That's what I'm sayin'

Ed Driscoll:

How big is this victory?

Consider the following from The American Spectator:

“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.”

That is Rep. Barney Frank speaking.  Folks, when Barney Frank admits that it is time to listen to the voters there is only one thing to say, WE WON!

The ball is in Barack Obama's court now.  He can try to "double down" and ram his agenda through but make no mistake, the President stands alone.  On our behalf, the people of Massachusetts have sent a very clear message that our officials work for us and that they will be held accountable when they act contrary to our will.  Our reps should now realize that Barack Obama is not their boss, we are.  Barack Obama can not fir them, we can.  Every seat in these United States is the people's seat.

Congratulations to everyone who made this possible.  Thank you Massachusetts.

Obama Doesn't "Get" It

Related to yesterday’s post Why is Obama Silent on Iran-Again? is this post from Nile Gardiner writing in the Telegraph (emphasis added):

Now once again huge street protests have flared up on the streets of Tehran and a number of other major cities, with several protesters shot dead this weekend by the security forces and Revolutionary Guards, reportedly including the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, and dozens seriously injured. And again there is deafening silence from the Commander-in-Chief as well as his Secretary of State. And where is the president? On vacation in Hawaii, no doubt recuperating from his exertions driving forward the monstrous health care reform bill against the overwhelming will of the American public and without a shred of bipartisan support.

This is not however a time for fence-sitting by the leader of the free world. The president should be leading international condemnation of the suppression of pro-democracy protesters, and calling on the Iranian dictatorship to free the thousands of political dissidents held in its torture chambers. Just as Ronald Reagan confronted the evils of Soviet Communism, Barack Obama should support the aspirations of the Iranian people to be free. The United States has a major role to play in inspiring and advancing freedom in Iran, and the president should make it clear that the American people are on the side of those brave Iranians who are laying down their lives for liberty in the face of tyranny.

It seems to me that the only person who doesn’t get that the leader of the United States is expected to step up when freedom is threatened is Barack Obama. It is embarrassing and frustrating and disheartening that we are being led my a man who rushes to defend tyrants but remains silent when freedom is being crushed in the streets of Iran. It calls in to question Pres. Obama’s priorities and his loyalty to freedom and democracy.

Why is Obama Silent on Iran-Again?

Prof. Jacobson asks, Will Obama Remain Silent About Iran Protests Again? So far it appears that the answer is, "Yep."

It seems an obvious assumption that the President has been briefed on the protests. Surely he has seen the pictures, or at least has been told, about the protesters risking the their own lives to save their countrymen from the gallows.

As the professor notes, the White House did release a statement earlier today, but White House statements are not what the freedom fighters in Iran need. They need the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, to take ten minutes from his vacation to make a personal statement. The man is be no means camera shy and if ever there was a good time for him to take to the air this would be it.

By not making a personal statement strongly condemning the actions of the Iranian government, Obama is projecting weakness. It debases the United States in front of the Middle East and emboldens not only Ahmadineja but his imitators as well.

Obama needs to show leadership now.

What is He Suggesting?

Consider this from Matthew Yglesias:

We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed. (emphasis added)

How does Yglesias suggest that it be changed? I would remind Yglesias that the Democrats have the White House, the Senate and the House. They can do any damn thing they want and there is not a whole lot the Republicans can do about it. The Left's problem has nothing to do with "the minority"; their problem is that even Democrats face re-election and as such, some of them, and occasionally enough of them, balk at backing a far Left agenda. So unless Yglesias is suggesting that the entire election process be chucked and instead hand-picked Leftist are permanently installed in the halls of power I would suggest that he adjust to the messy mechanisms of democracy.

Update:

American Power has an incredible post on this. Donald makes the point that the majority, in this case "progressives", who care care about the poor, down trodden minority when it suits their agenda.

Why Are We Mistreating Honduras? Updated!

Via Memeorandum:


In Hillary's Honduras Obsession, Mary O’Grady writes:

Ever since Manuel Zelaya was removed from the Honduran presidency by that
country's Supreme Court and Congress on June 28 for violations of the
constitution, the Obama administration has insisted, without any legal basis,
that the incident amounts to a "coup d'état" and must be reversed. President
Obama has dealt harshly with Honduras, and Americans have been asked to trust
their president's proclamations.

