Smack in the very heart of the Democrat Socialist political sewer our so-called pResident crawled out of.

THEY’VE MADE EVERYTHING ELSE A CRIME

…so why not criminalize policy disagreements too?

Tony Blair is “on trial” for fighting the Iraq War…one of the few things he got right!

David Pryce-Jones:

Most nauseating are the confidential and secret letters some of these high-ups wrote to express reservations at the very time they were preparing the campaign. Evidently such letters were insurance policies, due to be produced if and when things went wrong and a public inquiry followed, as now. Actually there was one legal adviser who did resign, and she is now presented as a heroine.

What is revealed unmistakably is the poor quality of those running Britain. The government, indeed the whole administration, is in a process of deliquiscence, melting before our eyes into a blur of incompetence and self-serving opportunism. The overthrow of Saddam is accepted as a crime to be ashamed of, not as an action that destroyed a dangerous tyranny. The national interest is hurt.

This is a country that treats its own citizens as third-class subjects.

While Englishmen are subject to bigamy laws, foreigners are allowed to bring their 5 wives and put them on welfare. They may also choose between a sharia court or an English court, while the natives have no choice. You may criticize an Englishman all day and night, but the Multi-Cultural Left has essentially criminalized any criticism of Muslims–and any criticism of themselves for that decision.

But Blair may be tried for his decision?

This, by the way, is also Obama’s plan with civilian terrorist trials; to put Bush on trial by implication.

Unfortunately, some voters have turned to the creepy National Party out of desperation, because the major parties simply refuse to address the legitimate concerns of citizens. Watching England commit suicide is not painless, regardless of the song.

HECK of a job, Barky, you despot-loving, dictator-fellating moron:

Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo, sworn in Wednesday as Honduras’s president, called for national reconciliation as his ousted predecessor, Manuel Zelaya, left his refuge in the Brazilian Embassy and flew into exile.

Mr. Lobo, 62 years old, a wealthy rancher from the conservative Nationalist Party, won a landslide victory in November elections against Mr. Zelaya’s divided Liberal Party.

Mr. Lobo said he would install a truth commission to investigate the events before and after Mr. Zelaya’s ouster. The new president also promised that his term would last not one day more than the four-year period mandated by the constitution. Critics of Mr. Zelaya say it was his drive to extend his time in power that led to his forced removal from office.

The crowd attending Mr. Lobo’s inaugural booed mentions of the OAS, U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens, and Costa Rican President Óscar Arias, all of whom tried to arrange for Mr. Zelaya’s return to power.

As well they might, seeing as how our so-called pResident did everything he could to make sure our friends in Honduras descended into the same nightmarish socialist hell he’s dragging us into.

Best wishes to the stout defenders of constitutional government in Honduras; a big, wet raspberry for our own jug-eared tyrant, an enemy of freedom the world over. May Americans someday live up to Hondurans’ courageous example in standing up to this two-bit wrecker.

“You know, my father had a saying, he’d say, “Don’t tell me what you value, champ, show me your budget and I will tell you what you value.””–Joe Biden quoting Neil Kinnock quoting Joe Biden

Andrew Stuttaford:

Anjem Choudary is the Islamic cleric who heads up a group called Islam4UK (its name speaks for itself). His group is planning to march through a town in England that has become well-known for the way it honors British servicemen killed overseas. The Islam4UK march is supposedly intended to honor Muslims killed by British troops in Afghanistan.

Guido Fawkes:

Here is another evidence-based chart you won’t see elsewhere; it shows how much taxpayers are forced to give to Anjem Choudary – the extremist cleric who wants to lead a protest march through Wootton Bassett. He claims £25,740 ($41,212) in [welfare] benefits to subsidise his hate preaching. …

In contrast a frontline soldier, fighting Choudary’s Taliban allies in Afghanistan, takes home £17,004 ($27,225) for risking his life. If that private is killed in combat, his widow and children would have to live on a pension less than Choudary gets.

Why are British taxpayers paying their enemies more than their soldiers?

It’s not about the money. But it’s not not about the money, either.

Damned impressive, and a gripping story too. Good show, Corporal:

SNIPER Steve Lewis is the dead-shot of the British Army – killing SEVEN Taliban fighters in one day.
And the 29-year-old ex-binman who blew away 13 of the enemy in his first tour of duty pulls no punches about his job. Steve, of the 16 Air Assault Brigade, says: “We’re glad when we get a kill – it’s what we do”.

Here writer Sam Kiley’s gripping new book, Desperate Glory, reveals how our troops are “loving” fighting the Taliban.

IT WAS like a bloodcurdling video game for sniper Steve Lewis as he saw a Taliban hand clutching an RPG appear over a wall 50 yards away.

The army’s best shot watched in delight down the sights of his L96A1 rifle as the launcher bobbed along for 20 yards behind the wall…and paused.

The point of the rocket dipped and aimed towards him. The enemy’s face bobbed up into the crosshair. And Steve squeezed the trigger.

He saw the face wobble with the impact. Half of it blew away. The grenade launcher fell back over the wall and disappeared…but only briefly.

Remind you of anyone? It should. Ol’ Steve looks to be well on his way to carving out a similar proud legacy.

Update! Crap, forgot to credit Just A Grunt for the find. Sorry ’bout that.

THE SONG OF DAVID

Mere Rhetoric:

“The two Israelis won gold and bronze medals at the European Cup fencing tournament for under 17s. Dana Stralinkov, 14, won gold and Alona Komarov, 13 won bronze. But the Austrian official in charge of arranging the national anthems played when the winners went on the podium said he could not locate the recording of ‘Hatikvah’. After a few minutes of silence, the two teens sang the Israeli anthem themselves, with no backing track.”

Good for those girls, who knew what to expect after the same thing happened in Sweden [and Turkey. And...]. The Austrian official who approached the podium actually said that he had the old Israeli national anthem available, which was an interesting rhetorical gambit insofar as it’s the only thing he could have said to decrease his credibility. [...]

