And on the site in Lexington, Mass., where the opening shots of the Revolutionary War were fired in 1775, members of Oath Keepers, a newly formed group of law enforcement officers, military men and veterans, "muster" on April 19 to reaffirm their pledge to defend the U.S. Constitution. "We're in perilous times … perhaps far more perilous than in 1775," says the man administering the oath. April 19 is the anniversary not only of the battle of Lexington Green, but also of the 1993 conflagration at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, and the lethal bombing two years later of the Oklahoma City federal building — seminal events in the lore of the extreme right, in particular the antigovernment Patriot movement.

The original militia movement took off in the mid-1990s, with the first large militias appearing in 1994 and growth continuing over the next several years. The movement reflected widespread anger over what was seen as the meddling of a relatively liberal administration in Washington — from gun control to environmental laws to a variety of other federal mandates. But what really ignited the movement was the bloodshed in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas. In 1992, during a standoff between white supremacist Randy Weaver's family in Idaho and federal agents — a confrontation that began with Weaver's sale of an illegal weapon — Weaver's son and wife were killed, along with a U.S. marshal. The following year, some 80 members of the gun-loving Branch Davidian cult died in a fire that ended a 52-day standoff with federal agents in Texas.

http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp

While listening to C-Span’s coverage of the Senate debates on healthcare reform, I learned quite a bit about what they are proposing for America. The most disturbing factor is that every person in America will be required to purchase healthcare insurance. It won’t be up to you as to whether or not you want or can afford health care insurance, it will be the law. By the way, you can take all the president’s promises and throw them out the window because they aren’t true, none of them. Abortion will be covered under the Planned Parenthood clause. Illegal immigrants will be covered because the bill doesn’t allow any hospital to turn away anyone requiring treatment.

During the debate one republican senator spoke out saying that, as far as he could tell, the average cost of insurance today was approximately $2200 for an individual, $14,000 for a family. He then stated that, if his math was correct, the mandatory policy that eveyone must buy if this reform bill passes will cost $9000 for an individual, and $33,000 for a family. Most policies now in effect cover 80% of the total cost and the patient covers 20%. The new, more expensive policy that the proposed reform bill mandates covers only 65% and the patient pays the 35% balance. When a senator spoke out in objection to the higher cost and lower coverage, reminding the committee that the purpose of reform was to provide lower cost and cover 100% of the population, the only response from the committee was that they could lower the cost by lowering the percentage of coverage to 50%.

I watched these debates for three days and never once was there any suggestion that the reform initiative be abandoned, no suggestion to reform the malpractice industry, no suggestion for allowing insurance sales across state lines, nothing constructive, only destruction. Not once was a suggestion or complaint by a republican even taken seriously. The committee did make quite a deal about not having any legislative language to work with, as the bill has not been written. What they are working with is a 250 page list or outline of the general aspects of a bill that will only be written if passed by the House and the Senate. This is the same as giving Congress a blank check.

Folks, America is in a deep mess if either this or any health care reform bill or the Cap and Tax bill passes. If both become law, you will not recognize America any longer. Your pay will be dictated by Washington, your children’s future will not be theirs to pursue. Washington will put controls on your heater and air conditioner allowing them to set how warm or cool your house will be. Washington will design all automobiles, aircraft, trains, and everything else that uses energy. The food you eat, what you drink, what you drive, when and where you vacation, where you live, where you work, whether you belong to a union, whether you own a computer, what is available online, what your children learn, what they wear, how many children you have, everything will be mandated by the government because of these two bills and their requirements.

If ever there was a time demanding action by citizens it is now. We need to triple whatever effort we have put forth in the past. It is a hard thing for democrats in congress to vote down two of the president’s signature pieces of legislation, we must make it even harder to vote for them. Once in place, these laws would have a profound effect on the nation that would be near impossible to reverse.

According to most of those who track things like this, a majority of Americans feel that the health care system in the US needs some reform to lower costs and to extend coverage to all citizens. Two schools of thought exist on how this reform should be done.

The Constitution was written almost by happenstance. Fifty-six highly educated, very religious men with thirty-five different views about government spent near eighteen weeks, six days a week, arguing, each for his own and his state’s interests, defining the necessary components of a central government, proposing methods and procedures, processes and systems, ammendments and resolutions, arguing, agreeing, getting angry, walking out, and after eighteen weeks, it all came together to their amazement. Had they really hammered out a workable form of governence? Had order actually come from the chaos? If so, how? Why?

The Founders were keenly aware of the gravity of what they were there to do, and they were very well familiar with the workings of committees, principles of government, and the philosophies of the great thinkers of old. They were also aware that they would have to live with the results of their work. They were, also, for the first time in the history of mankind, able to actually found a new nation on principles they held dear instead of the dictates of authority not of themselves.

Historically, nations and governments had been based on historic events such as being conquered, the birth or death of rulers, etc. The rights of men had been handed down by those kings and conquerers. America, it was decided, would be founded on principles of higher origin.

The Founders were men of God. Thirty-five of them were Christians of the protestant variety, a few were Catholic, a few were just believers. This collective belief in a higher power, in Nature’s Laws, instilled in them a humility, a sense of humanity and charity that had its own unique influence on their work product. It determined the character of the principles that would form the basis of the new nation.

 On the final day of the convention, the true result of their work was not immediately apparent to most. In fact, there were only two men who, having had the luxury to observe more than participate, realized just what had happened over the past few months, and what the result of it all meant. They were George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. Even Hamilton, and to a lesser degree Madison, didn’t become aware of the full meaning of their work for a day or so after.

With an attitude of equality among them, and a mutual respect for each man’s intelligence and character, and, even more relevant, the dedication to the sovereignty of the individual, the wishes and needs of each delegate, and their constituents, had been recognized and provided for and a blueprint for a central government both national and federal in its style, had emerged. Madison, having read the final embossed document, is said to have expressed sincere astonishment that the best of both nationalist and federalist precepts had been melded into a new and unique experiment of self governence. He was both proud and confident in the work of the convention.

The Constitution was sent to the state legislatures to be debated and ratified. There was much consternation, though, among the citizenry over the Constitution, as it was seen by the people to create an all powerful, sovereign national government that would be overlord to the states, and it was feared that it would be oppressive. Through a series of articles titled the Federalist, Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay, writing under the pen name Publius, explained in detail the intricate weaving of the Constitution’s structure, its fundamental principles, its limits on the new union, and the effect it would have on the lives of the people.

The people saw that the Founders believed the individual to be the very basic element of society, and had founded the nation on that premise, that government is based on the consent of the governed, the people.

Because of their dedication to higher principles, the sovereignty of the individual, they had agreed to adhere, in their deliberations, to what are now known as the First Principles. They are…

These First Principles were the lessons taught by the Federalist Papers. As a result, the people came to see the Constitution as not only creating the central government they needed, but even more as the guarantee that their freedom would be supreme, that they could live free from the fear of tyranny, under the law of the Constitution.