Now a report filed at the Library of Congress by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides what the administration has not offered, a serious legal review of the facts. "Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied
constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a
manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the
government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system," writes CRS
senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez in her report.

Why, under orders from the administration, is Clinton dealing so harshly with a country that we should be heralding as a democratic partner in the Americas? One would think that we would encourage Honduras as a counter-balance to Chavez’s Venezuela. Instead, against the opinion of the CRS and public opinion, we are using our might to crush democracy.

Under the Honduras constitution, that country was legally obligated to remove former president Zelaya from office. The Honduran Supreme Court followed the letter of their law. At worst, we should interfere in that country’s sovereign affairs; at best, we should extend our hand to our fellow democracy.

Update:

Fausta's Blog is reporting that former president Zelaya is back in Honduras and hiding out in the Brazilian embassy. No word on what he hopes to accomplish unless he is trying to provoke a confrontation.

I Am Embarrassed

It seems either the English-speaking media is still sleeping since Friday night or they can't find anyone who speaks Spanish. Two days have gone by and no one has been able to translate the numerous articles that have come out around the world regarding the seizure of computers in Zelaya's Presidential Palace containing the results of a referendum vote that never took place.

That is the analysis from Babalu of the coverage that the crisis in Honduras is receiving both from the MSM and the blogosphere. Sadly, it is all too true and I have nothing to say except, "guilty as charged."

Honestly, the only blog that I follow who has kept up with this very important story is Legal Insurrection. I am not going to argue (make excuses) that I have been distracted by socialized health care or Cap and Tax, both I consider to be threats to the fundamentals of democracy.

The events in Honduras are a concrete example of what happens to people that fall asleep at the switch. It may start with cozy, feel good programs like health care but it ends up with dictatorship. If we stand for freedom then lets get up off our collective asses and STAND UP!

Our government has backed the despot Zelaya. This is an affront to freedom and no less deserving of attention than the other crap our government is trying to pull off.

Pay attention.

Democracy And Faux Leadership

Those of us who believe that “democracy” is not a dirty word are understandably keeping a close eye on Iran and Honduras. The fall back position of the Administration is that we, the United States, MUST support the “democratically elected” leaders of Iran and Honduras. This is completely disingenuous, as pointed out by Sen, DeMint in the following clip provided by The Other McCain. Sen. DeMint rightfully states that dictators often use the mantle of democracy to legitimize their despotic rule. There is no shortage of illegitimate “elected” rulers who fall in to this category; Chavez, Castro, Noriega and to a lesser state, but no less the same, Franken. Using either force or deceptive practices contradicts democracy and negates any protected status falsely elected “leaders” claim.

Ros-Lehtinen Proposes Cutting Funds To The OAS

From Babalu:

Ros-Lehtinen Proposes Amendment to Cut Funding to OAS
Funds would be re-routed to support the National Endowment for Democracy(WASHINGTON) - U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, today offered an amendment to the State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (H.R. 3081) to cut funding to the Organization of American States. Statement by Ros-Lehtinen:

“The OAS is fast abandoning its founding mandate.

“From its warm overtures towards the Cuban tyrants to its knee-jerk support of Manuel Zelaya, echoing the rhetoric and agenda of autocratic leaders like Chavez, Morales, and Ortega, the OAS is losing credibility as an entity that stands for democratic institutions, human rights, and the rule of law.

“U.S. funds can be better spent elsewhere where they can truly be used to advance the freedom agenda.

“For this reason, my amendment transfers funds from the OAS to the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization which fights for fundamental freedoms and democracy worldwide and which recently recognized the brave efforts of five dissidents and peaceful opposition leaders fighting for freedom in Cuba.”

Note: Ros-Lehtinen’s amendment reduces funding to the OAS by $15 million and transfers this amount to the National Endowment for Democracy.

