 


(a) IN GENERAL- Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, or the President’s designee, through an appropriate entity, shall complete a comprehensive review of the Federal statutory and legal framework applicable to cyber-related activities in the United States, including–                                                                                                                                                                       (1) the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 2000aa); (2) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2510 note); (3) the Computer Security Act of 1987 (15 U.S.C. 271 et seq.; 40U.S.C.759); (4) the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3531 et seq.); 5) the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 9501 et seq.); 6) the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.); (7) any other Federal law bearing upon cyber-related activities; and (8) any applicable Executive Order or agency rule, regulation, guideline.

 (b) REPORT- Upon completion of the review, the President, or the President’s designee, shall submit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, and other appropriate Congressional Committees containing the President’s, or the President’s designee’s, findings, conclusions, and recommendations.


SEC. 17. AUTHENTICATION AND CIVIL LIBERTIES REPORT. Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, or the President’s designee, shall review, and report to Congress, on the feasibility of an identity management and authentication program, with the appropriate civil liberties and privacy protections, for government and critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

and these provisions of Section 18:

(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;   (Without a definition of what might constitute an emergency).

(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;  (Without a definition of what constitutes a “critical infrastructure system”).

(8) may delegate original classification authority to the appropriate Federal official for the purposes of improving the Nation’s cybersecurity posture; (Exactly what “Official” does this refer to? Will the official be approved by Congress or will they be another “Czar” appointed at the pleasure of the President? Remember, if this Legislation passes as is, every subsequent Administration will inherit these powers. Read in conjunction with Section 3, it appears that Congress will have no meaningfulvoice in appoving the members of the Panel as appointment is at the sole discretion of the President. If you thnk not read this, Melissa Hathaway, Obama’s first choice for Cyber Czar, turned down the post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Hathaway ).

(11) shall notify the Congress within 48 hours after providing a cyber-related certification of legality to a United States person. (What exactly does this mean and why is it burried in  “Cyber Security” legislation?).


In this Act:  

(1) ADVISORY PANEL- The term ‘Advisory Panel’ means the Cybersecurity Advisory Panel established or designated under section 3.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

(2) CYBER- The term ‘cyber’ means–

 (A) any process, program, or protocol relating to the use of the Internet or an intranet, automatic data processing or transmission, or telecommunication via the Internet or an intranet; and (B) any matter relating to, or involving the use of, computers or computer networks.

(3) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS- The term ‘Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks’ includes– (A) Federal Government information systems and networks; and

 (B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

(4) INTERNET- The term ‘Internet’ has the meaning given that term by section 4(4) of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5503(4)). (If you can read this, the computer you are using is included). 

(5) NETWORK- The term ‘network’ has the meaning given that term by section 4(5) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 5503(5)

EWEEK.COM describes the legislation this way: Cybersecurity Act of 2009 introduced in the Senate would allow the president to shut down private Internet networks. The legislation also calls for the government to have the authority to demand security data from private networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.

The headlines were all about creating a national cyber-security czar reporting directly to the president, but the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 introduced April 1 in the U.S. Senate would also give the president unprecedented authority over private-sector Internet services, applications and software.

According to the bill’s language, the president would have broad authority to designate various private networks as a “critical infrastructure system or network” and, with no other review, “may declare a cyber-security emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from” the designated the private-sector system or network.

The 51-page bill does not define what private sector networks would be considered critical to the nation’s security, but the Center for Democracy and Technology fears it could include communications networks in addition to the more traditional security concerns over the financial and transportation networks and the electrical grid. 

“I’d be very surprised if it doesn’t include communications systems, which are certainly critical infrastructure,” CDT General Counsel Greg Nojeim told eWEEK. “The president would decide not only what is critical infrastructure but also what is an emergency.”  http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Bill-Grants-President-Unprecedented-Cyber-Security-Powers-504520/

See the following Blogs on this topic:

A Cynics Take On Cyber Czars and 60 Day Reports,                                            http://www.cerias.purdue.edu/site/blog/post/on_cyber_czars_and_60-day_reports/ , after this article was published the actual legislation was drafted that dramatically impacts “private communications”.