[S]houldn’t the rest of the country be appreciative enough to keep track of even one Hatikva recording?

Maybe they lost it in a Swiss bank vault. Have they thought of checking there?

It’s alright; some Austrians have already “helped” enough to last a century.

By dismantling the tried and true ones., and sucking up to evil all over the world:

One of the greatest forces for good, liberty and freedom – not to mention the defence of the free world – is in very real danger of being banished to the history books for ever.

Obama, however, seems to be a president with no real grasp of history, as one of his first major acts on gaining office showed.

By withdrawing plans for a missile shield to be located in Eastern Europe, he not only appeased the Russians, he also betrayed the Poles and the Czechs, people who have only just been released from the yoke of Soviet control and have since become enthusiastic and valuable Western allies.

What he did in Eastern Europe, he now seems to be doing to us. The Obama administration is far happier doing business with Brussels than it is with Britain.

It’s no coincidence that some of Obama’s closest advisers on European affairs, both inside the Pentagon and the State Department, are fervent believers in the idea of a federal Europe and are certainly helping those leading the charge towards a European super-state.

The threat to an independent, sovereign Britain is clear and yet, remarkably, the country leading that threat is our oldest ally.

Yeah, well, the miserable authoritarian worm is every bit as opposed to an independent, sovereign America, so don’t feel too left out. He wants to be President of the World; he and his abominable left-wing one-world-government allies see an opportunity with the climate-change hoax to grab that particular brass ring, and he fully intends to screw Americans as hard as he’s gonna screw anybody else. Count on it; deny it though some more “moderate” types may, everything — everything — he’s done in office so far allows for absolutely no other conclusion.

Anybody surprised at all? I mean, you gotta figure he knows he might need the same kind of support from other left-wing tyrants if real Americans ever decide to do something about restoring Constitutional government here:

US Calls Honduras Election Significant but Insufficient Step to End Political Crisis
The U.S. State Department says Sunday’s presidential election in Honduras was a significant, but insufficient step, to end to political crisis that began there in June with the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya. U.S. officials are stopping short of recognizing opposition candidate Porfirio Lobo as the country’s next president.

The U.S. response to the Honduran vote came Monday from Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Arturo Valenzuela. The Chilean-born U.S. diplomat said the voting was a significant step, yet only a step, in Honduras’ return to full democracy after the coup d’etat that drove Mr. Zelaya from office.

More propaganda bullshit. There was no “coup” in Honduras. A coup was averted by legal and constitutionally-appropriate steps taken by the rest of the Honduran government, in accordance with the clear will of the people. Nice try, you lying Obamedia assholes.

Valenzuela said the Obama administration seeks implementation of an OAS-backed settlement plan, including the creation of a truth commission on the circumstances of the coup and a congressional vote set for Wednesday on whether Mr. Zelaya will be returned to office to complete his term, which was to end in late-January.

The senior diplomat said the United States wants to see Mr. Zelaya restored to office.

A position from whence he will never be removed, should he illegally re-attain it — which, for president Obullshitartist, is a feature, not a bug.

Valenzuela minimized U.S. differences with regional powers that have rejected the election, saying that they all agree the vote in itself does not resolve the issue.

No legitimate election will ever satisfy commie wannabe tyrants like these, and no issue is ever settled until it has been “resolved” in their favor.

All Americans are disgraced by the conduct of our odious ruler. May his reign be as short as possibly can be, and the shameful stain of it quickly washed away.

Will always mean a defeat for OBowMe:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — A conservative rancher named Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo took the Honduran presidency in elections Sunday, five months after the country’s last elected president was forced out of the country at gunpoint. Now Hondurans must wait to see if the international community, which has been divided over the crisis, accepts the winner as legitimate.

The results gave Mr. Lobo 56% of the vote, well ahead of Liberal Party candidate Elvin Santos at 38%, confirming voters’ expected punishment of the Liberals — party of both the deposed president and the interim government that ousted him.

About 61% of eligible Hondurans voted, and turnout, which was up from 2005, was seen as a crucial factor in persuading more countries to back the vote. The turnout was a loss for Mr. Zelaya, who had urged supporters to boycott the election. After the vote, Mr. Zelaya condemned the elections on CNN saying: “Absenteeism triumphed…These elections don’t correct the coup d’etat.”

Gee, this commie blowhard doesn’t seem to realize that his fellow would-be dictator Obama, far from being a staunch protector when the chips are down, is actually a cowardly poltroon who has already chucked him under the bus.

Congrats to the people of Honduras for their courage in taking on the rat’s nest of Left tyrants — like our disgusting pResident — arrayed against them, and against all other freedom-loving people. May we be as strong when our day of reckoning comes.

FOR TO ASK IS TO ANSWER

“The first time I met President Reagan I told him this story. I felt free to tell him everything. I told him of the brilliant day when we learned about his Evil Empire speech from an article in Pravda or Izvestia that found its way into the prison. When I said that our whole block burst out into a kind of loud celebration and that the world was about to change, well, then the president, this great tall man, just lit up like a schoolboy. His face lit up and beamed. He jumped out of his seat like a shot and started waving his arms wildly and calling for everyone to come in to hear “this man’s” story. It was really only then that I started to appreciate that it wasn’t just in the Soviet Union that President Reagan must have suffered terrible abuse for this great speech, but that he must have been hurt at home too. It seemed as though our moment of joy was the moment of his own vindication. That the great punishment he had endured for this speech was worth it.”

A: “Yes.”–Natan Sharansky

Like prisoners of the Soviet Gulag, Iranian students ask:

“Obama, Obama, Are you with the regime or with us?”

An Italian Court asked Obama a similar question:

An Italian judge on Wednesday convicted 23 Americans in absentia of the 2003 kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric from a Milan street, in a landmark case involving the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program in the war on terrorism.