For the first time in history, a population took to their bosom the law of the land, putting their faith in the Constitution as "their Constitution." That sense of being protected and free from domination has prevailed through the two centuries since its creation.

The Constitution, in the hearts of Americans, holds almost equal value with the ten commandments, the promise of the grace of God, and their own sense of self-worth. As long as it is the law of the land, no matter how far from its meaning the government strays, the dedicated action of a single patriot to enforce its authority is all that is required for the people to prevail over those deviating from its mandate.

It is, quite literally, a document of the people, by the people, and for the people.

God Blessed America. May he forever continue that blessing.

Glenn Flowers

POSTSCRIPT: The two words, liberty and freedom, are generally thought to be synonomous, and, for the most part, that is not considered to be wrong. But, the Founders had a definite and different meaning of each. Freedom is seen as being a generic, all encompassing notion of unrestricted choice. Animals, as well as man, enjoys freedom and it is a fundamental character trait in all sentient life forms. Liberty, on the other hand, is uniquely human. Liberty implies a self-imposed restraint on freedom, such as is commonly considered wise and prudent. A self-governing, personally responsible freedom that only man can know. It is, to most, a higher, more enlightened manifestation of freedom.

Liberty, or death. No difficult choice there.

Sent to me by a really long time friend who is, for all practical purposes, a political illiterate. He votes democratic because his parents did. He refused to say where he got this.

Cancallation of the F-22 project, cancellation of the ABM Anti-Ballistic Missile project, a declared policy of ending development of future nuclear technology, a declared policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament, publicly announcing to the world that we are not at war with Islam even though Islam has declared war upon western civilization. All of these are actions already taken by the Obama administration. There are many more actions that have given comfort to our enemies, apologizing to the world for the actions America has taken in the past.

Ignoring treaties and promises made to allies, supporting dictatorial regimes over democratic nations, bowing to Arab royalty and snubbing English prime ministers. Refusing to act to rescue American citizens held hostage when we literally had the kidnappers in our sights. The lack of an ability to act assertively and in defense of America.

This super-soft attitude and its corresponding actions have served our known, self-declared enemies well and have made the USA more vulnerable than we were on December 6, 1941, or September 10, 2001. This attitude has been adopted for the purpose of, supposedly, eliminating America as a threat to our enemies in the hope that that will eliminate the animosities they hold towards us. To put Americans in that type of danger on the whim of an inexperienced, America hating, self-proclaimed radical, is a crime against the USA, the Constitution, the oath of office of the President, and, most terribly, against the people of America.

Obama is purposely following an agenda of making America as or more vulnerable than those who have threatened us hoping that they will reconsider their hostility because of our vulnerability. He has also made criminal the actions of those tasked with preventing attacks on America. He has conferred rights of American citizens upon captured enemy fighters giving them their day in US civilian courts instead of being tried by military tribunals. He has released classified photos of US undercover operatives to the defense attorneys of these prisoners, who have then showed the photos to every prisoner so that they can identify who it was that interrogated them. This action is illegal and serves to blow the cover of our agents in the field and endanger their lives.

Currently, our nation spends less than 4% of our gross domestic production on defense. That includes research, active duty personnel, equipment procurement including ships and aircraft, and fuel for that equipment. All must be had with less than 4%, one twenty-fifth of our nation’s yearly wealth. Isn’t defense the number one reason for this government’s existence? Shouldn’t we be calculating actual cost for the defense against known threats and allocating that instead of limiting it to 4%? Obama has declared that our defense spending is too high to pay. He intends to lower our defense budget to 3% or less in the next ten years.

It is time we, the People, shout as loudly against these dangerous and destructive policies as we have against health care reform, cap and trade, and the superfluous spending bill.

If we do not, no amount of tax or spending cuts, no economic or political victory will be enjoyed when the nation is defeated by its enemies.

No Russian spy, no enemy interloper, no act of treason by the worst traitor in history has served to render Americans as vulnerable to enemy attack as the policies of the current president. Yet there are no demands for any investigations except against Bush and Cheney, there are no charges of treason or high crimes, except against our CIA, and there are no brave men standing up for the rights of Americans, except those in uniform.

America is no longer the hope of the democracies of the world, these nations have no hope any longer other than that no enemy takes advantage of them. How likely is that scanario?

Historians can relate the consequences of a nation choosing to cower in fear of their enemies as opposed to those who have invested in national defense and are contantly vigilant, acting from a position of strength.

Our nation’s existence and its security, unrivaled by any nation in history, has come at a very dear, dear price. Thousands of young Americans have dedicated their lives and deaths to this nation and her people, knowing that if left to the enemies and their will, America would soon cease to be the nation she is, and her people would live under tyranny. To disregard that investment of young lives on a notion is criminal and should not be allowed when avenues are available to prevent it.

God, please help the USA.

Glenn Flowers

The PRIMARY elections, not the general election, are critical to replacing congress members.

Taking into account the blatant corruption and elitist attitude of all members of Congress regardless of party; when it is understood that their refusal to obey the Constitution is intentional and without regard for We, the People; when voters realize that a total replacement of Congress is necessary; the primary elections of 2010 become far more important than the general election.

With the people of the nation facing the loss of their freedoms, and dis-satisfaction with government and its leadership growing rampantly, next year’s congressional primaries represent the first chance for voters to fire those responsible. It is Congress that has not only failed to protect the Constitution, but the Republican and Democrat parties have melded as one and are repealing our liberties and rights, and purposely usurping our authority and stealing our wealth, and they don’t even try to hide it anymore.

The 2010 congressional elections may be the last free elections Americans will ever see. I’m not joking, there’s nothing funny about any of this.

American voters have a chance to unite for a common purpose, to take our authority away from Congress. Democrat voters need to go to their polling place on the day of the primary election, and search the ballot for non-incumbent Democrat candidates they can feel good about voting for. Republican voters, do the same. If we wait until the general election, chances are that the person in office now will be the only candidate on the ballot from that party. We have to vote the incumbents out in the primary election.

If the incumbent representitive from your district is a Republican, republican voters need to pick anyone but that incumbent. If a Democrat is the incumbent congressman in your area, the dems need to do the same deed.

Republican and Democrat voters can vote their party line, and do not have to give in on your parties priniples to join together. We all need to pick a candidate that is an airline pilot, the owner of Jiffy Lube, the local high school gym coach, the president of the Colonial Baking and Quilting Club, etc. Anything as long as they are NOT the incumbent.

During the Federal Convention of 1787, the Founders argued over every conceivable aspect of the document they were creating. Some, being from England, argued against a single person as the Chief Executive. Others, from the smaller states, insisted on enumerated, clearly defined and limited powers for the central government. The great majority, though, had no objection to what has become known as the "seperation of power". In fact, the concept had been written into the Constitution in a haphazard manner, but was added wherever it was missing and in a more bold and intentional way before the document was signed. Indeed, the seperation of powers of the three branches of government had been the very framework upon which the founders acted, albeit in an eerie and unconcious way.