Cyber, Cyber, Cyber, Cyber, Oh stop already:http://blog.uncommonsensesecurity.com/2009/05/cyber-cyber-cyber-cyber-oh-stop-already.html and The Cyber Stupidty Act of 2009, http://www.sovasec.com/2009/05/14/s773-the-cyber-security-act-of-2009-part-1-2/ , which point how how the Legislation’s intended results will not be met, but how a new and expensive Government Bureaucracy will be formed, a Bureaucracy that will have the power to pull the plug on private internet communication in this Country.

“And remember, when people talk about spending “government money” on a problem, they are really talking about “tax money”; you know, money that was formerly yours.”

“The RawStory” described the legislation this way, “A recently proposed but little-noticed Senate bill would allow the federal government to shut down the Internet in times of declared emergency, and enables unprecedented federal oversight of private network administration.The bill’s draft states that “the president may order a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic” and would give the government ongoing access to “all relevant data concerning (critical infrastructure) networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.”

Contact Congress Here:  http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml 


Voices From Honduras – A People Fight For Democracy

If you are a regular visitor you’ve read my post on the Honduras Crisis and how President Obama has sided with the Communists, Fidel Castro of Cuba, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and the impeached, former President of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya.

I wish I had posted all of the responses that I have received from people who claim to be from Honduras, it was my mistake not to do so right from the start. 

I’m making this post in response to the following reply:  

R. Zuniga, on July 3rd, 2009 at 1:32 am Said: 

Excelent analysis! We -the Honduran people- was wondering if nobody in the US could see what was happening here… We were asking ourselves: Why the US goverment dont support our effort to save the democracy in our country?, insted of the US goverment -Pres. Obama are supporting to CHAVEZ and giving him the chance to convert our country to socialism or comunism -what a mistake! WE LOVE FREEDOM THAT DEMOCRACY GIVES THE PEOPLE! WE DONT WANT MANUEL ZELAYA BACK TO OUR COUNTRY!

I’m inviting the pro-democracy Hondurans to post here ……. and for like minded Americans to let the Honduran people know that America supports them …………. 


For those who have not read the original post, I’ve re-posted it below.

The quick story is this. Honduras is a democracy, with a form of Government much like the U.S. The Honduran Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, has a term limit for anyone serving as President. The impeached former President Zelaya, attempted to “extend” his term in office, to become “a President for life” – much like his allies the Communist dictators Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. 

When Zelaya announced his intention to extend his term in officethe matter was taken to the Honduran Supreme Court, who ruled Zelaya’s actions unconstitutional and illegal. Zelaya ignored the Supreme Court and pressed on. The matter was then taken to the Honduran Congress, where Zelaya’s own party joined in voting articles of impeachment (referred to in the articles below as “reading contitutional articles”). Still Zelaya pressed on. Zelaya then ordered the Honduran military to assist him in the unconstitutional vote, a vote on a ballot that didn’t even specify the nature of the Constitutional changes Zelaya was trying to make. The Military refused the illegal orders and Zelaya “fired” the Honduran Chief of Staff. The heads of the Honduran Army, Navy and Air Force resigned their offices rather than follow the illegal order. Still Zelaya pressed on.

The Honduran Congress voted articles of impeachment and instructed the Army to take Zelaya into custody when he refused to step down.

These actions cannot be called a “coup”. Zelaya was removed from office Constitutionally. The Army does not now run Honduras. The Honduran Constitution calls for the head of the Honduran Congress to complete any unfullfilled term of the President after an impeachment. The head of the Honduran Congress has been sworn in as President and will complete the remainder of Zelaya’s term. Elections had already been scheduled for this November.

You may ask, who is the new Honduran President? Roberto Micheletti is the current President of Honduras. President Micheletti is a member of the impeached Zelaya’s Liberal Party. Zelaya’s Liberal party voted for his ouster.


The Original Post:

Obama Sides With Fidel Castro & Hugo Chavez – Refuses To Recognize Legality Of Impeachment – Former Honduran President Zelaya

Posted on June 29, 2009 by mcauleysworld | Edit

Have you seen this article ……….

