Independence Day is right around the corner. In just a couple of day's time as of this writing, we'll be witnessing all manner of festivities. Their will be picnics, barbeques, parades, carnivals, patriotic political speeches, and the main event... fireworks displays. That is, if they haven't been banned in your particular city already.

I can't help but wonder, however, how many of the flag-waving, fireworks-shooting revelers actually understand exactly what they're celebrating, particularly the younger ones.

My mind keeps going back to the "man on the street" type interviews that I've seen (and read) some time ago, when a reporter would ask random Americans why we celebrate the Fourth of July.

Few young Americans could even answer that it was to celebrate our independence, and when they were asked who we won our independence from, the answers were cringe-inducing.

Germany, Japan, Mexico, the Soviet Union, France, Vietnam and even Canada were some the answers given. I recall only one semi-correct answer being given; Great Britain. The answer is technically England, but I'll accept Great Britain.

It makes me wonder just what exactly our public (or should I say, government) schools are teaching our kids. It sure as hell isn't American history. However, I bet they can name every atrocity that early America has committed against the "Native Americans", and are able to tell you all about the "American concentration camps" during WWII.

When I look back through history, it's amazing to me how far we have fallen from our ideals from the time that we won our independence. I look at New England, particularly my home state of Massachusetts, and it astounds me that the citizens of this region, which was once at the forefront of the fight for independence from a once oppressive, foreign government, are so eager to rush into the arms of governments, both federal and state, that want to oppress them again, this time under the guise of them doing "what's best for them". They have gone from declaring "no taxation without representation" to endorsing tax... after tax... after tax.

How did America, as a whole, get to the point that we've openly embraced a man like Barack Obama who, in his own book (Dreams of My Father), admitted that he sought the companionship of Marxist and Socialist students and professors, whose views are the very antithesis of our founding father's beliefs, because he felt that he "didn't fit in"? You can say all you want that we've all done crazy things in college, but obviously, Obama's friend's ideals have stuck with him.

When you observe the Independence Day revelers this weekend, think of how many of them voted for the "change we can believe in". Wonder how many actually understand what Independence Day is about. If you have kids, ask them if they learned from school what it means. Their answers, or lack of them, may shock and depress you. Or, who knows... maybe they'll surprise you and actually get it right. If you're feeling really brave, ask someone who you know to be an Obama supporter what Independence Day means.

Please understand that I did not write this for the purpose of depressing you or spoiling your holiday fun. I myself will be spending the 4^th with my family (who do understand what the holiday means). My intent here is simply to make you think, and to look at the holiday with a different eye than you may have in the past.

For those of you who understand the significance of Independence Day, enjoy your weekend, and please be especially careful (and patient) on the roads out there after the fireworks are over. There'll be a lot of people out in the street that are just begging to get run over.

And if that fuse on your firecracker looks too short, for heaven's sake, don't light it. I don't want any of you to wind up in the emergency room this year, or worse.

 

President Barack Obama, who was so reluctant to “meddle” in the affairs of Iran during its people’s protest over a fraudulent election, immediately leaped into action after receiving word of a “coup” in Honduras. 

Obama, along with 33 other countries including Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, condemned the coup as “illegal” and demanded that the ousted president, Manual Zelaya, to be re-instated into power within 72 hours (of the coup), or face suspension from the Organization of American States, which is based in Washington.

Obama stated that “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the democratically elected president there. It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections.”

I guess Obama missed the part where Zelaya was trying to amend the Honduras Constitution to influence the next election in his favor.

It should be noted that Zelaya is an extreme leftist, who gained his office by pandering to the “poor and less fortunate”, much the same way Obama did. That could at least partially explain Obama’s solidarity with him (and his reluctance to state any type of solidarity to the protesting Iranians).   

Here is the story behind the coup, as I understand it so far…

Manual Zelaya wanted to run for another term of office as president. His current term ends this year. However, under the terms of the constitution of Honduras, he is ineligible, as presidents are only allowed a single, 4-year term.