There isn’t much I can add. I have little hope that in the current political culture where our President is continuously reaching out to despots who oppress their own citizens that Ros-Lehtinen’s amendment will fly but I am very proud that she has taken a stand.

The Changing Face Of "Democracy"

Democracy under President George W. Bush:





Democracy under President Barack H. Obama:



Manuel Zelaya, bolstered by his cronies, Chavez, Castro and Noriega, is hoping to spark bloodshed by returning to Honduras. Where does President make his stand? On the wrong side of freedom, of course.

As Prof. Jacobson states,

Reports are that ousted President Manuel Zelaya will return to Honduras Sunday, July 5, regardless of what Hondurans want. The Catholic Church in Honduras has asked Zelaya not to return to avoid bloodshed, and the military says that it intends on arresting him on court warrants if he returns.


Venezuela has already spoken of returning Zelaya to power, by force, if necessary. The dictators in the region, aided and abetted by President Obama will use any violence caused by Zelaya’s return as an excuse to invade.

Obama has good reason to fall back on the often meaningless term “democratically elected.” It provides cover for dictatorships who manipulate the ballot box to achieve the desired result. But the people in Iran and Honduras recognize it for what it is, moral duplicity.

Updated:
Fausta is putting out continuous updates Legal Insurrection is following Hunter’s Smith’s on the ground reports. Smith is a former Marine who is posting at Honduras Abandoned. The name of Smith’s blog should stir shame in all free people. Honduras is not some far flung place on the other side of the world (not that it should matter). We should pull out of the OAS and stand up for our neighbors who support freedom and democracy.

Support For Democracy In Honduras

Via Babalu

“Americans should support the Honduran people and their legitimate leaders in their brave and heroic stand for freedom and the rule of law.”
Jim DeMint (R-SC)

The Statement:

"The people of Honduras have struggled too long to have their hard-won democracy stolen from them by a Chavez-style dictator. The Honduran Congress, the Honduran Supreme Court, and the Honduran military have acted in accordance to the Honduran constitution and the rule of law.

“For weeks leading to his arrest, Zelaya flouted the constitutional authority of the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court, and claimed for himself extra-constitutional control of his nation’s military and political institutions. Every institution from the Electoral Tribunal to the Supreme Court ruled that his actions were unjustified and illegal. Zelaya’s open defiance of democratic norms has set Honduras on a path toward violence, instability, and tyranny.
“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.

“President Obama’s call for the reinstatement of Zelaya is a slap in the face to the people of Honduras. And the resolution written by the Organization of American States tramples over the hopes and dreams of a free and democratic people.

“The rule of law is working in Honduras. President Obama should not undermine the democratic institutions that guarantee freedom by forcing an illegitimate President back into power.

“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.”

Did you that thousands took the streets of Honduras in support of their new president?
Probably not if you get your news from the MSM. Gateway Pundit has the story.

As always, Fausta is on top of the latest on Honduras.

Obama's Detachment Towards Iran

It seems that President Obama has dealt with the events in Iran (using the word “dealt” in the loosest means possible) with an air of detachment. What could well be the biggest grassroots uprising of our time simply doesn’t interest the President. It is baffling and frustrating that Obama appears more annoyed at this ‘distraction’ than excited that there hundreds of thousands of people risking their lives on the streets of Tehran in pursuit of freedom. To be clear, Obama simply doesn’t hold democracy in particular, or freedom in general, in high regard.
Writing at The Corner, Andy McCarthy explains:

The fact is that, as a man of the hard Left, Obama is more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society. In this he is no different from his allies like the Congressional Black Caucus and Bill Ayers, who have shown themselves perfectly comfortable with Castro and Chàvez. Indeed, he is the product of a hard-Left tradition that apologized for Stalin and was more comfortable with the Soviets than the anti-Communists (and that, in Soros parlance, saw George Bush as a bigger terrorist than bin Laden).