Obama says Honduran ouster was ‘not legal’


By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer 20 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama on Monday declared that the United States still considers Manuel Zelaya to be the president of Honduras and assailed the coup that forced him into exile as “not legal,” deepening the chasm between the Central American nation and ……..  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_honduras

Want to know the “rest of the story”?

Why does Obama state the “Coup”, if it was a “Coup”, wasn’t legal.

The term “Coup” has a specific legal meaning. It refers to “a sudden, decisive exercise of power whereby the existing government is subverted without the consent of the people”. When a Country’s legally and Democratically elected Government “removes” an individual, using the appropriate mechanisms outlined under it’s Constitution, it is not a “Coup”, but a legally authorized act of State.

What happend in Honduras was not a Coup, but a preservation of the Democracy outlined in the Honduran Constitution.  

Honduras has a Constitution which was last updated and ratified in 1982. “President Zelaya was elected in 2006 to a four-year term. The 1982 constitution bans re-election.” http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/coup_in_honduras/ Presdient Manual Zelaya was attempting to subvert the the Honduran Constitution and stand for re-election, when that is prohibited under Honduran law. Procedures exist in Honduras for “changing” or “amending” the Constitution, however, President Zelaya was attempting to subvert that legal and Constitutional process in Honduras. Zelaya’s attempt to change the Honduran Constitution was declared “illegal” and “unconstitutional” by both the Honduran Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress. Two of the three branches of Honduras’ Democratically elected Government. Those Branches of Governemnt moved against President Zelaya and removed him from power, not the Military. The Military was simply the tool employed by the People’s Government to secure their freedom.    

President Zelaya ordered the Military to illegally help him subvert the Honduran Constitution, the very Constitution that the Military is sworn to uphold. In Honduras, like in the United States, the Military and Polticians take an oath to “uphold” or “protect and defend” the Constitution, not an oath to support any particular party or politician. Not since the days of Adolph Hitler has a military sworn allegiance to a “leader” or “Furher” rather than to the Country they serve.

When President Zelaya ordered the Military to assist in his violation of the Honduran Constitution, the Miliitary, at the direction of the Congress and the Supreme Court, removed the President from office rather than follow the President’s  illegal orders. http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/coup_in_honduras/ 

Two days before President Zelaya was “deposed”, Zelaya “fired” the Honduran Military Chief of Staff, General Romeo Vasquez. The dismissal came, not for failing to follow orders, but for failing to support President Zelaya’s unconstitutional attempt to extend his term in office. http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story/coup_in_honduras/  The heads of the Honduran Army, Navy and Air Force then resigned rather than accept Zelaya’s illegal orders.  

You might like to know who President Zelaya’s biggest supporters have been in the past …. Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan dictator who jails and kills opposition candidates in his Country, and Fidel Castro, the dictator of Cuba. What Chavez and Castro know about “fair elections” wouldn’t fill a thimble. Chavez and Castro head two of the most repressive governments in the world.  

Reports from Honduras state, “ The country now has another president appointed by its Congress, Roberto Micheletti, who insisted that Zelaya was legally removed by the Courts and Congress for violating Honduras’ constitution and attempting to extend his own rule.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_honduras

The Zelaya ouster came hours before polls were to open on a constitutional referendum that Zelaya was pushing ahead even after the Supreme Court and the Attorney General said it was illegal. The constitution bars changes to some of its clauses, such as the ban on a president serving more than one term.                                                                                                  http://www.startribune.com/world/49380887.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr

Congress voted to accept what it said was Zelaya’s letter of resignation, with even Zelaya’s former allies turning against him. Congressional leader Roberto Micheletti was sworn in to serve until Jan. 27 when Zelaya’s term ends. Micheletti belongs to Zelaya’s Liberal Party, but opposed the president in the referendum. “My slogan will be the reconciliation of the grand family of Hondurans … and a grand national dialogue,” Micheletti said after Congress gave the military a long standing ovation. http://www.startribune.com/world/49380887.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr

Funny that President Obama neglects to mention that the Honduran Supreme Court and the Honduran Attorney General “ruled” that the former President’s actions were unconstitutional and illegal. Nor did Obama mention the fact that the new President is the former President’s “Party Deputy” and was the top ranking member of the former President’s Party in Congress. ”Deposed” is not the proper term here, we should be referring to President Zelaya’s impeachment – because with the approval of the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court, that is what happened, Zelaya was impeached not deposed.