The seperation of powers, these words are not in the Constitution, was the method used by the founders in the attempt to prevent our elected officials from creating a tyrranical, elitist despotism in government. Madison defined tyranny as all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, being in the hands of one group or person. The seperation of powers was to prevent that from happening.

Not only were the powers of the branches strictly defined but auxilliary checks were given to each branch that would limit the autonomy of the branches. For example, the executive was given the right to appoint his cabinet members, diplomats and ambassadors, and justices to the Supreme Court. But all of these appointments were to be subject to the approval and advice of the Senate. Congress was given the huge power of writing all of the nation’s laws, subject to the veto power of the executive and the ratification by the Senate. Congress, by a two-thirds vote, could override the president’s veto and pass the law. The founders wisely did everything they could to limit the possibility of one person or branch becoming all powerful.

It was this seperation of power that overcame many popular objections to the Constitution during the ratification by the states. It was also one of the main reasons the people have come to believe that the Constitution is their document, their insurance of their rights being protected.

Today, the seperation of powers still operates to some degree, but the seeming ignorance of the Constitution, the almost dictatorial attitude of Congress, especially its leaders, and their ability to get away with more and more criminal activities are all due to the changes made by the courts and the laws passed by Congress in the way in which the seperation of powers is perceived. The fact that the Constitution does not contain an expressed injuction to preserve the boundaries of the three branches is impetus for those bent on consolidating power to themselves.

The result of this curruption of the seperation of powers is what we see happening in our government, especially in Congress, today. Vaguely written, ill defined legislation leaves the details to the bureaucracy created by the bill. Bills redefining the powers of the judiciary and executive more often than not, are commonly passed. The result is Congress has become the de-facto regulator of all things executive, and the judiciary has become the law makers. This is most obvious in the consideration of abortion, pornography, school prayer, the death penalty, and immigration law and their enforcement.

This maldistribution of power received its biggest boost with the election of Woodrow Wilson as president in 1912. Since then, a faction loosely called the "Administrationists", has pushed further and further the Constitution’s seperation of power doctrine toward the brink of destruction. In essence, they have been unopposed in their work.

Wilson, an academic in all that that infers, believed the seperation of powers was a deadlock to government efficiency. He and his followers were of the belief that the Constitution should be a living document as history had shown how much time had changed man’s ideologies about himself, and all other aspects of his world. They saw the Constitution as being a religious like set of commandments that society had outgrown with the advances in understanding and man’s ability to reason rather than simply observing. He and his followers often stated the following about the Constitution, "The more open-eyed we become as a nation to its defects the better." They believed that man received his rights to life, liberty, etc., not from God or nature’s laws, but from those in power. Yet he espoused the theory that government was not a written set of mandates, but was a living, breathing entity susceptible to outgrowing certain premises.

In Wilson’s view of government, only the consolidation of powers under one branch would provide the most efficient government. He believed that the only seperation should be between the politics and the administration of government. Therefore, he held that two branches should comprise government, the executive and the administrative. The executive would be the only elected position and would be the "people’s delegate" in government. It would be the President’s sole responsibility to sell the policies of the administration to the people, and to convey the wishes of the people to the administration. This executive would, seemingly, be perpetually in campaign mode, selling the policies to the people, forming interest groups that could convince others of the benefits of the policies. A cheerleader, the executive would have no real administrative duties, but would be essential if civil disruption were to be avoided.

The administration’s major responsibility was to foretell the future and set in motion policies that would be effective in bringing the nation into that future. There would be no laws except those conferring the power to legislate upon the administration, and as few as necessary to regulate society. The everyday administration of the activities of the people would be per diem, or on an as needed basis and would be revisable, also as needed, or, as they saw fit.

To Wilson and the Administrationists, the future of the nation was to be decided according to what they saw as historically becoming the future, and not having anything to do with the rational, Constitutional standards addressing the nature of human beings. The duty of government, in their eyes, was to be attuned to the time and spirit of the future and to guide the nation where those events showed it to be headed. No thought was given, in fact it was specifically ommitted, that the duties should ever provide for common security or to secure the inalienable rights of men. Such idealistic thought was, to their way of thinking, responsible for selfishness in man, poverty, war, and all injustices so prolific in the world. Only a trained class of elitists, scientifically determined as non-partisan could bring about the perfection the Constitution had failed to achieve.

We, when analyizing the properties of one form of government as opposed to some other, are more apt to choose that form which elevates the common person, defining and insuring the retention of human rights as are the nature of all persons ever born, than a form which is impersonal, abstract, and, in anyway authoritarian. Indeed, those very qualities of humane governence, drafted by and for the People of the nation, are the reasons why the people of these United States have, for so many years, seen the Constitution as their own insurance policy against tyranny and the loss of their freedom. Only by the corruption and ignorance of the principles inherent in the Constitution have evil men, bent on tyranny and a greedy consolidation of power, made the few inroads they have to their purposes. The Constitution, as written, is still very much appropriate and timely for the purpose for which it was created.

The fact that the Constitution embraces the idea that there is a higher power than man is what makes it so personally acceptible to men of decent character. The robotic, un-godly processes of Administrationism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc., and the policies resultant therein, are the very reasons they are soundly rejected and despised by those same decent humans.

It’s tough to tell, sometimes, when someone is lying to you. In fact, most can’t tell the difference in truth or lie. A better way to judege between opposing tales is to consider the source. If someone has lied before, they’ll most likely lie again. The opposite is also true. If you have found someone whose word has always been solid, it is, usually, a sign of character and honesty.

When opposing stories are of a very complicated topic, such as the proposed healthcare reform bill released in August, to discern that which is factual requires a good deal of reading and thought, and most people will end up siding with whomever they feel most attached to instead.

Take for instance the claim that illegal immigrants will not be covered under the bill. The Republican representitives almost to a person will argue all day, even call the president a liar because of what they’ve read in the bill. Yet the president vehemently denies that illegals will be covered. But, anyone reading the bill objectively will see that both are, to some extent, correct in their claims.

But, on page 762, line 1 says ‘‘(A) provides services to beneficiaries under this title without discrimination on the ground of race, color, national origin, creed, source of payment, status as a beneficiary under this title, or any other ground unrelated to such beneficiary’s need for the services or the availability of the needed services in the hospital;" You need to, again, back up one page to 761 to learn that that statement above is just one requirement for a hospital to be certified under the bill. The entire, undivided sentence is, "No hospital may be defined or deemed as a disproportionate share hospital, or as an essential access hospital (for purposes of subsection (f)(6)(A)(iv), under a State plan under this title or subsection (b) of this section (including any waiver under section 1115) unless the hospital provides services to beneficiaries under this title without discrimination on the ground of race, color, national origin, creed, source of payment, status as a beneficiary under this title, or any other ground unrelated to such beneficiary’s need for the services or the availability of the needed services in the hospital;"

Any hospital not defined as an essential care hospital will not be paid for essential care services. So, to be a real hospital, you can not turn away anyone, even illegal aliens. But, illegals are not eligible to become a covered member of the plan. So, they will remain in the status they are in today. To get treatment, they must use the emergrncy room.

