"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:44:46 GMT, Ron penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|
|"Gene" wrote in message
.. .
| On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:54 GMT, "Ron" wrote:
|
|
|"Gene" wrote in message
...
|
| It isn't WHAT they did, it is HOW they did it.
|
|How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly
in
|a
|power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution of
the
|country?
|
|Any other alternative would have ended in a Civil War.
|
|
| You forgot to add: In your opinion..... unless you have a crystal
| ball.
|
|You didn't answer the question.
|


It was so ridiculous that I didn't think you'd want me too.....


What an arrogant prick you are.

Anyway, since he was an unpopular figure, civil war was HIGHLY
unlikely. I'd say that only about a 15% (or less) minority was upset
with him losing control.


In an protracted fight for the power of a country, 15% of the population is
more than enough to spark a civil war.


What they should have done was *legally* order the elections stopped.

They did that. The Congress, and the Supreme Court both ordered the
President to halt the illegal referendum. He decided against that and called
in the assistance of a foreign country to come into the country to run the
election. That my friend is treason.


He should have been detained (not deported), charged, tried, and the
will of the court carried out.

Deporting him was doing him a favor. He has been informed he is more than
welcome to return if he wants to spend 20+ years in prison.

(Generally, in the US we hold the trial
AND THEN execute... not the other way around and everybody sort of
expects that. Not you?)

We're not talking about the US, but in the event that a sitting US President
decided to circumvent the US Constitution and hold an illegal national
referendum to circumvent the Constitution, the Congress, and the Supreme
Court I would hope that our military would act accordingly.

What they did was not legal, it was
suspension of democracy by the military for some expedient. That is
NEVER a good idea unless you really don't value democracy.


What they did was legal under the laws of their country.


Now, instead of the highly unlikely internal civil war, you have
fairly serious saber rattling all over South America.
So far as I know, there have been NO nations that have accepted the way
things
were handled in Honduras. Do you know of any?

Honduras is a sovereign country and does not require outside approval of
their actions. What they did is in accordance with their laws, and the will
of the democratically elected representatives, and therefore the people.

Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:04:28 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

Gene wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:24:43 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

The Honduran Supreme Court removed their president in accord with
legal procedure and the dictates of their constitution because the
President was in violation of the law and the constitution. However,
Obama, Chavez, and Castro refuse to recognize the new president. The
Honduran president was attempting to institute a vote to allow himself
to remain president but the constitution did not give this authority.
Instead, he ordered ballots from Chavez but the army on orders from
the Supreme Court took control of the ballots as provided for in the
constitution. The presidents men broke in the are where the ballots
were held and were trying to instate a referendum in violation of the
constitution and the courts.
Thus, Obama is clearly in favor of a govt outside the rule of law and
constitutional authority. He has clearly sided with extremist
dictators. Does this bode well for an election in 2012? Start buying
ammo now.
The facts seem at odds with your assessment...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090628/...ras_referendum
What was said previously seems to paraphrase this paragraph from your
article.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++
His 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, they said.***
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++

From the article it appears Zelaya was trying to change the
constitution to allow him to be president for longer that allowed in the
constitution.

The author of the article does spins everything to make it appear that
Zelaya is in the right.

My point is that "the Honduran Supreme Court removed their president
in accord with legal procedure" is absolute BS.

Even FOX news says, "Soldiers seized the national palace and flew
President Manuel Zelaya into exile Sunday, hours before a disputed
constitutional referendum."

For you kiddies out there, I'm old enough to remember all of the
military "coup d'etats du jour" of the 50's through the 80's.... if
you aren't, it's time to hit the history books...

If we have learned anything from history, it should be that Obama is
rightfully concerned.

"support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and
domestic" is the clause that scares Obama.

BAR wrote:


"support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and
domestic" is the clause that scares Obama.


Been out drinking with "d'marines" again, eh?

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:


"support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and
domestic" is the clause that scares Obama.


Been out drinking with "d'marines" again, eh?

What is wrong with going out drinking with the marines. You will get a
better picture of what is actually happening in Iraq than going out
drinking with a bunch of leftist whose whole life is in the virtual
world of their computers.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:


"support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and
domestic" is the clause that scares Obama.


Been out drinking with "d'marines" again, eh?

What is wrong with going out drinking with the marines. You will get a
better picture of what is actually happening in Iraq than going out
drinking with a bunch of leftist whose whole life is in the virtual
world of their computers.

Harry hasn't ever had to take an oath of office. And, Harry doesn't
understand the implications of that oath of office. The oath is not
sworn to a man but sworn to uphold the Constitution against all of those
who would subvert the Constitution regardless of who they are and where
they are.

The interesting thing is that the deposed president of Honduras was
trying to pull a Hugo Chavez and the people of Honduras through their
duly constituted government said that ain't gonna happen here and flew
the ******* to Costa Rica.

Try to hold an referendum that the Honduran Supreme Court ruled was
unconstitutional and you get a one-way ticket out of the country. Seems
like a fair trade.