What happened in Honduras was not a “military takeover”. The Honduran Military is not now in charge. The Honduran Congress and Supreme Court used the Military to prevent a power grab by former President Zeleya. The Honduran Congress, following Honduran Law, has legally appointed a successor to fill the remainder of the former President’s term. The process that was followed is not all that different than the process that would be followed here in the United States.  The Honduran Government, with the exception of Zeleya, remains intact. This was not a “Coup” as the Government did not replace itself, it simply removed an individual who insisted on following a course of unconstitutional and illegal conduct.

International Press reports of the previous week include the following information, “A resolution read on the floor of [Honduran] Congress accuses Zelaya of “manifest irregular conduct” and “putting in present danger the state of law,” for his refusal to obey a Supreme Court ruling against a constitutional referendum he wanted to hold.  Zelaya, a close ally of the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, was seeking to remove the limits on presidential terms through a referendum, paving the way for his re-election. Later in the day Congress approved the removal of Zelaya, and cited constitutional articles that said the head of congress assumes the presidency in such cases. Honduran congressional leader, Roberto Micheletti, has been designated to replace the ousted president Jose Manuel Zelaya. http://www.presstv.ir/classic/detail.aspx?id=99290&sectionid=351020706 

Zelaya refused to step down. His removal was initiated by the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court, not the Military.  

This situation would be analogous to an American President attempting to serve a 3rd term over the objections of Congress, the Supreme Court and in direct violation of the American Constitution. I have to assume an American President attempting to do such a thing would be impeached and jailed, and that if necessary, the U.S. Military would be used by the Congress and the Supreme Court to “protect and defend” the Constitution.    

Why this strange and undemocratic move by Obama. An outright attempt, , by an American President, to prop up an individual who was attempting to subvert his country’s Constitution and violate the very Honduran Election Law he was sworn to uphold.

Why is it that Obama is embracing Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, rather than the democratically elected Government of Honduras. The Honduran Government, in the persons of the Honduran Congress and the Honduran Supreme Court, who were democratically elected  …  those “equal branches of Government” were not attempting to subvert the Honduran Constitution, but were excersing the appropriate “separation of powers”, protecting the people of Honduras from Zelaya’s unlawful attempt to subvert the laws and extend his power.

The shocking thing to me is that Obama has sided with the dictators, Chavez and Castro, again. Chavez and Castro are both megalomanics, they have delusions of omnipotence. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/megalomania . That is why both Castro and Chavez have pursued “life terms” as the Presidents of their respective dictatorships, the same thing that Zelaya was attempting to do in Honduras. Imagine someone really believing that there is no one else qualified to lead the people in their Country, no one else, but themselves. In the entire Country, no one. That is scary. No wonder the Honduran People impeached Zelaya. No wonder the number 2 man in his own Party replaced him with the support of the Honduran Congress.

But what about Obama? Why does he relate to these meglomaniacs who believe they are omnipotent? Why does he side with the “repressors” rather than those who stand for freedom.   

The former Honduran President reminds me of his allies, Chavez and Castro …. the rules only apply to others. The Honduran Constitution only says what he wants it to say. There is no need for a “separation of powers”  …. he wants all the power to himself. We have a very dangerous man in the White House if he agrees with Chavez and Castro rather than with the rule of law or the separation of powers that occurs when you have three ”equal branches” of Government.

If Obama can’t distinguish which of the parties in Honduras acted legally and who did not … he doesn’t deserve to hold his office. One man acting to subvert his Country’s Constitution against his Country’s Congress, Courts and Military, is not “in the right” and once removed from office, is no longer the “democratically elected President”.

What is next for Obama? Will he join Chavez in his threat of a military invasion of Honduras? Will he put our Military on alert? Why is Obama siding with Castro and Chavez against the people of Honduras?  http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/29/Chavez_threatens_to_invade_as_Honduran_army_stages_coup/


Contrary to the press reports, Honduras has not been “condemned” for its action, in fact those who have spoken out against Honduras are limited in number – Obama, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and the Communist Leader of Nicaragua – Daniel Ortega.