Bob Dole e-mailed, Your Honor. He said you can have those agents back–when Italy gives him back the use of his right arm, which he left at Castel d’Aiano in the Apennines when your Nazi pals shot him in the back, you Mussolini-worshiping spaghetti-spined cognoscenti.

But then, why should an Italian judge show more regard for CIA agents than the President and the Attorney General of the United States? They have repeatedly used CIA agents as a political football as it suited their needs, threatening them even now with prosecution.

That judge was asking Obama the same question as the Iranian students: Are you on the side of freedom or not? And the same answer comes back both times:

“Not”.

By the way, shall we expect the Italian Court’s indictment of these gentlemen for rendition?

Richard Clarke: “The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, “That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.”

E baciare il mio.

Strong words indeed, from someone who knows what he’s talking about:

An act of staggering stupidity and jaw-dropping moral vapidity is the only way to describe Israel’s release of 20 Palestinian prisoners — 14 of whom are guilty of attempted murder — in exchange for a proof-of-life video of captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Any child would recognize the perversity of freeing 14 would-be murderers in return for a videotape. And yet Israeli leaders have taken pride in this supposedly humane decision. What utter nonsense. Exchanging terrorists for a videotape is not kindness — it is cruelty. Not only because it provides perfect incentive for future kidnappings, but also because released terrorists so often return to terrorize and kill again.

You will pardon me if this sounds personal. It is. On September 8, 2003, I sat in Cafe Hillel in Jerusalem for several hours with friends. Twenty-four hours later, a suicide bomber walked in and blew himself up, killing seven civilians. I was down the street when the roar of the bomb shook the ground beneath me. I will never forget that moment. The bomber, Ramez Sali Abu Salim, had been released by Israel just seven months earlier. One of the key planners of the attack, Louei Raad Barghouti, had been freed in August 2003.

Literally hundreds of Israelis have been murdered and maimed by Palestinian terrorists released in “goodwill gestures.” Consider the case of Matsab Hashalmon, who was released in a prisoner exchange in 2004. He promptly recruited two terrorists to blow up a bus in Beersheva, killing 16 people. Or the case of Iyad Sawalha, who was freed in 1998 and went on the mastermind two attacks that killed 31 people and wounded hundreds. In a six-year period during the Oslo “peace” process, 6,912 Palestinian prisoners were freed, and 854 of them returned to terrorism and were re-imprisoned. In a 2004 exchange, 405 Palestinian prisoners were freed in return for one live Israeli and three dead soldiers. Those 405 ex-prisoners went on to murder 35 additional people — so far.

There is nothing praiseworthy or humane about exchanging would-be killers for a videotape. It is a disgraceful sham — the result of fatigue, cowardice, and moral idiocy. The obvious consequences will be more kidnappings and death. The only thing that should be exchanged for a videotape is another videotape. Nothing excuses the release of five Lebanese terrorists (including the unrepentant murderer Samir Kuntar) in exchange for the bodies of two dead Israeli soldiers, as occurred three years ago. Nor does anything excuse the swap of 4,700 prisoners for six soldiers in 1983, or the release of 1,100 terrorists in return for three Israeli soldiers in 1985.

A strong nation would not appease the demands of tin-pot theocratic terrorists. It most certainly would not provide incentives for future kidnappings of its soldiers. Rather, it would fight relentlessly to vanquish this monstrosity. It would stop at nothing until Hamas ceased terrorizing the region.

He’s right, and anyone with even half a brain knows it. Talk about your inconvenient truths. Not one word more from me; Keyes just said it all.

“Speech delivery counts for little on the world stage unless you have convictions and, yes, the vision to see beyond the front row seats. The Democrats may remember their lines, but how quickly they forget the lessons of the past. I have witnessed five major wars in my lifetime, and I know how swiftly storm clouds can gather on a peaceful horizon. The next time a Saddam Hussein takes over a Kuwait, or North Korea brandishes a nuclear weapon, will we be ready to respond?

In the end, it all comes down to leadership. That is what this country is looking for now. It was leadership here at home that gave us strong American influence abroad and the collapse of imperial Communism. Great nations have responsibilities to lead, and we should always be cautious of those who would lower our profile because they might just wind up lowering our flag.”–Ronald Reagan, in his last major public address, 1994

Blogosphere’s best short essayist, Doc Zero:

Even if military and economic isolation from the rest of the world was possible, we still wouldn’t do it. [...] We are also the stewards of the Liberty Bell, the champions of freedom, and we know in our hearts that freedom is not a gift to be cherished in silence, or a secret to be locked away, to avoid giving offense to the wicked. How many times must we read the vicious manifestos of terrorists, how many times must thuggish dictators burn us in effigy, before we accept that our very existence makes us a target? The patriots who launched the American Revolution understood that it was a battle to the death. The Revolution is not over, and the stakes haven’t changed. [...]

The imminent dawn of apocalyptic nuclear and biological terrorism means that peace and freedom must take the offensive. We have a moral responsibility to be strong and confident, because freedom around the globe would not long survive our descent into a self-loathing, European-style socialist cringe. [...]

In other words, our true destiny is the opposite of the one Barack Obama earned a Nobel Peace Prize by promising the world he would create for us… a future very few Americans would have voted for in 2008, if he had been honest with them. [...] We are not doing the world any favors by mumbling an apology that only fools and villains are hungry to hear, and abandoning our leadership to crawl into a sick bed, while telling ourselves how much we deserve to suffer.

This is why I have a medical allergy to Herr Doktor Paul and his allegedly libertarian diagnosis. He thinks we’ll be safer if we just don’t rock the boat. He cites Washington’s (Hamilton’s really) “entangling alliances”-warning, as if the jet, the internet, porous borders and the ICBM had never been invented.

As a conservative, I thought it was supposed to be me who’s living in the idealized past.

On the other hand, liberals don’t want us to flex our military mussels anywhere on Bully Beach, but hope to dissolve us in the UN and other such international clambakes.