Zelaya, wanting to follow the example of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, decided that he wanted to call a convention to amend the constitution for the purpose of allowing himself the chance to serve unlimited terms (this is disputed, as he claims that he intended to step down when his term is over. Then again, he’s not the first politician to claim that). 

He decided to call a referendum (popular, public vote, as opposed to a legislative vote) to arrange the convention. However, the congress has outlawed the referendum, as the president does not have that power.

Not only did the Congress outlaw the referendum, but so did the Supreme Court and the electoral tribunal. When he tried to force the military to distribute the ballots to vote for the referendum (which are believed to have been provided by Hugo Chavez), the military, under the command of armed forces chief General Romeo Vasquez, refused, as they knew that his actions were illegal. Zelaya fired Vasquez, which resulted in top military officials, as well as the defense minister, to resign in protest. Orders by the court to re-instate Vasquez were refused. Zelaya later led a mob of his supporters over to an air force base to collect and distribute the ballots themselves. 

The Honduras military, presumably under orders to protect the constitutional law that Zelaya was breaking, finally arrested him, at home in his pajamas, and exiled him to Costa Rica.  The Congress has since temporarily instated congressional leader Roberto Micheletti as interim (temporary) president, until the next election can be held.

While the Congress has stated that it has voted to accept a letter of resignation from Zelaya, the ousted president claims that he’s never written such a letter.  Note that the Congress says that it votedto accept a letter; it never claimed that it received one.

And that, ladies and gentleman, are the events behind the coup to the best of my knowledge. I won’t claim that it’s 100% accurate, but as I’m doing all this research myself in one day, I wouldn’t be surprised if I missed a few details.

Now we come to the real questions…

Obama, as well as the United Nations, have called this an “illegal, military coup”. 

Is it really?   True, the military arrested Zelaya, but it was under the pretense that he was breaking Constitutional law. How is the arrest illegal? 

Also, the phrase “military coup” implies that the military has taken over the government. The problem is that they didn’t. Once Zelaya was arrested and deported (he is allowed to return to Honduras, but only as an ordinary citizen, which in my view, is pretty generous), the congressional chief replaced him as a temporary president until the next elections could be held this November.

Another question; has the government of Honduras actually changed? Not that I can tell. I’ve seen no reports so far of Roberto Micheletti’s policies being really any different from Zelaya’s or the Congress, so how has the government changed?

This would be like President Obama attempting to pull the same stunt as Zelaya, getting arrested by our military, and being replaced by Joe Biden, with Nancy Pelosi taking Biden’s place.

Now, would our government have really changed? Biden and Pelosi’s policies almost mirror that of Obama’s. Congress is the same. Both the House and the Senate remain the same. They’re still controlled by left-wing Democrats. The Supreme Court justices would remain the same. There’s no real reason for Biden to change anything, after all. What would really be different, other than the fact that we have a president that’s not so suave and charming anymore?  

This isn’t as if John McCain got the military under his command, had them arrest Obama, threw out Biden as well as all the other major offices and replaced them with people loyal to him. That’s a real coup.

Assuming that the information is accurate, personally, I commend the Hondurans for having the backbone to take the actions that they did.  It should be noted that Zaleya’s popularity was only 25% out of 18 regional leaders. His only real support, as mentioned before, came from the “poor and less fortunate”, who bought into the usual leftist promise that he’d “fight for the people”.   

On an end note, any politician that uses the “fight for the people” phrase should raise a red flag with you. These are the ones who promise you everything, yet rarely deliver, and the few times they do, it’s always at the expense of a targeted “hated” class, usually the wealthy. There are a lot of dictators out there, past and present, who were fond of that phrase. It’s too bad they don’t set themselves up for ousting as easily as Zaleya did.

Sources:

Honduran President Ousted by Military: Carin Zissis, 6/28/09

President of Honduras: Wikipedia

Support for Ousted Honduran President Raises Questions About ‘Democratic Leadership’: Stephen Clark, Foxnews.com 06/30/09

Obama’s Swift Stand on Honduras Coup: Associated Press, 06/30/09

Honduras Supreme Court Justice Calls President’s Ouster Legal: Joshua Goodman & Blake Schmidt, Bloomberg Press, 07/01/09