They are not "covered" by the plan as that is defined as being enrolled. Obama is right, they are not "covered". But, they will continue to be treated, free of charge, in the emergency room and can not be turned away. Obama’s critics are also right, the illegals will receive healthcare, free, under the terms of this bill.

Who, then, is more honest in their claim? It is the one who is using the exact phraseology of the bill to promote an idea that is not a part of the bill. The people do not want illegals treated in their tax paid hospitals anymore than is needed to save their lives. To that, the president says, "Illegal immigrants will not be covered under this bill." Great, they will be turned away for all but life threatening reasons. Right? "Uhhhh, that’s not what I uhhhh… let me make it perfectly clear, again."

And he’s lied to us before, by ommision and commission. We should know by now. The same kind of "rigg-a-ma-roll" can be shown with regards to the so-called "death panels". This topic has nothing to do with the End of Life Counciling, though, it has everything to do with the Comparitive Efficiency Studies and the requirement in the bill to lower healthcare costs.

The true nature and effect of this bill will not be known until the Secretary of Health and Human Services creates the studies, rules, and guidelines that the Secretary is tasked, by the bill, to create. The Comparitive Effectiveness Study is mandated to provide a set of guidelines for treatments that are more effective (read cost effective) than others. This set of guidelines will be the rules that the "death panels" will go by to determine who will receive what treatment, based upon their ability to contribute to society, not on how dire their need for the treatment is.

So, Obama is correct when he says there will be no death panels pulling the plug on Grandma because those exact terms are never used. But, they are there, in effect. So, the opposition is telling the truth about the intent of the bill.

"I never heard Reverend Wright preach a sermon like that. He always preached about Jesus Christ and loving your neighbor."

"I never worked for ACORN, was never their attorney, never trained their crews, and have not been associated with them in any way."

Oh, the list is WAY too long to type out. But, I think you see my point. He’s lied everyday, everyway, since being coronated. He can not be trusted to do the right thing, only the "Wright" thing.

Listening to this series of six ten minute videos really brought back the memories. Lady Thatcher, addressing a joint session of Congress during the Reagan days, praised and glorified the USA for having the strength and intelligence to realize that, in a world where enemies seek to destroy you for your love of indepenence, peace only comes through strength. She goes on about how our European allies, and the entire world, are indebted to America. She praises America for having used our nuclear weapons with restraint and to reduce the loss of life, and, then, never again. She asks what would have been the reality if the USSR under Stahlin had had those weapons instead of us.

Don’t watch this unless you are determined, which most of us are, to do WHATEVER it takes to restore America to our rightful, righteous position among the nations of the world.

Watch them, please. I need some company in my sorrows.

ONLINE

Written by F.W. Blake Wednesday, 12 August 2009 12:06

The International Media and International Community have quickly and swiftly condemned the actions that transpired on June 28th in Honduras as a military coup. By doing so, they fail to understand at its most basic level and principle what a coup d’état is, and the elements which characterize it. What follows is my personal attempt at a brief and concise explanation aimed at clarifying this ghastly oversight. A coup d’état, in its most general sense, can be defined as the violent, forceful and sudden removal of a legitimate government by the military, and its replacement by a new civil or military government. Throughout human history political scholars, historians and analysts have classified different types of coups in an attempt to differentiate them in cause and form.

1.Breakthrough coup d’état: enacted by junior officers (colonels or lower rank) or noncommissioned officers (sergeants), essentially a mutiny led by a minority group of the military aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government and the military’s top commanding officers. The most recent example is Hugo Chavez who in 1992, as a lieutenant colonel in the Venezuelan army, led a breakthrough coup d’état against then president Carlos Andres Perez.

2.Veto coup d’état: enacted by the military’s top commanding officers, the army rejects or vetoes the people’s right to govern themselves and starts a large scale campaign aimed at repressing, controlling, and killing the popular masses. The most recent example is Pinochet and the Chilean military coup, who in 1973 removed Communist-Socialist President Salvador Allende from power.

3.Guardian coup d’état: enacted by the military’s top commanding officers and aimed at restoring or improving public order, government efficiency, and ending corruption as military officers temporarily assume public office. It is seen by its executors as an unfortunate necessity but necessary evil, and generally does not cause any fundamental changes in the structures of power or government. One example is Argentina between 1930 in 1980.

4.Self coup d’état: enacted by the country’s democratically elected leaders, usually its Head of State, and aimed at dissolving one or more of the three branches of government (legislative, judicial, and executive), usually by annulling the current constitution, drafting a new one, and granting dictatorial powers to the Head of State. The most recent example is former President of Peru Alberto Fujimori, who in 1992 attempted to exercise absolute power over his government by controlling the judicial and legislative branches. Historically the most infamous is Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, nephew of Napoleon I, who in 1851 as the first president of the French Republic became Emperor Napoleon III.

5.Bloodless coup d’état: in the absence of bloodshed, and when the mere threat of violence suffices to depose the legitimate government, all of the above may be further classified as a bloodless coup d’état.

6.Pronunciamiento(The Pronouncement): a term derived from the Spanish language, it differs in form and function from any of the previous. Enacted by the military and aimed at deposing the current civil government with the purpose of installing a new civil government. The new civil government respects the previous structure and form of government, and the military’s commanding officers usually do not assume any roles in the new civil government.

At this point it is noteworthy to mention that the English language lacks a native term to properly denote a coup d’état, and perhaps this has only added and contributed to the existing confusion and misrepresentation of the situation in Honduras. We must remember the term coup d’état in its current state was adopted from the French, and as such has its etymological roots in classic Latin and modern French; where coup is derived from the Latin collaphus, meaning a "stroke or blow with a fist", and d’état is derived from French meaning "of state". Thus the inclusion of the word in the English language and the poor understanding of its origin by the general population is an inherent cause for its misuse; as a non native term it lends itself to a great deal of inflexibility in its semantic use.

Many around the world have been swift to vibrantly and energetically condemn the actions that transpired in Honduras as simply a military coup, failing to make an analytical, logical and scholarly use of the proper terminology detailed above. Such behavior can only be seen as partial, reckless, uninformed and naïve, for they as well as the leaders and citizens of this world have and share the responsibility to see the facts as they are, objectively and without prejudice, and to only pass judgment once they have conducted a proper analysis. What follows is an analysis of what happened in Honduras before and on June 28th 2009, but first we must state in chronological order the facts.

