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.

On Jun 29, 1:16*pm, 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/...t_honduras_ref....

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.
--

Forté Agent 5.00 Build 1171

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by
the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do.
So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor.
Catch the trade winds in your sails.
Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepagehttp://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm

The president was detained "In compliance with a court order". The
courts had ruled his attempts to have this referendum was illegal and
unconstitutional.
If Obama was to attempt to hold such a referendum on his own and
ignored court orders, he should be arrested.

"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.

"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.

Ron wrote:
"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.


"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?"


We let Bush/Cheney finish their term, though there still is a glimmer of
hope Cheney will be indicted, arrested, convicted, and offered the other
bunk in Madoff's cell.

HK wrote:
Ron wrote:
"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.


"How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly i
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution
of the
country?"


We let Bush/Cheney finish their term, though there still is a glimmer of
hope Cheney will be indicted, arrested, convicted, and offered the other
bunk in Madoff's cell.

You have not answered the question: What was the government going to do
with a president that decided to change the constitution so he could
be president for as long as he like.

obama is absolutely wrong in supporting a president who was trying to
become a dictator. one who disregarded their country's Constitution,
their Supreme Court and their Legislature.

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:26:54 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

HK wrote:
Ron wrote:
"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.


"How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly i
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the Constitution
of the
country?"


We let Bush/Cheney finish their term, though there still is a glimmer of
hope Cheney will be indicted, arrested, convicted, and offered the other
bunk in Madoff's cell.

You have not answered the question: What was the government going to do
with a president that decided to change the constitution so he could
be president for as long as he like.

obama is absolutely wrong in supporting a president who was trying to
become a dictator. one who disregarded their country's Constitution,
their Supreme Court and their Legislature.

He should have been dealt with in accordance with their constitution.
Does it prescribe that he should be thrown out of the country? Perhaps
they have courtrooms in Honduras? Lawyers? Judges?

Keith Nuttle wrote:
HK wrote:
Ron wrote:
"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.


"How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly i
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the
Constitution of the
country?"


We let Bush/Cheney finish their term, though there still is a glimmer
of hope Cheney will be indicted, arrested, convicted, and offered the
other bunk in Madoff's cell.

You have not answered the question: What was the government going to do
with a president that decided to change the constitution so he could be
president for as long as he like.

obama is absolutely wrong in supporting a president who was trying to
become a dictator. one who disregarded their country's Constitution,
their Supreme Court and their Legislature.

Birds of a feather, as they say.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
HK wrote:
Ron wrote:
"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.


"How else would you expect them to deal with a President who is clearly i
a
power grab and acting outside the law and against the
Constitution of the
country?"


We let Bush/Cheney finish their term, though there still is a glimmer
of hope Cheney will be indicted, arrested, convicted, and offered the
other bunk in Madoff's cell.

You have not answered the question: What was the government going to do
with a president that decided to change the constitution so he could be
president for as long as he like.


Follow legal procedures that didn't involve a military coup?

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:54:12 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

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
m...
|
| 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.....

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.

What they should have done was *legally* order the elections stopped.
He should have been detained (not deported), charged, tried, and the
will of the court carried out. (Generally, in the US we hold the trial
AND THEN execute... not the other way around and everybody sort of
expects that. Not you?) 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.

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?

Fire, aim, ready and you're welcome to the GOP!