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'?

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

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

What is happening today in Iran, may well happen in this country in the very near future, if the voices of the people go unanswered. One more public appearance, one more elegant speech, one more promise does little to soothe the unsettling feeling that our futures are hanging precariously in the balance. We do not need pretty words, we need real solutions, and for the present, we are in no rush to throw more money after what is appearing to be a bad investment. A prioritized list would have, as it’s first agenda, the economy, with the closing of Guantanamo Bay and health care reform somewhere nearer the bottom. If he can put people back to work, he will regain his loses, if he fails, he will go down in history as one more president that made promises he could not keep.

Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic "shrink to survive" proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline. ~telegraph.co.uk

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential [liberal] Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes. ~telegraph.co.uk

I think that this is just a taste of the future in a progressive America. A shrinking America. Bulldozed and socially engineered according to what the best and brightest minds have deemed proper. Cram everyone into urban centers where they are more easily controlled and regulated.

When leftists complain and bemoan about 'Urban sprawl' what they really mean is that people have too much freedom of movement and choice. They fail to make the right choices, i.e. the ones the left wants, and when people make the wrong choices (according to them) then government has to step in and correct yet another 'market failure'.

Limiting growth is not just a side effect of an economic downturn it is in fact the goal for the left. Much of the popular liberal ideology focuses on downsizing America as a public good. Limited growth is the ultimate end goal of the left.

He said: "The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there's an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they're shrinking, they're failing." ~telegraph.co.uk

The left has plans for where and how you should live, what you will eat and how much you will have to exercise. Once the government is paying for your health care your exercise and eating habits will no longer be a matter of personal choice, it will be a matter of national economics. Once the government begins paying for your life it will own you and then the government will be deciding your life for you.

The Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs; however, referred to the events taking place in Iran as a debate. People in the streets having their heads bashed in or being shot is not a debate, but an outright murder of one’s own citizenry. Whether or not the words that come from Gibb’s mouth are a directed speech made on Obama’s part could be debated, and it would be hoped that Obama does not believe that killing those who protest is viewed by the world as a “debate.” The only debate that could come as a result of all that has been broadcast, prior to the elections and ousting of foreign reporters would be between Obama and Khamenei and that could yield no good for the peoples of either the United States or Iran. This is one decision that though I have personal beliefs as to why Obama chose not to intervene, it is easier to argue that his lack of meddling did less harm.

The United States cannot fight battles in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, and the only show of anything kind that the Iranian government would respect would be a show of force, which we are not in a position to effect. Too many times we have become involved in struggles, in foreign lands (the Philippines) to help the people only to be cast aside when the “people’s choice” became a worse choice than the one they already faced. The Shah of Iran and the Marcos regime are only two of the mistakes that we have made repeatedly while attempting to liberate people from an evil dictator. While it appears wrong to do nothing for the Iranians, this might be the best choice for all concerned.

I cannot state that this is a republican, conservative, independent, or a democratic view, but it is a personal view having watched one too many countries turn their backs on us after we thought our actions were to help them.

In the 1980s, the communist empires were cracking. President Reagan needed to negotiate with the regimes withholding freedom from the people of Eastern Europe, but he also never forgot whose side we were on. We negotiated with the rulers, but stood with the people. Many people in the U.S. questioned this stand. They said it was empty rhetoric at best, or maybe even dangerous.

Today the Iranian people are boldly standing up to the regime that has oppressed them for thirty years. Some are dying at its hands, and yet they persist. The rulers of Iraq are more ruthless than the Polish communists were in the 1980s, but the principle is the same. Our place is with the people of Iran. They are not asking that we intervene or meddle. They just want us to state unequivocally where our own values and ideals stand. If we didn’t do the right thing in 1953, maybe we can do the right thing now.

It was twenty years ago THIS MONTH that Poles elected a non-communist government. Most pundits thought it was a silly dream that would just be crushed, as communist authorities had crushed these sorts of things before. But it endured. The crack in the communist wall that started in Poland spread throughout the whole benighted region. Five months later the Berlin Wall, that horrible symbol of hate and oppression that had stood for almost thirty years, was torn down by the people. Two years after that, the Soviet Union just dissolved and communism, which had ruled so ruthlessly for generations died with a whimper so small that we weren’t even sure it was dead.

I know a lot less about Iran than I do about Poland and I don’t want to overdo the historical parallels. But I do believe that if history does not repeat, it often rhymes. The Iranians are heirs to the ancient Persian traditions of learning and tolerance. In many ways the Mullahs are an alien anomaly that doesn’t fit the illustrious Iranian culture any more than communism fit Poland. Stalin said that imposing communism on Poland was like trying to put a saddle on a cow. He didn’t mean it as a compliment and he did indeed impose it anyway, but culture does matter and old habits have a way of reasserting themselves, especially habits of the heart.