Written by F.W. Blake Wednesday, 12 August 2009 12:06

November 27th 2005: Mr. Manuel Zelaya a member of the Liberal Party of Honduras wins the elections with a majority of the votes and is democratically elected as President of Honduras.

January 27th 2006: Mr. Manuel Zelaya assumes office and before a crowd of over 50,000 and millions watching on TV says; "I swear to be loyal to the Republic of Honduras, and to fulfill and make fulfill the Constitution and its laws" (Article 322 of the Constitution). That same day he also announces his intent to create a secondary law called Power of the Citizens (Poder Ciudadano), a law which seeks to create a more participative democracy.

February 2006-June 2009: Over a three year span President Manuel Zelaya refuses to ratify or veto more than 96 bills sent by the National Congress. He begins to delegitimize, confront and isolate the National Congress.

August 3rd 2008: Mr. Rasel Tome, Director of the National Commission of Telecommunications (CONATEL) awards the frequency of channel 8 to the state; ignoring a Supreme Court ruling of May 2007 which had given Teleunsa, owned by businessman Elias Asfura, the right of frequency and usage of channel 8. The government of Mr. Zelaya needs the frequency of channel 8 to emulate other governments such as Venezuela and Nicaragua who also have the same frequency (channel 8), and use it to diffuse their ideals of Socialism of the 21st century.

August 25th 2008: President Manuel Zelaya formalizes his alliance with President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela by incorporating the Republic of Honduras into the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA). In front of the Presidential Palace, and with the attendance of presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Evo Morales of Bolivia, he delivers a speech in which he says, "Some have said that it is dangerous to speak of a left center government, if they don’t like the center part of it, they can remove it."

September 15th 2008: President Manuel Zelaya and Secretary of Finance Rebecca Santos fail to submit to the National Congress a National Budget for the fiscal year of 2009. Disregarding article 367 of the Constitution of Honduras which states: "The National Budget must be submitted by the Executive Branch to the National Congress within the first 15 days of the month of September of each year."

October 2008: Without a national budget the Executive Branch proceeds to install the first ever state run TV channel, channel 8, called the Channel of the Power of the Citizens (El Canal del Poder Ciudadano). The channel begins to promote President Manuel Zelaya’s personal agenda.

March 23rd 2009: Channel 8, the state run channel created by Mr. Manuel Zelaya, begins a 24/7 campaign promoting the Project of the Fourth Ballot. It starts a massive nationwide campaign aimed at encouraging the general population to support Mr. Zelaya’s project for a Fourth Ballot Box (Proyecto de la Cuarta Urna). Television commercials are aired on all major channels; the source of the funds for this publicity campaign is unknown.

March 24th 2009: By issuing Presidential decree PCM-05-2009 President Manuel Zelaya calls for an electoral vote to be held on June 28th 2009, called Project for a Fourth Ballot Box (Proyecto de la Cuarta Urna), with the goal of installing a fourth ballot box during the General Elections of November 29, 2009. The question to be voted on was as follows: Do you agree that in the General Elections of 2009, a fourth ballot box be installed to decide on the creation of a National Constituent Assembly to draft a new Political Constitution? Yes or No? The Presidential Decree assigned the task of this electoral vote to the National Institute of Statistics (Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas). President Zelaya claims the electoral vote is not legally binding. Many confirm their fears that President Zelaya seeks to extend his presidential term by calling for a new constitution.

Note: For a law passed by the National Congress or a Presidential Decree issued by the President to be considered legal and in full effect it must first be published in the Official Journal The Gazette (Dario Oficial La Gaceta). Mr. Zelaya purposely and deliberately chose not to publish Presidential Decrees PCM-05-2009 and PCM-19-2009 to avoid criminal prosecution by the competent authorities.

March 24th 2009: When asked by the media if the project for a Fourth Ballot Box (Proyecto de la Cuarta Urna) seeks to extend his term, President Zelaya responds, "I believe in a democracy and the question has to be asked to the people. It is they who have to answer, no one else."

March 25th 2009: The District Attorney’s Office holds a press conference in which it warns the Executive Branch of the Illegality of the project for a Fourth Ballot Box (Proyecto de la Cuarta Urna), stating that Presidential decree PCM-05-2009 is fictitious, illegal and unconstitutional. It warns that "...all public officials who participate in this project will be subject to a penal and criminal investigation. Neither the Constitution nor its laws grant the President the faculty to conduct any kind of electoral vote, a right reserved exclusively to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo Electoral).

May 4th 2009: The Executive Branch and the Secretary of Finance Ms. Rebecca Santos, not having submitted a National Budget for 2009, stop all disbursements to the National Congress and the District Attorney’s Office. President Zelaya is quoted as saying, "I will only send them enough for their cups of coffee." Many see this as a reprisal for not supporting President Manuel Zelaya’s illegal electoral vote.

May 8th 2009: As established by Title IV, Chapters I and II, Articles 182-186 of the Constitution of the Republic of Honduras the District Attorney’s Office (Mr. Luis Rubi) in coordination with the Atty. General of the Republic of Honduras (Mrs. Rosa Miranda) file an ordinary lawsuit (File No. 51-2009) for Protection of Constitutional Rights and Guarantees in the Court of First Instance of Administrative Law (Juzgado de Letras de lo Contencioso Administrativo). The lawsuit requests that the administrative act carried out by the Executive Branch be suspended as it infringes upon the Constitution and its laws.

May 11th 2009: The Executive Branch hires prominent Spanish constitutional lawyer Mr. Jose Vinicio Pastor to begin drafting a new constitution, he had recently participated in drafting the new constitution of Ecuador (member of the ALBA), which in September of 2008 allowed current President Rafael Correa to extend his presidential term until 2013. The Executive Branch denies hiring Mr. Jose Vinicio Pastor, and claims he is only in Honduras as a legal counselor; others see it as a confirmation that President Zelaya intends to extend his presidential term.

May 26th 2009: President Manuel Zelaya, knowing his Decree would be declared null by the court, issues a second Presidential Decree PCM-19-2009 in which he changes its name from Project for a Fourth Ballot Box (Proyecto de la Cuarta Urna) to Popular Vote (Consulta Popular). Aside from the change in names this Presidential Decree remains exactly the same as Presidential Decree PCM-05-2009.

May 27th 2009: The Court of First Instance of Administrative Law (Juzgado de Letras de lo Contencioso Administrativo) emits a resolution through Judge Jorge Alberto Zelaya establishing that Presidential Decree PCM-05-2009 is illegal and unconstitutional and poses a threat to the Rule of Law in Honduras; on the basis that the Executive Branch is not entitled by law to directly conduct, promote, organize or finance any kind or type of electoral voting process. The court points out that the National Institute of Statistics (Instituto Nacional de Estadisticas) is not the competent institution for such a task and further clarifies that such an attribute belongs exclusively to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo Electoral), an independent and decentralized institution of the government whose sole purpose is to conduct, promote and organize a transparent and legal electoral voting process. The resolution also urges the Secretary of the Presidency to inform President Manuel Zelaya of the court’s ruling and to abstain, terminate and suspend all actions related to this project. The legal backbone of the resolution are articles 5, 80, 82, 90, 245, 303, 304, and 305, of the Constitution of the Republic of Honduras, and articles 1, 11, 40 and 137 of the Law of Organization and Attributes of the Courts (Ley de Organizacion y Atributos de los Tribunales).

May 29th 2009: The Court of First Instance of Administrative Law (Juzgado de Letras de lo Contencioso Administrativo) emits a second resolution through Judge Jorge Alberto Zelaya stating that Presidential Decree PCM-19-2009 simply changes the name of the project and that the character, nature and intention of the administrative act of the Executive Branch remains same and is therefore still illegal, unconstitutional and a threat to the Rule of Law.

May 29th 2009: The Executive Branch, ignoring the previously mentioned judicial resolutions, issues Presidential Decree PCM-027-2009, in which it orders the Armed Forces of Honduras (FFAA) to give logistical support to the Popular Vote (Consulta Popular), previously known as the Project of the Fourth Ballot Box (Proyecto de la Cuarta Urna).

May 29th 2009: The Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo Electoral) summons the general population to participate in the General Elections to be held, as they traditionally are, on

November 29, 2009 to elect a new President, 298 Mayors and 128 congressmen/congresswomen. This despite not having received over 500 million Lempiras to begin preparations for the electoral process due to the inexistence of a National Budget on behalf of the Executive Branch. There is no mention of President Zelaya’s project for a Fourth Ballot Box.

June 3rd 2009: The Court of First Instance of Administrative Law issues a judicial notice through Judge Jorge Zelaya informing the office of the President the illegality of Presidential Decree PCM-05-2009 and PCM-19-2009. The notice also requests compliance with the court’s rulings of May 27th. President Manuel Zelaya refuses to acknowledge and abide by the court’s ruling.

June 19th 2009 9:00 AM: The Court of First Instance of Administrative Law issues a second judicial notice through Judge Jorge Zelaya informing the dispatch of the Secretary of the Presidency the illegality of Presidential Decree PCM-05-2009 and PCM-19-2009. The notice also requests compliance with the court’s rulings of May 27 and May 29 of 2009, and states that failure to abide will result in the application of article 349 of the Penal Code. The document was signed and sealed as received by the dispatch of the Secretary of the Presidency on June 19, 2009 at 10:30am by Claudia Flores. President Manuel Zelaya refuses to acknowledge and abide by the court’s ruling for a second time.

June 19th 2009 2:00 PM: The Court of First Instance of Administrative Law issues a third judicial notice through Judge Jorge Zelaya informing the dispatch of the Secretary of the Presidency the illegality of Presidential Decree PCM-05-2009 and PCM-19-2009. The notice also requests compliance with the court’s rulings of May 27 and May 29 of 2009, and states that failure to abide will result in the application of article 349 of the Penal Code. The document was signed and sealed as received by the dispatch of the Secretary of the Presidency on June 19, 2009 at 3:55pm by Claudia Flores. President Manuel Zelaya refuses to acknowledge and abide by the court’s ruling for a third time.

June 24th 2009 9:00 PM: President Manuel Zelaya meets with the head of the Armed Forces of Honduras (Gen. Romeo Vasquez Velasquez), Fleet Admiral of the Navy (Commander Juan Pablo Rodriguez), Field Marshall of the Army (Gen. Miguel Angel Garcia Padget), Air Force Marshall (Commander Luis Javier Prince), and the Secretary of Defense Mr. Edmundo Orellana. As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Honduras, President Zelaya orders the above mentioned officers to give logistical support and to distribute and escort the ballot boxes for the electoral vote to be held on June 28, 2009 (Proyecto de la Cuarta Urna). The officers explain to President Zelaya that they cannot participate in an activity which has been declared illegal by the Judicial Branch, and all five proceed to resign from their posts.

June 24th 9:55 PM: On national television President Zelaya announces that he has relieved Gen. Romeo Vasquez Velasquez from his post, for failing to obey a direct order from himself, the Commander in Chief.

June 25th 2009 8:00 AM: Mr. Manuel Rodrigo Mazariegos Zuniga (private lawyer) and Mr. Rene Aceituno Ulloa, the acting Special District Attorney for Constitutional Matters, file before the Supreme Court an action for the protection of Constitutional Rights and Guarantees in favor of Gen. Romeo Vasquez Velasquez (Supreme Court register no. 881-09 and 883-09).

June 25th 2009 11:00 AM: A Venezuelan airplane lands at international Airport Toncontin with the authorization of President Zelaya. The plane carries 814 boxes filled with electoral material to be used for the electoral vote on June 28th 2009.

June 25th 2009 12:00 AM: The Supreme Court unanimously declares that the removal of Gen. Romeo Vasquez Velasquez from his post is illegal, and as such is null and without validity and effect. The Supreme Court’s resolution sites articles 183, 245, 278, 280, 303, 313 numeral five, 316, 321, and 323 of the Constitution of the Republic of Honduras and article 40 of the Law of the Armed Forces.

Article 278: All orders given by the President of the Republic of Honduras to the Armed Forces must be in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic and the principles of legality, discipline and military professionalism. Article 321: All who hold public office only have the powers granted expressively by the law. All actions executed outside the rule of law are null and carry responsibilities.

Article 323: Public officials are depositaries of authority, and legally responsible for their official conduct, subject to the law and never above it. No public official, employee, civil or military, is obligated to carry out orders that are illegal or that imply committing a crime.

June 25th 2009 12:35 PM: The District Attorney’s Office and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal proceed to impound the 814 boxes of electoral material and deposit them in a warehouse of Air Force Base Hernan Acosta Mejia.

June 25th 2009 3:00 PM: At the Presidential Palace, President Manuel Zelaya gives an hour long speech before 3000 of his followers. He calls for a revolution, incites them to violence, and to participate in an illegal act by saying "I have a special mission for you, I cannot say where, but there are buses available for all those who wish to follow me." They arrive at Air Force Base Hernan Acosta Mejia and amongst shouts and insults demand to be allowed entrance. To avoid a violent confrontation the military personnel of the base proceeds to open the gates. Zelaya and his followers remove the 814 previously impounded boxes and transport them to the Presidential Palace, once again defying the judicial authorities.

June 25th 2009 5:45 PM: Having lost the cooperation of the Armed Forces of Honduras, President Manuel Zelaya uses state owned vehicles and state personnel to begin distribution of the electoral material across the country.