Because of obvious divergences (inequality for women and non-Muslims, hatred of homosexuals) radical Islam and radical Leftism are commonly mistaken to be incompatible. In fact, they have much more in common than not, especially when it comes to suppression of freedom, intrusiveness in all aspects of life, notions of "social justice," and their economic programs. (On this, as in so many other things, Anthony Daniels should be required reading — see his incisive New English Review essay, "There Is No God but Politics", comparing Marx and Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb.) The divergences between radical Islam and radical Leftism are much overrated — "equal rights" and "social justice" are always more rally-cry propaganda than real goals for totalitarians, and hatred of certain groups is always a feature of their societies.

Obama considers himself to be of the Ruling Class. Democracy is inconsistent with Obama’s world view of who should lead and who should follow and what the relationship between leaders and followers should be. This attitude doesn’t bode well for freedom in the world and is particularly troubling for the future of freedom in the United States.

Bush Honored Democracy

Sometimes you come across a great post and there just isn’t any reason to add to it. Thank you Don.

“Bush had a simple idea, that the Arabs could be democratic, and at that particular moment simple ideas were what was needed, even if he was disingenuous,” said Michael Young, the opinion editor of The Beirut Daily Star. “It was bolstered by the presence of a U.S. Army in the center of the Middle East. It created a sense that change was possible, that things did not always have to be as they were.”

Every time someone says history will vindicate George Walker Bush, I smirk. Yea, right. History is made by the conservatives and re-written by the liberals.

They still credit Mikhail Gorbachev for the fall of the Soviet Union. Not Lech Walesa. Not Baroness Thatcher. Not Pope John Paul II. And certainly not Ronald Reagan. No, never Ronald Reagan. That would be an admission that peace comes through strength and that everything the Left told us for 70 years about the Soviets was a lie.

Gorbachev.

Sure, just like death cures cancer.

But Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has noticed a change in the Middle East. It is called democracy. The seeds were planted by President Bush in Iraq. At a great cost to him.
He never complained.

After 9/11, Bush did something extraordinary. He did not play cops and robbers with al-Qaeda, he went after the root cause of this evil: Tyranny.

Friedman credited technology for this spread of democracy. The Iranian Revolution 30 years ago was spread by a new thing called videotape. The videotapes of Ayatollah Khomeini from Paris spread like wildfire against a very evil regime — the Peacock Throne — Barbara Walters and other news media swells attended the 2,500th anniverary. It was really just 26, but hey, who is counting?

The Times of London recalled: “The family was so rich the Shah’s first wife bathed in milk, and to mark the 2,500th anniversary of the Peacock Throne he threw a £60 million party at Persepolis, the ancient capital, flying 165 chefs from Paris to serve guests more than a ton of caviar.”

President Carter took in the dethroned monarch/dictator.

Yes, the CIA had installed him. It was either that or let the country go communist. As with the 1968 presidential election, sometimes you go with the lesser of two evils.

But bless his soul, Friedman also acknowledged the real reason democracy may take hold in the Middle East: “Second, for real politics to happen you need space. There are a million things to hate about President Bush’s costly and wrenching wars. But the fact is, in ousting Saddam in Iraq in 2003 and mobilizing the U.N. to push Syria out of Lebanon in 2005, he opened space for real democratic politics that had not existed in Iraq or Lebanon for decades.”

There are millions — billions — of things to hate about any war.
But ridding Iraq of Hussein was worth every sacrifice Americans and their allies made.
Bush liberated Iraq in the hopes of liberating the entire Middle East.

Friedman knows that. He has been there long enough. He wrote:

When I reported from Beirut in the 1970s and 1980s, I covered coups and wars. I never once stayed up late waiting for an election result. Elections in the Arab world were a joke — literally. They used to tell this story about Syria’s president, Hafez al-Assad. After a Syrian election, an aide came in and told Assad: “Mr. President, you won 99.8 percent of the votes. It means that only two-tenths of one percent of Syrians didn’t vote for you. What more could ask for?”
Assad answered: “Their names!”

Bush did something else; he respected the Muslim faith. Religion of peace? His words first, not President Obama. Bush offered the olive branch to the people, not to the dictators who oppress them.

President Obama is using “soft power.”

It is called being a wimp. I do not want a president who wimps out in the battle against evil.
Bush didn’t. Bush was right. Bush’s plan will work in the long run.

The Friedman column is here