Persian states, ancient, medieval and modern were often models of tolerance, learning and good government of their times. It was Cyrus the Persian who ended the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. Let’s hope the Persian habits of tolerance and openness are indeed habits of the heart. And let’s make sure we know - and they know - and the world knows - that we stand for their freedom and ours.

(Editors Note: Jack was a former prolific writer in this column for several years. He is unable to return to writing here on a regular basis, but, he presented this article for possible publishing as a one time deal.)

To those who have lived long enough, the elections in our country have seemed strangely predictable. Of the eleven first ladies that have served at their husband’s side, my memory is strong toward the events and political rallies that each attended. The strangest, and perhaps most frightening, of this is that we knew who would be elected, which first lady did the best job on the campaign trail, and how many terms each president would serve. That is a little more than coincident, so it is extremely inappropriate for us to sit on the other side of the world and say that an Iranian election was rigged, when we cannot prove that our own elections are straightforward. When we can prove that we have always followed the democratic strategy of fair and balanced elections then we can call out those who do not.

Skepticism, on my part, started long before Obama was elected.

Fiscal responsibility? Bush left us a deficit of about $400 billion. (We can blame some of that on the cost of two wars.) But Obama steps into office and pushes through the most massive spending packages in the history of the earth. Multiplying the deficit to a record $1.8 trillion according to the Congressional Budget office in his 'historic' first 100 days. Likely, this will end up being even more since Pelosi and Reid have mentioned that they may need more stimulus money to spend. No doubt right about the time they need to get reelected. Most ethical congress ever. Right?

Which brings us to that three letter word: jobs. The scare tactic used by Obama was that if they didn't pass the stimulus package immediately (and without debate) then unemployment would skyrocket to 9%! That ONLY if their plan was enacted would unemployment peak at 8% briefly and then begin to fall precipitously as the era of Obama utopia begins.

Instead, the stimulus plan seems to have accelerated unemployment. What they meant to say was that with the stimulus unemployment would top 9% because it's now 9.4% and rising.

Obama-Stimulus-FAIL chart

But don't worry Obama has plenty of lies to help the liberal media cover up the truth.

Mr. Fratto sees a double standard at play. "We would never have used a formula like 'save or create,'" he tells me. "To begin with, the number is pure fiction -- the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.' And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it."

Of course, the inability to measure Mr. Obama's jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one -- not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics -- actually measures "jobs saved." As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama's jobs claims are "based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs." Nice work if you can get away with it. ~online.wsj.com

Not only has Obama and his accomplices spent more than any One-Party-Government in history but they are getting ready to nationalize another industry and are already telegraphing that price is no object:

Dear Leader: It's OK to Borrow More For Obamacare

45% Say Cancel Rest of Stimulus Spending

The problem with this is that Obama is standing at the bow of this ship declaring that he's king of the world even as he steers it toward the icebergs with a crazy gleem in his eyes. All the while saying that he's saving or creating lives.

In the end, if Obama succeeds, America fails.

As has happened with the closing of Guantanamo Bay, this administration has high hopes and no plan “in place” for implementing their ideas. There has been talk of a tax on the privately held insurance recipient with the figures in the $1800 range for American households to help stem the cost of nationalized health care. In most cases, this cost would equal the amount of income tax taken from those households and lessen the effectiveness of the private plan holder’s insurance; people would not have the funds to pay the premiums and would be less likely to seek medical attention. Unfortunately, while the president “jet-sets” around the world enjoying the benefits from money that others have earned, and congress spends without limits from funds they did not earn, the average American is “once again” asked to open his pocket book to pay for plans that benefit those who cannot pay for health care.

Obama’s speech included a passage referencing our—the United States—dictation (another reference to Bush policy bashing) of policy and the reversal of that strategy, and yet again, I read on yahoo news the resolution to North Korean nuclear aggression. There is no doubt that Kim Jong-Il intends to make and sell nuclear warheads; however, Obama says that we will not dictate policy to other countries while we will decide who has nuclear weapons and whom will not. We have begun (wars) struggles with the Taliban in two countries since the inauguration of this man, and we have done so through our infinite knowledge of those that should be in power. When so many contradictions exist, perhaps it is time for this administration to clarify why it feels that dictating policy to one nation while destroying policy with another nation is the best tactical answer to world problems.

Obama's new rules will transform US auto fleet
DETROIT (AP) - Some soccer moms will have to give up hulking SUVs. Carpenters will still haul materials around in pickup trucks, but they will cost more. Nearly everybody else will drive smaller cars, and more of them will run on electricity. ~news.moneycentral.msn.com

Yes, this does look like the "Transformation of America" that I expected. An America where decisions are made from the top and handed down across the land. It will no doubt take time for our rulers to get around to tackling Urban Blight and Sprawl by making decrees as well, but socialist centrally-planned utopias aren't built overnight.