June 25th 2009 (Time Unknown): In a secret meeting with his cabinet, President Manuel Zelaya issues presidential Decree PCM-20-2009 annulling decrees PCM-05-2009 and PCM-19-2009. The new Decree states: "All dependencies and organs of Public Administration, Secretaries of the State, centralized and decentralized institutions are instructed to incorporate and actively execute all assigned tasks to carry out the project known as: Survey of Public Opinion to summon a National Constituent Assembly; which is considered an official activity of the Government of the Republic of Honduras." He continues to push for an electoral vote by asking the population to fill out a ballot with the following question: Do you agree that in the General Elections of 2009 a Fourth ballot box be installed so the people can decide to summon a National Constituent Assembly? Yes or No. It is signed by President Manuel Zelaya and 17 of his cabinet members; and is sent to the Official Journal the Gazette (Dario Oficial La Gaceta) to be printed and published.

June 25th 2009 (Time Unknown): Presidential Decree PCM-20-2009 is published in the Official Journal the Gazette (Dario Oficial La Gaceta) and is made available to the public the following day.

June 25th 2009 6:00 PM: The District Atty. (Mr. Luis Rubi) files for a bill of indictment before the Supreme Court against Citizen Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales; for being presumed responsible for the crimes of: High Treason, Against the Form of Government, Abuse of Authority, and Usurpation of Powers, in harm of Public Administration and the State of Honduras. In the indictment he requests a search warrant for the domicile of Mr. Zelaya, to prevent the destruction of evidence pertinent to the case (Article 278 of the Penal Code), and a detainment order to prevent a possible escape. He suggests that the detainment order be carried out by the Armed Forces of Honduras and not the police, citing a possible conflict of interest with the Secretary of Security in charge of the National Police (a public official handpicked and under the direct command of the President, Article 33 Law Of Public Administration), and the obligation of the Armed Forces to enforce the laws and the Constitution.

June 26th 2009: The National Congress of Honduras calls an emergency session and by a unanimous vote agrees to form a commission to investigate the administrative behavior of President Manuel Zelaya.

June 26th 2009: The Supreme Court issues an arrest warrant for Citizen Manuel Zelaya and a search warrant for his domicile located in Colonia Tres Caminos, an upper class residential area in Tegucigalpa. The arrest warrant is given to the head of the Armed Forces General Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, and the search warrant to Lieutenant Colonel Rene Hepburn, who deliberate for 36 hours on how to carry them out.

June 27th 2009: The Judicial Branch and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo Electoral) encourage the population to not participate in an illegal electoral vote.

June 28th 2009 5:00 AM: The illegal electoral vote project for a Fourth Ballot Box begins and thousands of Mr. Manuel Zelaya’s followers begin to cast their votes across country.

June 28th 2009 5:00 AM: A military unit is dispatched to execute the arrest warrant on Mr. Manuel Zelaya and arrive at his house at 5:25 AM.

June 28th 2009 5:45 AM: Mr. Manuel Zelaya is arrested and taken to Air Force Base Hernan Acosta Mejia. June 28th 2009 6:00 AM: Mr. Manuel Zelaya is put on an airplane and flown to Costa Rica.

June 28th 2009 6:05 AM: The National Police is ordered by the Supreme Court to stop the illegal electoral vote, and proceeds to impound all the ballots and ballot boxes as criminal evidence to be used in a trial against Citizen Mr. Manuel Zelaya.

June 28th 2009 7:54 AM: The National Congress begins session, and the commission created to investigate the administrative conduct of President Zelaya concludes that he infringed upon the Constitution and its laws and should therefore be removed from office.

June 28th 2009 9:45 AM: Mr. Manuel Zelaya claims before the International Media present in San Jose, Costa Rica that he is the legitimate President of Honduras and that he has been the victim of a military coup.

June 28th 2009 10:54AM: Mr. Rodolfo Hugo Gil, permanent ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS) for Argentina, calls the events that occurred in Honduras a military coup, and demands that Mr. Manuel Zelaya be reinstated within 24 hours.

June 28th 2009 10:59 AM: All 15 members of the Supreme Court of Honduras in a nationwide broadcast explain to the general population that Mr. Manuel Zelaya was constitutionally removed from office. Explaining that he failed to abide by and respect a judicial resolution numerous times, attempted to hold an illegal electoral vote, and in doing so violated the Constitution of Honduras and its laws and is subject to civil and criminal prosecution.

June 28th 2009 1:45 PM: The National Congress unanimously votes and designates Mr. Roberto Michelettti as the President of the Republic of Honduras, respecting the line of succession established in Article 241 of the Constitution of Honduras. The voting was as follows: 62 Liberal Party (Mr. Zelaya’s own party), 55 national Party, 3 Christian Democracy and 2 Party of Innovation and Unity (PINU) for a total of 122 in favor and 0 against. In his inaugural speech President Roberto Michelettti commits to act as an interim president for 6 months, improve the political situation of the country and to guarantee the General Elections of November 2009.

June 28th 2009 2:00PM: The District Attorney’s Office impounds 43 computers in a building leased by the Secretary of the Presidency across the street from the Presidential Palace. The computers contain the final voting results of the project for a Fourth Ballot Box (Proyecto de la Cuarta Urna), an electoral vote that was never held; not surprisingly the results massively favored the creation of a National Constituent Assembly . This information was not made public until July 7th 2009.

June 28th 2009 6:58 PM: All 8 Presidents members of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) condemn the removal of Mr. Manuel Zelaya as a military coup and demand his immediate reinstatement.( Most notably: Hugo Chavez-Venezuela, Rafael Correa-Ecuador, Evo Morales-Bolivia, the Castro brothers-Cuba and Daniel Ortega-Nicaragua) Mr. Hugo Chavez goes farther saying " I will overthrow the de facto government, mark my words I will overthrow them no matter what."

June 29th 2009: New interim President Roberto Micheletti begins to name the members of his new Cabinet, the former members of the Cabinet of Manuel Zelaya, for unknown reasons, fled upon the arrest and exile of Mr. Zelaya.

All the events described above point to one thing: a legitimate and legal process was followed, culminating in the removal of Mr. Manuel Zelaya from the Presidency, and the subsequent constitutional succession of the Presidency by Mr. Roberto Micheletti. Mr. Zelaya repeatedly violated the Constitution of his country, ignored judicial resolutions, openly confronted and mocked the legislative and judicial branches, and stubbornly insisted on holding an illegal electoral vote. What other outcome could be expected from such behavior? I see no other, as he refused numerous times to change or reconsider his plans, ideas, views, intentions and to follow the legally established path to hold and electoral vote; described in part 3 of this article.

Written by F.W. Blake Wednesday, 12 August 2009 12:06

The international community has constantly referred to Mr. Zelaya’s Project for a Fourth Ballot Box (Proyecto de la Cuarta Urna) as a referendum. Let me make it clear that it is not a referendum.