The president keeps coddling dictators in hopes of appeasing them and worse, he does so on the thinnest of all rationales; his biography. Nations have interests, not People Magazine’s Top 100 Interesting Chicago Machine Hacks Who Fooled Enough Voters to Get Over. On newsstands today.

At a minimum, we should be supporting those trying to free themselves. Yet in case after case, we find ourselves siding with the oppressors rather than the people.

We’ve faced a nuke threat before without abandoning the oppressed.

As some guy once said:

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery… “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” [...] Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face–that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender.

And then he said

To this day, America is still the abiding alternative to tyranny. That is our purpose in the world — nothing more and nothing less.

A good foreign policy must have both elements: the need to say “no” and the willingness to change, in just the right proportions. Unfortunately, accepting change because it seems fashionable to do so, with little real regard for the consequences, seems to dominate our foreign policy today.

Too many in positions of importance believe that through generosity and self-effacement we can avoid trouble…But, like it or not, trouble will not be avoided.

Leadership is a great burden. We grow weary of it at times. And the Carter administration, despite its own cheerful propaganda about accomplishments, reflects that weariness.

But if we are not to shoulder the burdens of leadership in the free world, then who will?

The alternatives are neither pleasant nor acceptable. Great nations which fail to meet their responsibilities are consigned to the dust bin of history.

We must shoulder our burden with our eyes fixed on the future, but recognizing the realities of today, not counting on mere hope or wishes. We must be willing to carry out our responsibility as the custodian of individual freedom. Then we will achieve our destiny to be as a shining city on a hill for all mankind to see.

I don’t want any damn wars. But if someone’s at war with us, it’s delusional to pretend otherwise. We live in a time when every thug with a flag wants a bomb. The impulse is to ban the flag (by dissolving nation-states) and ban the bomb (through disarmament).

But the problem is the thug.

“I love borders, the more the merrier – town lines, county, state, and, of course, national. Borders symbolize one of the few remaining constraints on government: You don’t like the grade school here in town? Move ten miles up the road. You don’t want to pay Vermont sales tax? Drive over the river and shop in New Hampshire. Arianna Huffington huffs against “tax loopholes for fat cats”, but I’d say the ability to rent a post office box in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands is a “loophole” in one of the original 16th century senses – an aperture to let in light and fresh air. The fact that there’s somewhere else to go to is the ultimate limitation on government. Borders give people choices – and, to put it in a bumper sticker, “I’m Pro-Choice And I Vote With My Feet”. When starry-eyed utopians speak of a “world without borders”, you can pretty much guess what kind of a place the one-world one-party state would be, with tax rates starting at 60%, about where they are in Sweden right now.”–Mark Steyn

If we were considering forming and joining the federal government today, would we still do it, knowing all that we know?

I doubt it.

Natalie Solent at Samizdata:

A woman who had been defending the [Communist] party line in all its various manifestations for decades was more than capable of disposing of the arguments of a bunch of seventeen year olds.

All of us but one – there was one boy who did, just about, make an impression. The tutor had some particular link with East Germany and this boy simply repeated, politely but insistently, several very basic statements about that state. “Nobody is allowed to leave.” “They have a wall and and barbed wire to stop people escaping.” “If you try to escape they shoot you.” And when he said this he sounded honestly astonished that anyone could be – could allow themselves to have become – the sort of person who would sincerely defend East German communism. It was not just wrong but weird. I mean, what? The wall, the shooting people, and she says she likes that?

I am moved to write about a communist I met thirty years ago because the second referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty will be held tomorrow. The European Union is not remotely as bad as Communism. But there are some very basic things wrong with it and this referendum has brought them out. The European Union will not accept a vote against it. It will not allow a vote at all, if it can get away with it. If people do vote against something the EU wants it makes them vote again and again, knowing that the donors and volunteers for the opposing side will be exhausted eventually, as will the voters, whereas its side has bottomless coffers and power to keep on pushing till it gets its way. The European Union lies to get what it wants. The Lisbon treaty is the rejected Constitution under another name. The Lisbon Treaty is deliberately written in confusing language so as to hide what it means. That is what con-men do. The Lisbon Treaty is a con.

And the Lisbon Treaty passed.

David Pryce-Jones:

If ordinary people everywhere were asked for their opinion, this treaty would be rejected outright. The French and the Dutch did actually vote to reject the treaty, but their rulers simply ignored that fact. In Britain, Mr. Blair promised to hold a referendum, but then with no apparent strain on his conscience decided not to, leaving his successor to sign up to it without the legitimacy to do so. The majority of European governments have followed this path, cheating their electorates one by one, moreover keeping them in the dark as though they were Romanov or Habsburg emperors, and politics were some private domain about which voters should not be consulted. [...]

Among other consequences, the people of Europe are likely to have a president for whom they never asked but chosen for them by the junta of heads of state in an exclusive process of horse-trading behind closed doors. Worse still, they can neither vote for him nor dismiss him from office. According to leaked reports, Mr. Blair will soon become president of Europe as his reward for having broken his promise to hold a referendum in Britain — without doubt the British would have said no to the Lisbon Treaty with an overwhelming majority…A state built on deception is not worth having, and for the future it looks as if force alone will be able to maintain it. Europe is set either to collapse with unimaginable consequences or harden into some sort of authoritarian monster.

Churchill spoke of a “United States of Europe”. But he spoke freshly traumatized from the second of two world wars, when people were still scavenging for food in the ruins. Even then, he meant continental Europe, not Great Britain. And we have had what he lacked; long experience of seeing the UN and the EU in action. Or “inaction”.

European subjects will lose what little influence they already had on their own governments as decisions will be made for them by faceless bureaucrats and unaccountable experts, decisions in which they cannot participate nor reject.

Don’t be smug. We’re going to have to fight these people someday. They would like nothing more than to submerge and dissolve this country in a supra-national organization as well.