The higher mileage and emissions standards set by the Obama administration on Tuesday, which begin to take effect in 2012 and are to be achieved by 2016, will transform the American car and truck fleet.

...the changes will make pickup trucks so much more expensive that they will be used almost exclusively for work.

And instead of a minivan or SUV, more parents will haul their families in much smaller vehicles with three rows of seats — something more like the Mazda 5 small van, he said. The Mazda 5 gets about 28 mpg on the highway. ~news.moneycentral.msn.com

The 58-year-old former Marine now finds himself under attack by his Dallas homeowners association for displaying seven decals on his vehicle supporting the Marine Corps.

"To me, it's being patriotic, and it shows that I served," the veteran told FOX 4.

The board says the decals are advertisements that violate HOA rules, and must be covered or removed.

Otherwise, the homeowners association for The Woodlands II on The Creek --- where Larimore has lived for eight years --- says in a letter it will tow the car at Larimore's expense. The board also threatens to fine him $50 for any future incident.

Larimore says the decals, ranging from the Marine emblem to Semper Fi slogans, aren't advertisements for anything. "You can't buy freedom," he reasoned. ~myfoxhouston.com
This might be funny if it weren't a less frequent story. There are numerous examples of this kind of Home Owners Association abuse all across the country.

• A Homeowners Association in Scottsdale, Arizona is prohibiting a Vet from flying the American flag in front of her home


• Subdivision bans peace sign Christmas wreath. Homeowners association threatens to impose $25-a-day fine


• Judge rebukes lawyer in HOA foreclosure


• a homeowner whose association tried to force her to replace the trim on her house AFTER they approved it..at a cost of nearly $18,000

There is no shortage of zealots willing to take on the burden of governing the unwashed masses. We are already seeing the 'grassroots' organizations that could be controlling our lives in order to 'combat' urban sprawl and provide social justice. Groups like ACORN are being funded with billions of dollars by Obama and the Democrats. Something like the communal councils in Venezuela. You know, 'Reconfiguring democracy'. Sounds like transformation to me.

North Korea is on the warpath. I'm not sure why though, since GWBush is no longer President...

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea threatened military action Wednesday against U.S. and South Korean warships plying the waters near the Koreas' disputed maritime border, raising the specter of a naval clash just days after the regime's underground nuclear test. ~news.yahoo.com

Why do the advocates of this failed theory insist that it is the only way to peace?

Let's look at the deficit. We were told that we must elect Democrats because Bush was such a profligate spender. Democrats ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism. All lies.

You can see the Bush/Congress budgets from 2000 to 2008. Notice the tall red lines to the right starting at 2008 there. These are not Bush budgets, they are the Obama/Democrat congress budgets. The difference is exponential.

What is happening since the election of Obama and a completely Democrat controlled congress is a government completely out of control. Bankruptcy cannot be far behind. These budgets are unsustainable.

Add to this the nationalization of the auto industry, the healthcare industry, and the financial industry and what you have is the beginning of total government control of every aspect of our lives. There will be no freedom of speech to criticize your employer when it is the government providing your job. There will be no free speech at all after the government 'bailout' of the press. The government will own the presses.

This is the left's top down approach to democracy and it is Obama's method of madness. The best and the brightest make decisions and plan the economy for the benefit of all the people. In essence, the government controls the people. Since we are the government, they say, it's all ok. But this is how socialism works, (or rather doesn't work). This is a giant left turn off the cliff and into total government control. Total as in totalitarian. Eventually nothing is exempt from that control.

Once the government is paying for your healthcare, guess what, they will be deciding what foods you will be allowed to eat, and how much you exercise.

The left has no plans or principles that will prevent every minute detail of your life coming under the control of some government agency, basically allowing some beauracrat to step in and hassle you to death. As government takes over more areas there will be more reason to take over more. You will be fined, harrassed, monitored and eventually incarcerated if you do not do whatever some government busy body wants you to do. --And it will all be for your own good of course.

This is nothing less than slavery. But it is the change that Obama promised. This is the way he will 'set us free'.

What is even more delicious is that all the self-righteous posturing by the One, in depicting Bush and his administration as bloodthirsty and lawless torturers for their war on terror policies, such as Guantanamo, enhanced interogation, and indefinite detention have now had to quietly affirm all these policies as useful and even necessary for national security.

The past eight years of outright lies and slander coming from Democrats and Pelosi in particular seem to be tripping her up yet again. But of course every one else is a liar in her world. The blame is always somewhere else.

QUESTION: Madam Speaker, just to be clear, you're accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002?

PELOSI: Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States. I am. ~gatewaypundit.blogspot.com