Article 5 of the Constitution of Honduras states "The government must uphold the principle of a participative democracy with the finality of achieving national integration, it involves the participation of all political sectors in the public administration of the State, with the goal of ensuring and strengthening the progress of Honduras and based on political stability and national conciliation. See Decree 242-2003, dated January 20, 2004, and titled:

Constitutional Reform: Referendum." The constitutional reform to article 5 of the Constitution reads as follows:

After reading the above it should be perfectly clear that Mr. Manuel Zelaya’s project for a Fourth Ballot Box (Proyecto de la Cuarta Urna) was not a referendum, and that a referendum is the only legally established way to conduct a popular vote to consult the general population. Mr. Manuel Zelaya’s project was something not legally contemplated by the Honduran Judicial System, and prohibited by the Constitution and its laws, and therefore illegal.

Written by F.W. Blake Wednesday, 12 August 2009 12:06

The Constitution of Honduras contains 379 articles, all which can be reformed or removed except for seven of them. These seven articles are known in Spanish as "articulos petreos", meaning that they cannot be altered or reformed in any way; they define the form of government, the national territory, and the extent and limit of presidential terms. So, 372 or 98.15% of the articles in the Constitution of Honduras can be legally reformed. So then, why did Mr. Manuel Zelaya so desperately insist on summoning a National Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution? The answer is simple; he wanted to change the 7 irreformable articles and extend his presidential term, imitating Presidents such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Rafael Correa of Ecuador. These irreformable articles or "articulos petreos" exist as the necessary consequence of the historical political instability in Latin America, where throughout its history many leaders have sought to stay in power indefinitely.

Now we move on to the question on everyone’s mind. Was Mr. Manuel Zelaya the victim of a coup d’état? Let’s see, contrary to what was first said by the International Media (whose only source of information at the time was Mr. Zelaya himself) the military is not in power in Honduras or controls any of the three branches of government or ever did for that matter, so that discards coups 1, 2, 3 and 5 (breakthrough, veto, guardian, and bloodless coup d’état); as they require that the military at one point control one or more of the branches of government. Next up we have the Pronouncement, which clearly states that after the coup d’état the military must establish a new civil government. In Honduras the Legislative Branch is composed of the same 128 congressmen/ congresswomen elected almost four years ago, and the Judicial Branch is composed of 15 Supreme Court judges elected by Congress on January of 2009, six months before the so called "coup d’état" occurred. So this also discards candidate number 6 the Pronouncement, and that only leaves candidate number 4, a self coup d’état, and this my friends is where the plot gets thicker than grandma’s good old gravy.

We must now proceed to breakdown the definition of a self coup d’état, so the reader may see that it fits like a glove. A Self coup d’état is usually enacted by the country’s democratically elected leaders, usually its Head of State. -In this case President Manuel Zelaya himself.

And aimed at dissolving one or more of the three branches of government (legislative, judicial, and executive).-In this case the Legislative and Judicial branches who opposed his illegal electoral vote. Remember how he refused to approve a National Budget, refused to ratify or veto more than 96 bills over a three year span, and refused to provide the National Congress with the disbursements they were legally entitled to; remember him saying, "I will only give them enough for their cups of coffee." Remember how he repeatedly chose to ignore and not abide by the rulings and judicial notices issued by the Supreme Court. Surely Mr. Zelaya was not very fond of the two other branches of the government.

Usually by annulling the current constitution, drafting a new one, and granting dictatorial powers to the Head of State.- The famous project for Fourth Ballot Box (Proyecto de la Cuarta Urna), an illegal and unconstitutional electoral vote promoted by President Manuel Zelaya. Its sole purpose was to install a National Constituent Assembly (annulling the current constitution) and drafting a new one (the lawyer from Spain), which would dissolve the existing Legislative and Judicial branches, replace them with new ones to his liking; and extend the presidential term indefinitely. In essence it would change the form of government of Honduras.

Indeed there was a coup d’état in Honduras on June 28th, a self coup d’état, one which did not culminate, and one the International Media does not speak of for reasons that truly baffle the bounds of human logic. For after analyzing the facts it is evident and obvious.

Some might still argue that on June 28th Mr. Manuel Zelaya was the victim of a coup d’état, as he was forcefully exiled from Honduras at gunpoint by the military, a version which currently predominates amongst the International Media. It is interesting how Mr. Zelaya cunningly limits himself to only telling a part of the story, and for those who believe him and have chosen not to search for the truth, here is what he will never willingly admit:

President Manuel Zelaya proposed and even began to carry out a constitutional reform with his project of a Fourth Ballot Box (Proyecto de la Cuarta Urna) on June 28th. A reform which sought to change the 7 irreformable articles also known as "articulos petreos", in an attempt to extend his presidential term. Thus he clearly violated article 239, and on June 28th at exactly 5:00 AM when the illegal electoral vote began he removed himself from office through his own unconstitutional actions. The man who was arrested and then exiled was not the President of the Republic of Honduras; he was an ordinary citizen, nothing more nothing less. So if a president was not forcefully removed from office and exiled, how can we have a military coup? We simply cannot, it truly is as simple as that; the truth is enlightening isn’t it?

Many will argue that when Mr. Manuel Zelaya was put on plane and flown to Costa Rica he was exiled, and article 102 of the Constitution of Honduras was violated along with his personal constitutional rights and guarantees. Indeed they have a strong and valid point, but once again they purposely fail to tell the whole story; for the Constitution of Honduras is far wiser in its ways.

It seems that when the story is told in its entirety the situation becomes clearer. Mr. Manuel Zelaya employed fraudulent means to undermine the vote of the people to his own benefit, in this case his own people, his followers (the 43 computers impounded on June 28th). For a period of over six months he publicly and repeatedly incited, promoted and supported his own continuance and his own reelection to the Presidency. The Honduran citizenship of the man who was flown and exiled to Costa Rica is obviously in serious doubt.

The story of Mr. Manuel Zelaya is the story of a man obsessed with power, so obsessed that he believed himself to be superior to the Legislative and Judicial branches of his country and sought recklessly his continuance in power. Currently he has several pending trials in Honduras, and perhaps the best way to resolve the Honduran political crisis is for Mr. Zelaya to turn himself in to the judicial authorities, and to not campaign the Western Hemisphere clamoring "coup d’état".

In the end the Honduran people have taught us and reminded us something we have taken for granted and forgotten long ago, to defend our Freedom, our Constitution and its Laws; and that no man -not even a President- is above the Law. For this they should be congratulated and applauded, and not condemned by the International Community. I would like to thank you, the reader, for taking the time to read this article. My most sincere thanks.

F.W. Blake

http://hondurasnews.com/2009/09/03/us-to-halt-all-non-humanitarian-aid/

http://www.openmarket.org/2009/09/03/aid-to-honduras-cut-off-despite/

http://www.openmarket.org/2009/09/02/obamas-sanctions-cause-suffering-malnutrition-and-unemployment-in-honduras/

http://in-honduras.com/wordpress/?p=51