America’s Eurpopean Allies have not spoken out against the Honduran Government – in fact the BBC reports the following:

Interim President Roberto Micheletti has imposed an overnight curfew in Honduras, hours after being sworn in.

The Congress speaker took office after troops ousted elected leader Manuel Zelaya and flew him to Costa Rica.

The removal of Mr Zelaya came amid a power struggle over his plans for constitutional change.

Mr Zelaya, who had been in office since 2006, wanted to hold a referendum that could have led to an extension of his non-renewable four-year term.

Polls for the referendum had been due to open early on Sunday – but troops instead took him from the presidential palace and flew him out of the country.

The ousting of Manuel Zelaya has been criticised by regional neighbours and the US.

Days of tension

The swearing in of Roberto Micheletti – constitutionally second in line for the presidency – was greeted with applause in Congress.

In a speech, he said that he had not assumed power “under the ignominy of a coup d’etat”.

The army had complied with the constitution, he said, and he had reached the presidency “as the result of an absolutely legal transition process”.

Congress said he would serve until 27 January, when Mr Zelaya’s term was due to expire. Presidential elections are planned for 29 November and Mr Micheletti promised these would go ahead.

Both Congress and the courts had opposed Mr Zelaya’s referendum, which asked Hondurans to endorse a vote on unspecified constitutional changes alongside the November elections.

Tensions over the issue had been escalating for several days, with the army refusing to help with preparations for the referendum.

Just before dawn on Sunday, troops stormed the president’s residence. There was confusion over his whereabouts for several hours before he turned up in Costa Rica. 

Congress said it had voted to remove him because of his “repeated violations of the constitution and the law and disregard of orders and judgments of the institutions of Government”.


Demint (R-SC) Stands with People of Honduras

Ousted President Manuel Zelaya called it a coup, but the reality is the left-wing leader (who was attempting to unilaterally subvert the Honduran Constitution to consolidate his power and install himself as permanent dictator of the country) was ousted by the other constitutional branches of government which called in the military to help preserve their Constitution.  Honduran citizen Yolanda Campos posted the following comment on ozarkguru’s post the other day:

I’m from Honduras, and this is the first time I read something that tells the truth about what is happening in Honduras. I can’t not believe Obama will support Mel Zelaya knowing, Hugo Chavez is behind all this.

President Obama sided with the UN and his newfound friends, left-wing Latin American radical anti-US zealots Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, in demanding Zelaya’s reinstatement to office.  Imagine, an American President demanding the reinstatement of a wannabe Socialist dictator in a country of the Americas!  Hondurans who cherish democracy and freedom must have been as shocked as Iranian supporters of Mousavi were when the American President slipped out for ice cream without comment on their violent deaths at the hands of Iran’s anti-US theocracy.

Yes, it’s becoming a pattern, seemingly a planned part of Obama’s foreign policy, for the US President to stand against any friend and with any foe to support tyrants, despots, and dictators across the globe.  Fortunately for freedom seekers, the power of our government doesn’t rest solely in the Executive Branch.

Yesterday, Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC) issued a press release in which he recognizes the constitutionality of the events in Honduras. “This is not an ideal transition, but Hondurans are adhering to their constitution. The United States should support the Honduran people and their legitimate leaders in their brave and heroic stand for freedom and the rule of law,” says Demint.

He also admonishes President Obama for his “slap in the face to the people of Honduras.” Demint goes on to add, “I am hopeful that as President Obama grows in office, he will eventually turn away from despots like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Zelaya, and give the United States’ full-throated support to the people of any country who are fighting for the same values we cherish and defend in America. The people fighting for freedom around the world, in Iran and Honduras, should never have to wonder which side America will choose between freedom and tyranny.”

I’m glad to see a Republican standing tall on the right side of this issue and condemning our own Socialist President’s defense of Zelaya.


July 3, 2009

Hands Off Honduras!

By Patrick Buchanan

Last Saturday, Honduran soldiers marched into the presidential palace, bundled up President Manuel Zelaya and put him on a plane for Costa Rica.

The ouster had been ordered by the Supreme Court and approved by the Congress, as Zelaya was attempting an illegal referendum to change the Honduran constitution so he could run for another term.