IT’S BIBI, BABY

And baby, it’s cold inside that building (excerpts):

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen, the jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the “confirmed unteachability of mankind,” the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them. Churchill bemoaned what he called the “want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

Hey, somebody’s got to lead the Free World. Somebody’s got to speak truth to powers and principalities. Somebody’s got to make the bold case for Western Civilization and freedom. Our guy certainly didn’t.

“We respect [North Korea and Iran's] rights as members of the community of nations.”…”The United Nations can either be a place where we… indulge tyranny, or a source of moral authority.”–from the same speech, if you can believe it.

Mark Steyn did a great job on Rush today. He made the point that regimes, not nukes are the problem; no one cares when a New Zealand gets a nuke. When Obama says “No longer do we have the luxury of indulging our differences“, those differences, Steyn said, are what gives us free speech, free elections and a free press (even if we don’t use it much.)

Michael Goldfarb (who, it must be said, has been on fire of late) hits a similar lick here:

“Are we not friends of the persecuted Coptic Christian in Egypt? Are we not friends of the North Koreans enslaved in the gulag? Are we not friends of the repressed Cuban or Iranian democracy activist?” Those were the questions asked by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) on the floor of the House yesterday.

But we are not, and we cannot possibly be. Obama said so at the UN:

“No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional division between nations of the south and north makes no sense in an interconnected world. Nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone Cold War.”

We are equidistant arbiters between Coptic Christians and the Mubarak regime, between gulag prisoners and the Kim regime, between Cubans and Castro, between democracy activists and Ahamadinejad.

Why is Wolf still clinging to antiquated concepts such as America’s “friends”? Do we want to be, as Obama put it yesterday, “remembered as a generation that chose to drag the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st”?

(Sorry to steal the whole post–it was too good to excerpt.)

Obama uses that “same old tired argument”-thing here at home, too. For instance, being pro-life or pro-traditional marriage or against Socialized Medicine is “bickering” and “indulging in the divisions of the past”. It is merely a cheap rhetorical parlor trick to dismiss opponents by preemptively declaring victory for the Leftist position.

We don’t need nuclear non-proliferation per se; we need tryanny non-proliferation.

It’s like gun control. We don’t need to stop law-abiding citizens from owning guns. We need to stop criminals. Just as Liberals emphasize the mean gun and coddle the criminal who uses one, they worry about the nuke while minimizing the nature of dictators.

And ask yourself this: if you were a Saudi Arabia or Japan, would you trust Obama to put you under America’s nuclear umbrella and protect you from a rogue state? Or would you want to have your own nuclear deterrent? It’s difficult enough to picture Obama defending America.

I wish Obama’s unilateral disarmament were only grandiose and foolish. But it’s dangerous, too.

Standing firm against tyrants — theirs and ours:

Since June 28, the U.S. has been pressuring Honduras to put Mr. Zelaya back in the presidency. But neither Mrs. Clinton’s spurious “rule of law” claims or the tire iron handed her by Mr. Obama to use against this little country have been effective in convincing the Honduran judiciary that it ought to abandon its constitution.

Thousands of readers have written to me asking how all this can happen in the U.S., where democratic principles have been recognized since the nation’s founding. Many readers have written that they are “ashamed” of the U.S. and have asked, in effect, “How can I help Honduras?” A more pertinent question may turn out to be, how can they help their own country?

In its actions toward Honduras, the Obama administration is demonstrating contempt for the fundamentals of democracy.

And not just in Honduras, either.

Update! King Obama readying a coup attempt, hiding Zelaya inside Honduras?

Well, if the US knows he’s in Honduras and the UN says he’s not in their compound, then the US must either be hiding Zelaya or coordinating with another nation to do so. The State Department needs to explain itself — soon.

Oh, no need, really. Like I said a couple of days ago, once you let go of your last hopeless illusion that our despicable Current Occupant is anything but an enemy of liberty, it all makes sense, and you can stop being surprised by things like this — or expecting “explanations” you’re never going to get from his regime.

THE SECRET TO AN 8-COURSE MEAL?

A: Divide and Conquer

“I expect that after this correct and brave decision, others will follow.”–Czar Czar Vladimir Putin

Mark Steyn:

Joe Klein, the geostrategic thinker of Time magazine, concluded his analysis thus:

This is just speculation on my part. But I do hope that this anti-missile move has a Russian concession attached to it, perhaps not publicly (just as the US agreement to remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey was not make public during the Cuban Missile Crisis). The Obama Administration’s diplomatic strategy is, I believe, wise and comprehensive—but it needs to show more than public concessions over time. A few diplomatic victories wouldn’t hurt.

Golly. We know, thanks to Jimmy Carter, Joe Klein, and many others, that we critics of President Obama’s health-care policy are by definition racist. Has criticism of Obama’s foreign policy also been deemed racist? Because one can certainly detect the first faint seeds of doubt germinating in dear old Joe’s soon-to-be-racist breast: The Obama administration “needs to show more than public concessions over time” — because otherwise the entire planet may get the vague impression that that’s all there is.

Especially if your preemptive capitulations are as felicitously timed as the missile-defense announcement, stiffing the Poles on the 70th anniversary of their invasion by the Red Army. As for the Czechs, well, dust off your Neville Chamberlain’s Greatest Hits LP: Like he said, they’re a faraway country of which we know little. So who cares?

I do. Because the dirty little secret is that it’s not all about Europe:

It’s often forgotten that the now-dead system, which would have placed interceptor missiles in Poland and a powerful X-band radar in the Czech Republic, was also intended to provide an additional layer of defense for the Eastern seaboard of the U.S. from long-range Iranian missiles. Iran already has numerous short- and medium-range missiles, courtesy of its close collaboration with its North Korean ally. It is working on developing a long-range capability, which Pyongyang already has.

The U.S. is protected from the North Korean threat by a series of ground-based interceptors based in Alaska and California. But New York and Washington are a long way from Alaska and California, and the “third site,” as the European system was known, was designed in part to provide an additional layer of defense for the American East Coast.

The “smarter” missile-defense system that President Obama announced yesterday won’t replace that capability. The mobile and sea-based system could help protect Berlin and Paris from short-range or medium-range missiles, but it won’t protect New York from an ICBM. The administration’s plan is a blow to the security architecture that protects the American homeland.

Rich Lowry:

If there were awards for self-defeating weakness, this move would deserve a Neville for Appeasement in a Perpetually Threatened Region. [...]

The Russians loathe the very idea of the missile-defense sites, claiming they threaten its nuclear deterrent. They never explain how ten interceptors can counteract a Russian arsenal totaling 4,100 warheads. Vladimir Putin can’t be that bad at math. What Moscow doesn’t want is a relationship between Central and Eastern Europe and the West that makes the region less vulnerable to its malign influence.

Perhaps hardheadedness says an attachment to the pro-U.S, democratic Poles and the Czechs shouldn’t outweigh our interest in placating Russia. But this is realpolitik without the real. [...] When the primary tools in your arsenal are talk and soothing gestures, everything looks like an occasion for a negotiation or concession.

This misunderstands the Russians (and most of the rest of the world). Increasingly aggressive and authoritarian, Moscow wasn’t belligerent because we planned to install missile-defense interceptors; it objected to the interceptors because it is belligerent.

Ronald Reagan, who is of course dead and therefore has absolutely nothing of value to add to this discussion:

“Some argue that we should encourage democratic change in right-wing dictatorships, but not in Communist regimes. Well, to accept this preposterous notion–as some well-meaning people have–is to invite the argument that once countries achieve a nuclear capability, they should be allowed an undisturbed reign of terror over their own citizens. We reject this course.”

“Now more than ever it is vital that the United States not back down from its efforts to develop and deploy strategic defenses. It is technologically feasible, strategically necessary and morally imperative. For if our nation and our precious freedoms are worth defending with the threat of annihilation, we are surely worth defending by defensive means that ensure our survival.”

“Stan Fields: What is the one most important thing our society needs?
Gracie Hart: That would be… harsher punishment for parole violators, Stan. [crowd is silent]
Gracie Hart: And world peace! [crowd cheers ecstatically]”
–from ‘Miss Congeniality’, 2000

That sounds just like our own Miss Congeniality to Dictators, Barack “Prejean” Obama. Except, of course, for the “harsh penalties for criminals”-part.

Michael Goldfarb:

There are three things we need from the Russians: a guarantee that Iran will not receive Russia’s sophisticated S-300 air defense system, a halt to shipments of nuclear fuel to Iran’s Bushehr reactor, and support for international sanctions on Iran at the United Nations. The rumor mill has it that when Bibi flew to Moscow last week he was told that the S-300 was a done deal. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov declared last week that there was no way the Kremlin would back international sanctions on Iran. And no one seriously believes the Russians are about to abandon their support for Bushehr, which would send the wrong message to all the other rogue and near-rogue regimes the Russians do business with.

Obama-in-the-Beanstalk has traded our cow, not for magic beans, or even the promise of magic beans, but for the geopolitical equivalent of a used lottery ticket. But at least the Russians won’t sell out their friends–loyalty is so hard to find today.

Maybe the Obama administration will pull a rabbit out of a hat and get themselves a big, juicy concession from the Russians on Iran, but I doubt it. Obama has always been an opponent of missile defense, and he’s always been in favor of appeasing the Russians with arms reductions (we’d have a really long record on that if someone hadn’t disappeared his college thesis, a fantasy about “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” and likely an ode to the nuclear freeze movement). This move to kill missile defense seems like an ideological, unilateral disarmament of choice, not a decision based on the cold, hard calculus of foreign policy realism, which would have at least demanded some concession in return.

And this was always the problem with Obama’s approach to missile defense. It was about politics. What did an Illinois state senator know about proven or unproven missile defense systems? Nothing — but it was totally conventional left-wing politics to be against Star Wars type systems. He may have dodged the issue during the presidential campaign, but no one had any doubt where this was headed.

Unless you foolishly took him at his word, as Mike notes here. Obama said Iran was a “real threat”, and praised the courage of Poles and Czechs. But then he checked his own internal poll and voted for cowardice.

When he said “we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven”, what he didn’t say was that he believes all missile defense is by definition too costly and unproven. And when he said “If the Iranian threat is eliminated”, he didn’t say that he planned all along to simply define the threat out of existence, the survival strategy made famous by ostriches and Kennedy wives.

Thomas Joscelyn:

Although President Obama and Secretary Gates claim that a new intelligence assessment of Iran’s missile program led to the decision, it is in reality the fulfillment of a long-time policy goal. The Democrats have been pushing to capitulate to the Russians on this for years. …Right about now the press should be asking: What changed? What is the nature of the new analysis? Does it rely on new intelligence, or is it just a new analysis of old intelligence? If it does rely on new intelligence, then what is the nature of this information?

Why, it’s a slam dunk!

David Frum stays out of the RINO weeds and surveys the herd of rogue elephants-in-the-room called Obama’s foreign policy:

IRAN. Averting its eyes from the rigging of the presidential election and the suppression of dissent, the Obama administration will begin mid-level talks with Iran on Oct. 1. The Iranians have already announced that no nuclear concessions will be forthcoming. There’s good reason to believe them — they followed this same tactic in talks with Europeans in the mid-2000s, buying time for themselves as the nuclear clock ticked down. Iran is the most conspicuous and most important test of the president’s conciliation policy. On its present course, the likeliest result is the creation of a new and very dangerous nuclear state—established over only the most nominal American resistance. [...]

Despite the domestic focus of these early months of his presidency, Barack Obama thinks of himself as a foreign policy thinker above all, according to those who know him best. His confidence is undiminished by his lack of experience and credentials. That confidence continues to flourish despite a lack of positive results. Given present trends, it is unlikely to bow to lessons even from seriously negative consequences. The president is committed to his path. So, ominously, is the country.

You know, it’s fitting that Jimmy Carter is back in the news. After all, he’s getting his second term. And this policy of capitulation was formulated in the ’70’s, starting at the feet of Obama’s Communist Big Brother, Frank Marshall Davis. And in the classrooms of Obama’s communist professors at Columbia and Harvard.

While Reagan was winning the Cold War, Obama was writing his college thesis on “How to Lose the Cold War”. Helpfully, during the campaign, university communists “disappeared” the document quicker than a Pinochet opponent on a helicopter sight-seeing tour, applying the Sandy Berger Method along with the good, old Soviet airbrush.

No, despite whatever doctored, politicized intelligence is being currently offered, the real policy was written in that thesis long ago.

Obama has let Russia split NATO, and for nothing but a pocket full of mumbles such are promises. The only thing he got was Russia’s permission to gut Reagan’s SDI. It’s “Star Wars” No More, as Gen. Barack “Light Sabre Hussein” Obama Unconditionally Surrenders his sword at the nouveau-Soviet Appomattox Courthouse.

Obama says that Reagan was not afraid to negotiate with our enemies [I mean, that's what he says now; at the time time, they called Reagan a close-minded, reckless madman.] But Reagan negotiated out of strength, Obama from weakness. Reagan said “Peace Through Strength”, but Obama believes that we get “Strength Through Peace”: we will gain in strength and moral stature if we are peaceful, non-threatening and just plain nice to the bullies, terrorists and dictators of the world.

Whatever happens in the talent portion, Miss Congeniality has signed us up for a pretty unfriendly ride. Just don’t say “World peace” when you mean “I surrender”; it’s unworthy of your crown as our Beauty-Contestant-in-Chief.

Obama, back in April, before he decided to sell out the Poles to his Soviet ideological brethren (yeah, I said Soviet; it was on purpose) on the anniversary of their having been sold out by the Brits to same:

So let me be clear (*groan*): Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran’s neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. (Applause.) If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed. (Applause.)

WELL. Nice to know that King Sub-genius has defused the Iranian threat, anyway — with his mind, apparently. Or in it, at least. And nowhere else.

Update! Not So Smart Power:

Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back,” the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page.

Yep, that’s about the size of it. But you’ve gotta understand, guys, that Obama’s USSSA is not America, and he’ll never be anything but a friend to despots and an enemy of freedom. Once you finally face up to that and accept it, everything he does makes sense, and the need to go on expressing dismay and puzzlement again and again fades away. Think Occam’s Razor here, if it helps any.

Happy Independence Day to our friends in Honduras, who continue the struggle for liberty, democracy, and constitutional government against the dark forces of oppression arrayed against them — led by our very own El Supremo, Barrack Hussein “Il Douche” Obama. May you, and we, stay strong in the struggle against despotism of every warp and woof — a struggle Obama and his collectivist, authoritarian jackals have brought home to us in a big, big way. As Drew says: “188 years and they are still fighting for it.” But hell, that’s the way it’s always been; 233 years and we’re still fighting for it. Thomas Jefferson, among others, knew the never-ending nature of the struggle well enough.

A HEAP O’ TROUBLE, SON

Cliff May:

“No nation in history has succeeded in preserving its integrity and sovereignty without meeting the challenge of ever-advancing armaments,” Mr. Gilder points out. “But many American intellectuals still imagine that the United States is different, that it is possible or desirable for us to negotiate an ‘end to the arms race.’ … An end to the arms race would deprive the capitalist countries of their greatest asset in combating barbarism.”

Mr. Gilder is convinced that the forces targeting Israel and America also are “targeting capitalism and freedom everywhere.” Capitalism, he says, requires freedom. And any democracy not resting on a solid capitalist foundation is doomed. “Without an expanding capitalist economy,” he writes, “democracy becomes dominated by its zero-sum elements — by mobs and demagogues.” [...]

Mr. Gilder’s thesis is straightforward: the future of freedom, democracy, capitalism, America, the West and the tiny state of Israel is tied together in a single knot. Israel is, Mr. Gilder contends, “not only the canary in the coal mine — it is also a crucial part of the mine.” If Americans will not defend Israel, they will “prove unable to defend anything else. The Israel test is finally our own test of survival as a free nation.”

Anne Bayefsky:

On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council.

No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN’s highest body. But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama’s right — will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation’s economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of “post-racial” scapegoating will pale by comparison. Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen. [...]

“The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.” [...] It is a familiar recipe for stonewalling efforts to prevent Iran or other Muslim and Arab states from acquiring nuclear weapons until Israel is disarmed or Israel’s (unofficial) nuclear capacity is exposed and neutralized. It is also a frequent tool of those whose real goal is to stymie America’s defenses.

Second, Obama’s agenda preference indicates that he is dead-set against chairing a session on the non-proliferation issues already on the council’s plate — those that name Iran and North Korea. This stretches his “beer summit” technique to the global scale. Naming names, or identifying the actual threats to world peace, would evidently interfere with the spectacle of proclaiming affection for world peace in the abstract. The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama’s penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness. As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: “Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

Obama has already decided long ago that Iran will get nukes. Campaign promises that “All options are on the table” were merely lies to placate the gullible.

Obama has already decided long ago that America is a rogue nation that, insofar as possible, must be disarmed and pinned down with a thousand international strings like the Lilliputians did to the giant Gulliver.

And Obama has already decided long ago that Israel must be orphaned and abandoned in the cause of world peace.

He believes he can do all this because he’s Obama and the rules simply don’t apply. “As you know, I’ve consistently said they don’t apply, so they don’t.”

He also believes being King of the World is a step up. In reality, it is a step down from being a citizen-CEO of the greatest republic in history.

But that was before he was born.

Honduras’ “illegitimate” “ruler,” “installed” by a “military coup” that put an “illegal” “junta” in place, “flouts” his “disregard” for the Honduran Constitution and the rule of law:

Regarding the decision to expel Mr. Zelaya from the country the evening of June 28 without a trial, reasonable people can believe the situation could have been handled differently. But it is also necessary to understand the decision in the context of genuine fear of Mr. Zelaya’s proven willingness to violate the law and to engage in mob-led violence.

The way forward is to work with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. He is proposing ways to ensure that Mr. Zelaya complies with Honduras’s laws and its constitution and allows the people of Honduras to elect a new president in the regularly scheduled Nov. 29 elections (or perhaps earlier, if the date is moved up as President Arias has suggested and as Honduran law allows).

If all parties reach agreement to allow Mr. Zelaya to return to Honduras—a big “if”—we believe that he cannot be trusted to comply with the law and therefore it is our position that he must be prosecuted with full due process.

Wow, how utterly and completely “unreasonable.” Clearly, the “coup” must be reversed, and this would-be “dictator” must be removed, in compliance with the wishes of “cooler,” “wiser,” and more “democratic” world leaders like Chavez, Castro, and Obama.

Man, if I just ditched the sarcastic quote-marks, I could write for the NYT.

Update! Obama ‘N’ Pals:

Mr. Zelaya had means, motive and opportunity to destroy the country’s democratic institutions and was moving to do so. If he succeeded, he could have consolidated power in the manner of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and turned the country into a police state. Mr. Obama’s insistence that Mr. Zelaya be restored to power has strengthened the image of an arrogant and patronizing Uncle Sam disconnected from the region’s reality.

Hondurans might be more amenable to an Obama democracy lecture if the U.S. showed any interest in standing up to Mr. Chávez and his antidemocratic allies or any grasp of the dangers they present. Instead, since taking office in January the American president has embraced the region’s bad actors only to be subsequently embarrassed by revelations that his new “friends” are actually enemies of liberty and peace.

Obama, embarrassed? Surely you jest; he’s opposed to liberty and Constitutional government himself. Read on to see just what sort of dictator-fellating, left-wing dirtbag Obama’s getting his advice from. I promise, you won’t be at all surprised.

And good for him:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday that Israel has no intention of dismantling the West Bank separation fence, which he called “a critical component of Israel’s security.”

“The separation fence will remain in place and will not be dismantled,” Netanyahu told Knesset members.

Media reports in Israel on Wednesday indicated that the Palestinian Authority had relayed to U.S. President Barack Obama a demand that the fence be removed since the security situation in the West Bank had improved.

Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told Reuters he had approached the United States on the issue. “The Israelis know that the wall adds to the complexities. It’s part of the problem and not part of the solution,” he said.

Well, I guess you could make the argument that it’s not part of the Paleosimians’ longed-for Final Solution, sure. But since the real, non-genocidal solution to the underlying problem is for bloodthirsty Palestinian savages to stop murdering Israeli shoolkids and other civilians, the fence will have to do for now. Omri notices something new:

I like how they’re now going to Obama with all of their unreasonable demands. It’s like novels where the favorite brat of a sadistic headmaster keeps using his access to the teacher to torment other children. Except in this case it’s a geopolitical farce that’s destabilizing one of the most dangerous hotpots on the planet. Except for that.

Yeah, well, the marauding, Jew-hating freaks seem to know who their friends are.

Bad news for the King of Kings and his dictator pals:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Ousted President Manuel Zelaya was kept from landing at the main Honduras airport Sunday because the runway was blocked by military vehicles and groups of soldiers, some of them clashing with a crowd of thousands outside.

His Venezuelan pilots circled around the airport and decided not to risk a crash.

Zelaya instead headed for El Salvador, and vowed to try again Monday or Tuesday in his high-stakes effort to return to power in a country where all branches of government have lined up against him.

“I am the commander of the armed forces, elected by the people, and I ask the armed forces to comply with the order to open the airport so that there is no problem in landing and embracing my people,” Zelaya said from the plane,

Not anymore you ain’t. Ed notes something telling:

Many people may not have known that Zelaya’s flight started from Washington, where he apparently has set up his office in exile. White House officials told the Washington Post that they expect him to return to Washington after the aborted attempt to return to Honduras. However, Zelaya says he’ll try landing in Honduras again instead, perhaps as early as today. Micheletti said that they would allow Zelaya to land when the former president was ready to turn himself into authorities “quietly”, and not before then.

And that’s as it should be, tyrants like our jug-eared Messiah notwithstanding. Sad, though, that Washington is now a place of refuge for wannabe dictators. But it was inevitable; our execrable Currant Occupant is the best friend any despot ever had.

Every defeat for these usurpers is a victory for freedom, wherever and whenever it occurs. And every nation that stands up for constitutional government is our ally, and Obama’s enemy.

…ain’t the USSSA — not by a long yard:

TEGUCIGALPA, July 3 (Xinhua) — Honduras’ interim government announced Friday that the country decided to quit from the Organization of American States (OAS).

In a letter to the OAS read by Honduras’ Vice Minister of International Relations Martha Lorena de Casco, it said “This government believes that inside the organization (of the OAS), there is no room for Honduras, for the states that love its freedom and defend its sovereignty.”

The OAS has given the Honduran interim government until noon on Saturday to restore Zelaya to power, or face expulsion.

“Zelaya is the only one that we recognize as Honduran President, and he must be returned to his position as soon as possible,” Insulza said at a press conference.

Enrique Ortez Colindres, foreign minister of Honduras’ post-coup government, told media that the government would not negotiate with the OAS.

“We have a very firm position that we do not negotiate Honduras’ sovereignty,” Ortez said.

Bravo, bravo, and bravo again to these courageous patriots. They remind me of what America once was, and what Americans once were — and that staunch opposition to socialist tyranny, while all but moribund here in recent years, is still robust elsewhere.

To Obama and all like-minded despots who stand in opposition to human freedom and dignity: your move now.

(Via Hot Air)