Will someone please explain why this bloodless transfer of power to the civilian legislator first in line for the presidency, in a sovereign nation, is any business of the United Nations, the Organization of American States, Hugo Chavez, the Castro brothers or Barack Obama? For all have denounced the “coup” and demanded Zelaya’s immediate return.

“We have established a democratic government, and we will not cede to pressure from anyone. We are a sovereign country,” said Roberto Micheletti, who was named caretaker president to serve out Zelaya’s term, which ends this year.

Unlike Tehran, where hundreds of thousands protested the election, the streets of Tegucigalpa have remained calm. No one has been shot, beaten with clubs or run down by thugs on motorcycles.

Just whose side is Barack on in Latin America?

Though elected as a center-right candidate, Zelaya has moved into the orbit of Chavez, whose idea it was to change the Honduran constitution to get Zelaya another term. Hugo even provided the ballots. In Latin America, term limits have been written into constitutions to prevent a return to the time of the dictators and presidents-for-life. The folks who put Zelaya aboard that plane are friends of the United States.

Like Barack’s strange behavior in Trinidad, where he grinned away as Chavez handed him an anti-American tract, then listened for an hour to Daniel Ortega berate us for cruelty to Castro’s Cuba, without protest or retort, Obama is coming off as one who shares the international left’s view of the United States.

There is another issue raised by Obama’s denunciation of our friends in Honduras. Does he put ideology ahead of U.S. national interests?

What comes first with Obama?

July 3, 2009

Wrong Again

By Oliver North

WASHINGTON — It took the Obama administration eight days to figure out whether Iranians being gunned down for protesting a fraudulent election and demanding basic civil liberties deserved to be acknowledged by the president of the United States. It took the O-Team less than eight hours to side with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega over the ouster of Manuel Zelaya in Honduras.

As we now have come to expect, Mr. Obama got it wrong again, but this time, nobody noticed. The U.S. news media, preoccupied with the sudden demise of Michael Jackson, ignored the event in Central America. For those who care about things more important than the passing of a “pop music legend,” here’s the rest of the story:

Manuel Zelaya, a wealthy rancher and agribusiness executive and a self-described “poor farmer,” won a four-year term as Honduran president in November 2005, with 49.8 percent of the vote. Article 374 of the Honduran Constitution bars the nation’s chief executive from serving consecutive terms. Apparently, one term wasn’t enough for Zelaya, a protégé of Venezuela’s strongman, Hugo Chavez, and Nicaragua’s phobic anti-American leader, Daniel Ortega.

Late last year, as the Honduran economy tanked and unemployment grew to nearly 28 percent, Zelaya forced Elvin Santos, the country’s elected vice president, to resign and began holding conversations with Chavez and Ortega on how to hold on to power. In lengthy Chavez-like populist speeches, he denounced the U.S. and wealthy landowners and linked himself with leftists in the Honduran labor movement. On March 23, he issued an executive decree directing a national referendum on a Venezuela-style constituent assembly to rewrite the country’s constitution in time for presidential and legislative elections in November. The Obama-Clinton State Department was mute about all of this.

Unfortunately for Zelaya’s aspirations, the Honduran Constitution requires that amendments be passed by a two-thirds vote of the country’s unicameral Congress during two consecutive sessions. By late May, the Honduran Congress, the Honduran Supreme Court, the commissioner for human rights, and the Honduran electoral tribunal all had overwhelmingly declared the referendum unconstitutional. Zelaya ignored the people’s representatives, had ballots printed in Venezuela (by Hugo Chavez’s Government), and announced that the vote would take place June 28. Again, the O-Team was silent.

In keeping with the rule of law, Honduran Attorney General Luis Alberto Rubi took the case to court. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled the referendum to be illegal and ordered the ballots to be confiscated. Late on June 23, Zelaya countermanded the court order and directed the army to distribute the ballots. Gen. Romeo Vasquez, the chief of staff of the Honduran military, sought legal opinions and decided not to distribute them. The following day, Zelaya accepted the resignation of the minister of defense, Edmundo Orellana, and fired Vasquez.   http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/03/wrong_again_97287.html

%d bloggers like this: